Ancient Jerusalem

Front matter

a

gist

ta iat Wir Emecndalt

Preface

For several reasons it has been thought best in this work to omit bibliographical details. A bibliographical work necessitates the expression of opinions, which in many cases would not be a pleasant task. One result of this method is that a few persons may not receive the credit they deserve; and likewise certain wild theories and rash statements do not receive the condemnation which they justly merit. Something of spice and personal interest may be lacking in consequence, but the advantages far outweigh the loss. The author’s ambition has been to be extremely fair in the treatment of every question, and for this reason, among others, the first personal pronoun has been eliminated from the text. Everything in his power has been done to avoid giving offence to the reader, and everything done to insure accuracy of statement and detail. The real amount of helpful literature on this subject is small; but everything has been carefully examined, and close relations have been maintained with excavators and engineers whose labors have added greatly to our knowledge of Old Jerusalem. The “recovery of Jerusalem” becomes more and more impossible with every passing year. ‘Two generations ago much might have been done had those who have gone before us been inspired with the same zeal which now exists in many minds. Every year more and more acres are covered with modern structures; while this work has been going on some important things have been found as by accident; no doubt others will be brought to light in the same way; but the free ground left for the pick and spade of the interested and educated explorer has almost entirely disappeared. This fact has 7

8 PREFACE a depressing effect; hence we should be the more thankful for what has been accomplished; that step by step so much progress has been made in the solution of problems that seemed to batfile the skill of Biblical archeologists.

CHAPTER i IL

III,

TG

VIL.

VIII.

Introduction

Titus’ ApproacH To JERUSALEM, A.D. 70 Camps at Castle. Reconnoitring Column Broken and Retreats. ‘Women’s Towers. Scopus.

Trento Lzecion ARRIVES FROM JERICHO

Its Camp on the Mount of Olives. Military Road Constructed. Three Legions with Titus. Two Permanent Camps Formed and Occupied.

Titus’ Pian FoR CAPTURING THE CITY

Attacks North of Agrippa’s Wall. To Titus This Was the ‘‘ First” Wall. Jews Retire within the Second Wall.

Tue Tuirp orn Acrippa’s WALL : : Enclosed the New Town. Relation to Monuments of Helena and the Royal Monuments.

Tur Towrr PSEPHINUS

Location. Form. Object. Relation to Titus’ Military Road and His Camp No. 1.

Tue Camps or Titus

I. West of Psephinus. II. Inside Agrippa’s Wall.

Tue Hirst ok OLD WALL : : : Shape of Hill Controls Its Course. Relation to Aqueduct. Siloam a Wall of Its Own.

BETHSO , :

Hebrew Bethzur. Rock Fortress. Location.

Tue Towers Hirricus, PHasartus, Mariamne.

Rebuilt by Herod the Great. Needed to Defend Jerusalem on North and West.

Tue Hitxzs or JERUSALEM

Really Five, although Four Usually Mentioned Compelled the Divisions of the City. Tyropean, and Dung Gate, Which Should be Changed to ‘‘ Milk Gate.”

PAGE

15 25

CHAPTER

XI,

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

Vi,

XVI.

XVII.

XVIII.

D6 DE

XXII.

XXIII.

XXIV,

CONTENTS

Tur XyYSsTUS

A Landmark. Location.

Events.

Relation to Historical

THe KEDRON

Two Branches. Northeast Corner of Temple Area Built over One Branch.

Herop’s PaLtace AnD GARDEN

Great Extent. Part Played in Siege.

Walls Assigned to Hach. Hoatantator of Simon. Cistern and Aqueduct. Connected with Hippicus.

DIFFERENT FAcTIONS IN JERUSALEM.

Revolutionary and Robber Element. Bloody Civil

Struggles.

LocATION OF DIFFERENT Factions THROUGH- OUT THE SIEGE

Served as a Landmark. Its Position.

Monuments or Kina ALEXANDER

Relation to Second Wall. Suburbs of Jerusalem Adorned with Monuments and Gardens.

Tur New City Partty BuRNED

Cestius and Titus. Timber Market. The Ridge

Called Bezetha.

Mertruops oF SIEGE , d : Engines of War. Mounds, Towers, the Ram, Stone- Throwing Machine.

HeLtena oF ADIABENE The Family and Their Palaces Located.

THe Watt oF CIRCUMVALLATION ; Romans Found It to Be a Necessity. Topographical Details.

