JERUSALEM[229]

Situation. Gihon. Cave-dwellers. The El-Amarna Period. Jebusite Jerusalem. The City of David: Millo. David’s reign. Solomon’s Jerusalem: Site of Solomon’s buildings. Solomon’s temple. Solomon’s palace. From Solomon to Hezekiah. Hezekiah. From Hezekiah to the Exile. The Destruction of 586 b. c. The Second Temple. Nehemiah and the Walls. Late Persian and Early Greek Periods. In the Time of the Maccabees. AsmonÆan Jerusalem. Herod the Great: Herod’s palace. Herod’s theater. Herod’s temple. The Pool of Bethesda. Gethsemane. Calvary. Agrippa I and the Third Wall.

1. Situation.—Since 1867 excavations have been made at Jerusalem from time to time. The most important of these were mentioned in Chapter IV. An attempt will be made here to set before the reader the growth and development of Jerusalem from period to period, as that growth is now understood by foremost scholars. Our knowledge of the situation and form of the city in the different periods is based partly on formal excavations, partly on remains that have been accidentally found, and partly on a study of the references to Jerusalem in the Bible and other ancient writings. These references are interpreted in the light of the topography and of the archÆological remains.

Jerusalem is situated on the central ridge of Palestine, where the ridge broadens out to a small plateau. The plateau at this point is approximately 2,500 feet above the level of the Mediterranean Sea. In a narrower sense the site of the city is two rocky promontories which run south from the plateau with the valley El-Wad (in Roman times the Tyropoeon) between them. On the north these promontories merge into the plateau, but on the east, south, and west the valleys of Hinnom and the Kidron sharply separate them from the surrounding land. The steep sides of these valleys made fortification easy in ancient times. The highest point of the western hill is about 400 feet higher than the bottom of the Kidron valley, which in ancient times was 20 to 40 feet deeper than now; (see Fig. 240). Indeed, the position was almost impregnable. Only on the north was the city vulnerable.

West of the city hills gently rise to a slight elevation and shut out the view. The easternmost of the two promontories is lower than the western, which in its turn slopes to the east. Just south of the Mount of Olives, to the east of Jerusalem, there is a rift in the hills through which the distant mountains of Moab can be seen. From elevated buildings in the city the Dead Sea is also visible. The slope of the hills of Jerusalem and her broader outlook to the eastward are significant of the influences that moulded her earlier history. During the centuries that Israel was an independent nation the Philistine plain was nearly always in the hands of a hostile people. Jerusalem was thus cut off from influences that might otherwise have reached her from across the Mediterranean, and was shut up to influences that reached her through kindred tribes and nations to the east. Thus in intellectual kinship, as well as in physical outlook, the gaze of Jerusalem was directed toward the Orient.

All Palestinian cities of importance were situated near perpetual springs. There are at Jerusalem but two unfailing sources of water—the Ain Sitti Miriam (the ancient Gihon) and the Bir Eyyub (Biblical En-rogel). These are both in the Kidron valley, the former just under the brow of the eastern hill some 400 yards from the southern point of the hill, the latter at the point where the valley of Hinnom and the Kidron unite. Of these two sources of supply, the Gihon is pre-eminently fitted to attract an early settlement. It is almost under the hill, whereas the other is out in the midst of the open valley. Gihon, too, is at the base of a hill that can be defended easily on three sides, whereas a town built on a hillside above En-rogel, as the modern Silwan is, could be easily attacked from above. These conditions determined the situation of the earliest settlement, which was near Gihon.

2. Gihon.—The Parker expedition of 1909-1911 revealed by its excavations the fact that the source of the spring of Gihon is a great crack in the rock in the bottom of the valley far below the present apparent source.[230] This crack is about 16 feet long, is of great depth, and runs east and west. The western end of it just enters the mouth of the cave where the apparent source is today, but the eastern end passes out into the bed of the valley. All the water would discharge into the valley but for a wall at the eastern end of the rift, built in very ancient times, which confines the water and compels it to flow into the cave. This wall was constructed by some of the earliest inhabitants of the place. The spring thus produced is intermittent. Its flow is not ceaseless. The water breaks from the hole in the rainy season, three to five times a day; in the summer but twice a day; and after the failure of the spring rains, less than once a day. This fact indicates that the waters collect in some underground cavern from which they are drained by a siphon-like tunnel. The “troubling” of the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:4) is thought by some scholars to have been due to the action of such a siphon-like spring.

3. Cave-dwellers.—About this spring the Parker expedition found large caves and rooms excavated in the rock, and indications that these had once been inhabited. A great deal of pre-Israelite pottery was also found around the spring. These indications seem to show that the site was inhabited for at least a thousand years before David, and perhaps for two thousand, and that its first inhabitants were cave-dwellers. One naturally thinks in this connection of the cave-dwellers of Gezer. It is possible that the first Jerusalemites belonged to the same period and were of the same race. One thinks, too, of the sacred cave and the stone altar on the next peak of the eastern ridge to the north, where the temple afterward stood, and wonders whether it may not have been the sanctuary of this early cave-dwelling race. A definite answer cannot be given to this question. One can only recognize that it may possibly be true.