Extensive Usr or Woop 1n BuILping

Tur SEcoND WALL .

Three Theories. Alike Incorrect and Untenable.

PAGE

CONTENTS ‘ 1g ‘CHAPTER PAGE XXV. THE Seconp WALL , ‘ 159

Its Central Tower. Its Capture. Meaning of Certain Greek Words.

XXVI. CapTuRE OF THE UppER City ; : ee Points of Attack. Futile Efforts of Jews to Escape.

XXVIII. Destruction or Houses anp INHABITANTS Aled

Never Complete. Occasional Sally of the Jews.

XXVIII. Governors anp PROcURATORS ; peas ici 8

Civil and Military Authority. Residences. Residence in Jerusalem Doubtful. Compared with Modern Consuls. Importance of Antonia, Where Troops Were Stationed. Garrison Ancient and Modern Compared. Beema, or Tribunal.

XXIX. PERMANENCE oF Exiciste SITES . : B15

Permanence of Names. Public Works of King Uzziah. Massive Stone-Work Characteristic of Early Phenician and Hebrew Periods.

XXX. Buritpinec anp REBUILDING . ; ; . 204

XXXI. Tue Tower or ANTONIA ; 208

Its Part in Titus’ Plan of the Siege. Defended by John. Rebuilt by Herod the Great. Residence of Commander of Legion during the Life of Our Lord. Number of Roman Troops Necessary to Guard the City.

XXXII. Acra, oR THE CITADEL , ; : : e220

A Most Important Feature of Jerusalem. Rise of the Maccabean Family. Greek and Egyptian Garrisons. Acra Destroyed. Name Retained and Applied to Lower City.

aw iis OPHEL: ; : : pose A Wall and a Tower. Small Area. An Adjunct to the Royal Palace. No Part in Siege.

XXXIV. JerusaLtem a Mountain Fortress : ». 249 Various Designations. The Name Millo. The

Predecessor of Acra.

XXXV: Tse Sirz anp THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE. : : ; ; : . 248 Temple and Solomon’s Palace outside the City of David. Queen’s Residence Distinct from the

Royal Museum. Reasons for Selection of Strange Site.

CHAPTER

XXXVIT.

XXXVITI.

XXXIX.

XL.

XLE

CONTENTS

Royau Buriat PLaces

List of Kings Buried. Jewish Tombs. Oriental

Burial Places Compared with Cemeteries in the Western World.

salem. Hezekiah’s Work. Siloam Tunnel. Conference with Assyrian Generals. Anointing Solomon and Adonijah. Platfo‘m or Mastabeh at Place of Water Supply.

Maxktesuo—Tart Market-PLace

Upper and Lower Market. Importance of Ascertained Levels. Threshold in Russian Church Examined. Compared with Other Thresholds. Vast Changes in Ground at Holy Sepulchre.

Synonymous with Agora and Forum. Necessary and Common in All Ancient Eastern Cities. History and Use. Survival of Pagan Ideas. Constantine’s Gift of a Basilica-Market to Jerusalem. His Life and Character. His Pagan Training. His Relation to Eusebius. Pagan Idea Regarding Christianity in Its Origin. ‘* Basilica” and ‘‘ Prayer House” Totally Unlike in Meaning and Use.

His Patriotic Work. The Rebuilding Chapter Historical. Pools Located. King’s House and City of David. Shifting of Names. Stairs and Wall. House of the Mighty. Sepulchres of David. Evidences against the Ophel Ridge Theory of the City of David. Manasseh’s Wall Explained. Gate between the Two Walls.

Mutual Influence of Judea, Pheenicia, and Egypt upon Each Other. Monolithic Work. David, Solomon, and Hiram. Testimony of the Bible and Josephus. Building Periods Classified. Decay of Stones. Value of Stones. Ancient Ruins Quarries for Later Builders. Hebrew Stones in Present Wall. Stone-Work Classified.

Bible Use of Word. Water Supply of Jeru-

PAGE 253

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FACING PAGE

THE KEDRON VALLEY REMAINS OF CASTLE : . : LOOKING NORTH FROM CASTLE TO ROR OF THE ROADS Scopus, WHERE TITUS CAMPED WITH TWO LEGIONS Scopus AND THE HILL TO THE NORTH TOWARDS SHAFAT PLAN SHOWING REGION NORTH OF JERUSALEM GrouP OF MODERN HOUSES NORTHEAST OF THE CITY GROUP OF MODERN HOUSES NORTH OF THE CITY Upper PORTION OF WESTERN BRANCH OF THE KEDRON VALLEY NORTH OF THE CITY HAst FACE OF THE WALL N. EH. CORNER OF inne on NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WALL OF THE TEMPLE AREA VIEW FROM NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE CITY WALL _ FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WALL, LOOKING SOUTH SECOND TOWER,.AND SECOND SECTION OF NORTH WALL NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE CITY RusstaN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ; HILL occuPieD BY BisHoP GoBAT’s SCHOOL, AND THE ENGLISH CEMETERY : : IN THE MOAT SOUTH OF THE ofan oF DAVID JEWISH TOWER WHERE AGRIPPA’S. WALL TERMINATED LOOKING SOUTH FROM THE SOUTH WALL OF THE CASTLE oF DaAvID ; . : ‘ MASSIVE STONES NEAR THE Damascus Roap A MODERN HOUSE NEAR JERUSALEM NortH WALL OF JERUSALEM : ; : POSITION OF THE MOUNDS ERECTED BY TITUS AGAINST THE WEST WALL OF THE CITY MonouitHic PILLARS AT Derr EL KALA i DEIR EL Kala IN THE LEBANON NEAR BRUMMANA ILLUSTRATING THE “SCARP”’ . : : REMAINS OF THE CASTLE “Baris” or HyrcaNnus 13

14 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FACING

THE VILLAGE OF SILOAM (SILWAN) . ; : :

THE Uprer Poou or GIHON, BIRKET MAMILLA, LOOKING EAST ; : ; , ; :

THE Upper POOL oF has LOOKING NORTH AND NORTH- WEST . ‘ ‘

SPECIMEN OF AN ANCIENT Roane : : 3

GROUND CONTOUR OF THE CENTRAL PORTION OF JERUSA-

THE MAccaBEAN WALL NORTH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE, FROM MEASUREMENTS AND DRAWINGS

A FALLEN WALL , : é

MopEL OF THE TYROPEAN VALLEY, RUNNING EAST AND SOUTH FROM THE JAFFA GATE : ; ; f

WALL ON THE EAST SIDE OF POOL OF HEZEKIAH ;

ANCIENT QUARRY OF FIRM RocK AT RAMA, NORTH OF JE- RUSALEM . 4 x ‘ : :

ANCIENT QUARRY NEAR BRITISH Carre eB HOSPITAL

SECTION OF AN ANCIENT QUARRY, EAST OF NEBY SAMWIL

ANCIENT QUARRY AT BIREH . j A } :

NortH WALL OF THE CITY : : ; :

NortH WALL OF THE CITY A LITTLE TO THE EAST OF HEROD’s GATE... . : ; : ; ‘

HEBREW AND BYZANTINE STONES

SoutH WALL OF THE CITY ; é

Two SECTIONS NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST Doreen

Mar SABA

HEBREW STONES : : E 2 : :

PAGE

282 288

288 294 nod 352

352 357

368 368 371 371 397

397 398 398 400 402 402

INTRODUCTION

AS in a court of justice not every person is considered Discriminaa competent witness although he may know something of the matter in question, so not every person who writes tlon necessary

> between so-called ‘‘authorities.”’

or speaks on Palestine is entitled to equal consideration. Examples

A lack of proper discrimination as to authorities has been and is a great obstacle in the way of successful investigation. Under what conditions was this or that book produced ; how has this person or that one qualified himself to write; are questions that should be asked in every case when the matter of authority arises. Moreover, it is not enough to have been a resident of a country to qualify one to speak on that country with authority. Although this principle may be generally accepted, it is often violated.

On the matter of discriminating between so-called “authorities” the writer is well aware that it is a delicate subject, especially if names were to be mentioned, which it is not now proposed to do; but several examples may make tolerably clear what is meant, the examples being drawn from personal experience.

An intelligent person arrives in Jerusalem and spends there two or three days. At last he approaches me and says, “I hear that you have studied Jerusalem thoroughly, and may I ask your opinion on such and such a point?” I reply, “The question is difficult, but considering all the archeological and historical evidence I have come to such and such a conclusion.” The stranger looks pleased and responds, ‘That is exactly my view.” Such an incident is not of infrequent occurrence, and such minds are to me a perfect marvel. In twenty-four hours’ observation they accomplish as much as I have done in twenty-five years of study. Later I find such persons quoted as “authorities” on the topography of Palestine and the archeology of Jerusalem.

Another example——There comes to Jerusalem a clergyman who has received the usual education afforded by a theological seminary and who has enjoyed the usual reading of an intelligent but busy pastor. His letters to his people at home are bright, interesting, highly appreciated, and are soon made up into book form. This is perfectly proper. It is when this writer begins to be quoted as an “authority” that harm is done.

I'ar more common and more harmful are the instances of which the following is a sample.—A man is eminent in the scholarly and literary world, widely known and highly respected. He has never given any special study to Palestine or Jerusalem, but the opportunity comes and he visits the Holy Land. He travels hastily through the country like any ordinary tourist. After he reaches home he is persuaded to write a book, his friends knowing that his name will make it a financial success. Thus far no possible criticism can be made.

But this man’s opinions and utterances are sure to be estimated by the high regard in which he is held in the circle to which he belongs. If he makes remarks about disputed sites, about any of the peculiarities of the country, about geological or archeological questions, he is certain to be held up to the world as an “authority” on these points. But being an eminent man in his own department of study or learning does not make him an authority upon a subject which he knows little about. Behind this supposition are prominent men, some of them eminent Biblical scholars, whose names, were they to be mentioned, would occasion great surprise. It is certain that here a clear distinction ought to be made; but it is no doubt true that the great majority of those who have to do with Palestine do not make it. The failure to discriminate between so-called authorities can be illustrated and verified by reference to any Dictionary of the Bible now extant, including the two most scholarly Dictionaries that have recently appeared in England.

A Mommsen makes the history of Rome a life-study. Another person studies Roman history in school and college, perhaps later in life he reads a history of Rome, and, it may be, visits Rome as a traveller. All this does not qualify him to be regarded as an authority on special matters pertaining to that city. In this case the distinction that should be made between this man and Mommeen is likely to be made. Why should it not be made between writers on Palestine? It is made by a very few experts; but it is not generally made, and this is the ground of objection.

In the form of published letters, magazine articles, and books a vast amount of literature on Jerusalem and Palestine is put forth every year, and the crude statements, to say nothing of statements that are untrue and absurd, thus given to the public are surprising. Palestine has been particularly unfortunate in this respect, and the amount of injustice that has been done her cannot be estimated. Were London and England, or Paris and France, to be treated in a similar manner there would be a loud outcry against it.

Another important matter is the advantage one has in studying the topography and archeology of a place on the ground itself. Two men equally careful and studious write upon such a topic as San Francisco, California. One of them has lived in that city ever since gold was discovered in 1849. He knew the ground before it was built upon and is intelligently conversant with all the changes that have taken place in the last half-century. The other may have made a brief visit to that city, and has studied the place chiefly from plans, maps, and such books as he could command. ‘There is no question which of these men should be regarded as the higher authority.

Advantage of studying on the ground

Tradition not infallible

One of the clearest and most significant lessons of history, certainly to those who believe in God and in an overruling Providence, is the small regard God has for places. <A place, a temple, a country, a people appear, accomplish their mission, and then disappear. Their work remains and helps the world in its onward movement.

Directly opposite to this is another fact, namely, that in the two great churches of the centuries one of the most conspicuous features is the importance attached to places. This feeling still exists and amounts in some cases to idolatry. To disbelieve in these alleged sites is to disbelieve in religion—to disbelieve in God.

To believe in the infallibility of tradition in this enlightened age is more common than is ordinarily supposed. From many examples I will select one and give the circumstances and conversation exactly as they occurred. I went about with this man, showed him bits of wall still in position belonging to a certain period, called his attention to hills and valleys which must be taken into account, and pointed out other facts which made a certain conclusion inevitable. He listened attentively although far from sympathetically, but was courteous enough to thank me. He then said, “I have the fullest belief in the traditions of the church, and the stones, walls, and other archeological evidence which you have brought forward are nothing to me. Whatever amount of evidence of this sort you may bring forward, — I believe in the tradition every time.” Nothing could be more definite. I was glad to draw his fire because it showed me exactly where he stood. Not all of this class show equal frankness, hence his testimony is valuable. It is not asserted that every traditionalist holds such extreme views, still this man’s position indicates the general attitude of this class towards investigation.

One of the greatest obstacles in the search after truth is a preconceived theory. For example, a certain problem arises which has a certain and definite solution, Preconceivea although not yet known. A person tries one method, baer then another, and even a third and a fourth before the proper solution is reached. This is quite different from the method of one who approaches the problem with a fixed notion of what the solution must be. For a concrete illustration the site of Calvary may be taken. One person tries this way, that way, and still another way in his effort to arrive at the most probable location of the site, which can never, we believe, be determined with absolute certainty. Another person starts with a theory, a preconcived idea which has to him the force of indisputable truth. The one person is an investigator; the other isa dogmatist. The one can argue and reason, the other cannot. If he pretends to argue or reason it is breath wasted, for he would sooner lose his right hand than come out at any other point than the one where he started. Of this class there are many writers who, perhaps unintentionally, do much harm. In the list are the names of some prominent persons who are sure to have a following. David and Solomon collected materials before the Temple was built. The class now referred to are bound that their Temple shall be built whether they have any materials or not. The only person worthy of respect is the one who collects slowly, and who is satisfied with collecting slowly fact after fact, leaving the work of reconstruction till the last, or it may be to those who come after him.

I must be allowed to make the personal statement that The author in my study of Jerusalem I did not start with a theory. i ea I have for a long period of years collected facts and tried lished facts to see whither they would lead. or point. I know that Christ came to this world and lived and died for sinners, and that the place of his death and burial was Jerusalem. But to me the particular spot here or there is not essential. This does not affect in any way Christ’s ereat work. This is the position which I occupy with

Importance of Josephus regard to the crucifixion and burial of our Lord. Then follows the specific question as to the claims of the Holy Sepulchre, which I am ready to accept as valid the moment the proof is furnished; but thus far the proof has not been furnished nor have even the probabilities been furnished. What I sincerely wish is that Christians of every denomination felt as ready and willing as I am to accept any place the moment its claims are substantiated. In modern times we build what we call “memorial churches”; had Christians of another creed than mine and another age been willing to say “We erect here a memorial church,” without saying “This is the exact spot,’ what years of bitter controversy would have been spared!

I think I have made it clear that I not only disclaim any preconceived theory for myself, but I strongly disapprove the method of those who begin the investigation of important subjects with a decided partisan bias towards one theory or another. [or such a course there is to my mind no justification whatever.

In such a work as the present no progress whatever could be made without the writings of Josephus, who deserves a brief mention at least. The treatment he has in general received from scholars and writers is well known. Probably no scholar rejects him entirely, but many receive his statements with doubt and mistrust, and many of his statements they absolutely reject. Ifa passage is difficult “it has been interpolated” ; if a statement cannot be explained “it is the romancing,” or “the usual exaggeration, of Josephus.” A writer hasa theory, and if Josephus does not confirm it he is cast aside. It is not too much to say that Josephus is the most defamed and maligned Jew that has lived during the past two thousand years. What harm is there in accepting him as a reliable historian and trying to give to his writings a reasonable explanation? <A reasonable explanation has been sought for the writings of Shakespeare,—every play and every individual paragraph. So far as the writer is aware, Josephus has never been accorded the Same fair and honest treatment. Competent scholars have devoted their energies to the text of Josephus and have published it in what they consider a reliable form; and after very careful study the present writer considers that the historian has given us a connected and in the main a correct account of the events which he records.

In studying the topography of ancient Jerusalem the point of time at which the subject is approached is of great importance.

Some writers begin with the first mention of the place in history and try to follow its development through many centuries till its capture by Titus in the year 70 of our era.

Others begin somewhere in the middle, say with Nehemiah, and make him a sort of pre-Christian Baedeker, accepting his statements as final without considering the historical reasons behind them.

Others still, who without offence are to be designated as “traditionalists,” begin with A.D. 330, when the Basilica-Market which Constantine granted to Jerusalem was being erected. The preceding as well as the subsequent history of the city they care little for; but when pressed for an opinion on any earlier or later point their reply is always shaped by what they have been taught was “miraculously discovered” three centuries after the death of Christ.

The first and second of these methods the present writer has during the past thirty years tried repeatedly, only to find them beset with difficulties so great that no satisfactory results could be obtained. In the present work he has made the arrival of Titus before Jerusalem in A.D. 70 his point of departure, and from that date has worked backwards as far as it has seemed possible to go.

Period of commencing this study

Efforts to insure accuracy

Questions of priority of discovery

Every minaret in the city, many of the housetops, the city wall, the Castle, the churches, the synagogues, and every elevated point that affords a new view or any help in understanding the contour of the city has been visited repeatedly. Some special points have been visited scores of times. The plan has been to make a visit to such or such a point and make notes. Then to go home and re-examine Josephus, the references in the Bible, and the map of Levels, and as soon as possible make another visit to the same point. As Jerusalem comprised hills and valleys it is certain that the hills cannot all have been levelled nor all the valleys filled. The variations of surface as they originally existed are still apparent to the eye, in spite of all the changes that have taken place in twenty or more centuries. Here and there a rise, here and there a depression, all are significant. The study of the Levels of Jerusalem as they have been ascertained and recorded is most important; but almost of equal importance is the study of the contour of the city from its elevated points. The Levels give the information sought in the abstract; the views give the same information to a degree in the concrete. This is not so perfect or striking as it would be were the débris removed; still the views illustrate, confirm, and make real to the mind what the Levels teach. Both these methods are equally necessary, and the views are of such importance in enabling one to accept or reject certain theories that it is impossible for a person who has never tried it to appreciate what is now said.

During the past thirty years I have paid a great deal of attention to the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem and have studied the subject from every conceivable point of view. I have tried to state my conclusions with dignity and fairness, but it has been no part of my work to give the precise date of this or that discovery, nor have I stopped to ascribe this or that discovery to any particular person. It is a very delicate matter to speak of priority of claim to any particular view. As an illustration I will mention that certain important things have been attributed to others which in fairness should be attributed to myself. The discovery of the one hundred and twenty feet of the Second Wall which runs northward from the Castle of David, is due to myself. Tf in all the investigations made in Jerusalem anything is certain, this is certain, and yet it has been assigned to others. When I took Mr. Schick (it was in 1885) to see it he was sure it was the wall of a castle, and I had the greatest difficulty in persuading him that it was not the wall of a castle but a city wall. He seemed determined to publish it as the wall of a castle, but eventually did not do so. In regard to the remains of Acra near or just east of the Holy Sepulchre, I spent hours with Mr. Schick trying to persuade him of the existence there of that ancient fortress, and at last he was convinced. In the German Zeitschrift he has reproduced it; but if there was any borrowing he borrowed from me and not I from him. My intercourse with him was always friendly, and what I have said now is not said in any spirit of complaint or contention. There are other matters in regard to which I can rightly claim priority of discovery; but as this is not a controversial work, I trust that the reader will not make the question of priority in any case a matter of contention. I will also remind the reader of the length of time that I have been engaged in this study, and views which he thinks were new five or ten years ago may have been ascertained and published by me twenty-five or thirty years ago.—I have conversed freely with many persons, compared notes with different investigators, discussed views and theories with those who appeared to be competent to judge in these matters, and I have lived to put my notes and observations into definite form, hoping they may be of Service.

REMAINS OF CASTLE

Three and a half miles north of Jerusalem, where Titus camped.

LOOKING NORTH FROM CASTLE TO FORK OF THE ROADS

One road to Damascus via Nablous, the left to Cesarea via Beth Horon. Titus with two legious came by the first, the fifth legion came up from Amamaus by the second.

CHAPTER I

TITUS’ APPROACH TO JERUSALEM, A.D. 70

Camps at Castle—Reconnoitring Column Broken and Retreats— Women’s Towers—Scopus

On his march to Jerusalem Titus came through Samaria to Gophna (now Jifna), where he rested for the night. The next day he advanced as far as the Valley of Thorns, adjacent to a village named Gabat-Saul, or Saul’s Hill, and camped again. This was about three and a half English miles, a little less rather than more, north of Jerusalem. At this distance north of the city, the road leading to the coast by the Beth Horon Pass branches (to one looking north) to the left from the Nablous road. Here are the remains of a small Roman castle, or very strong guard-house, and it was here that Titus camped. (See Illustration. )

From this point he started out with 600 picked horsemen to reconnoitre the city. This attempt was only partially successful, and he returned to his camp at the fork of the road. Thence, a little later, he moved forward, and with two legions formed another camp on Scopus. The remaining legion lay in his rear at a point some distance south of the modern village of Shafat, which is a little more than two miles north of Jerusalem.

The Nablous, or Damascus, road coming from the north led, then as now, directly to the main gate on the north side of Jerusalem, but at an entirely different point from the present Damascus Gate, because the walls have been changed. This gate was nearly or directly south of the Tombs of the Kings and is spoken