4. The El-Amarna Period.—The next knowledge we have of Jerusalem comes from the letters of Ebed-Hepa, which were written to Amenophis IV of Egypt between 1375 and 1357 B. C. At that time it was already a walled city, for Ebed-Hepa speaks of “throwing it open.”[231]

The fortified city of Ebed-Hepa was, no doubt, identical with the later Jebusite city. It was situated on the eastern hill just above the spring of Gihon. Probably in the period just before this time it had, like Gezer, been surrounded by a massive wall. In connection with this fortification the rock near Gihon had been scarped (cut to a perpendicular surface) in order to increase the difficulty of scaling the wall.[232] As the wall of Gezer lasted for a thousand years, so this Egyptian wall continued to the reign of David.

It is privately reported that Weil in his excavation in 1913-14 found on the eastern hill remains of a wall with a sloping glacis similar to that belonging to the earliest period of Megiddo. This would not only confirm our inference that Jerusalem was a walled city in the time of Ebed-Hepa, but indicate that its wall had been built at a much earlier time. It was also in the fourteenth century B. C. the capital of a considerable kingdom which Ebed-Hepa ruled as a vassal of the king of Egypt. This kingdom extended as far west as Beth-shemesh and Keilah (1 Sam. 23:1), including, perhaps, Gezer. Aijalon seems to have been included in it on the north, and Carmel in Judah (1 Sam. 25:2) on the south.

When the letters of Ebed-Hepa were written, his kingdom was being attacked and apparently overcome by the Habiri, a people who may have been the first wave of the Hebrew conquest.[233] The letters of Ebed-Hepa cease without telling us whether or not the Habiri captured his city. If they did and they were really Hebrews, they did not hold it long, for, when the Biblical records lift the veil that hides so much of the past, Jerusalem was in the hands of the Jebusites. (See Josh. 15:63; Judges 1:21.)

5. Jebusite Jerusalem.—The Jebusites held it all through the period of the Judges (Judges 19:10, 11). Israel did not capture it until the reign of David. (See 2 Sam. 5:6-8.) At some earlier period of the history of Jerusalem an underground rock-cut passage similar to the one at Gezer[234] had been made, so as to permit the inhabitants in case of siege to descend to the spring for water without going outside the walls; (see Fig. 241). The natural slope of the hill had been reinforced at this point by the escarpment of the rock, and the Jebusites felt so secure that they taunted the Hebrews from the top of the walls. Joab, however, discovered the way to this underground passage through the cave back of the spring, Gihon, and, leading a band of men up through it, appeared suddenly within the city, taking the Jebusites by surprise, and captured it.

6. The City of David.—David then took up his residence at Jerusalem, thus making it the capital of the kingdom of Israel. Thus the city of the Jebusites, situated on the eastern hill, which was called Zion, became the “city of David.”A few modern writers still insist that the “city of David” was on the western hill, which since 333 A. D. has been called Zion. This, as most scholars have seen, is an impossible view. Solomon built a palace for Pharaoh’s daughter near his own on the temple hill, and, when she moved into it, she went up out of the city of David (1 Kings 9:24). As the western hill is higher than the eastern, she must have gone from a point on the eastern hill lower than the temple. When the temple was completed, Solomon brought the ark up from the city of David to the holy of holies in the new temple (2 Chron. 5:2). Scripture thus confirms the inferences from the pottery and the water supply, that the “city of David” was on the eastern hill, and that that hill was Zion. It was a small town, since the space it could occupy was not more than thirteen acres, and may have been less.

(1) Millo.—After occupying his new capital David “built round about from Millo and inward” (2 Sam. 5:9). What was Millo? This is a great puzzle, and there are many varying opinions about it. The word literally means a “filling,” and is employed in Assyrian for the building up of a terrace on which a building may be erected. It may have been a “filling” on the line of the valley that separated the hill of the citadel of David from Moriah or the temple hill. It would seem to have been on the edge of the city, since David built from there “inward.” Some have supposed it to be a fortress, and the Septuagint translated it by “akra,” which means “citadel.” Some have thought of it as a fort, others as a solid tower. If on the line of the valley mentioned, it may have been at the northeast corner, or at the northwest corner of the town. Some have supposed that it was at the southern end of the eastern hill in order to protect a pool there. Just below the southern end of the eastern hill in the valley of the Kidron lay the “King’s Gardens,” and just across the valley, the village of Siloah. In 2 Kings 12:20 it is said that Joash was killed in Millo, leading down to Silla. We know of no Silla. Is it a corruption of the Hebrew word for “shade” or is it a corruption of Siloah? In the former case the reference might be to the King’s Gardens, in the latter to the village of Siloah. Either of these suppositions would favor a site for Millo at the south end of the hill, but the words “leading down to Silla” may have had quite a different origin and meaning.[235] We must, therefore, confess that the location of Millo cannot at present be determined.

(2) David’s Reign.—As David’s reign advanced and his success in war compelled neighboring nations to pay tribute, probably the population of Jerusalem increased. Such an increase would naturally lead to the erection of houses outside the walls, as it has in recent times. It is altogether probable that a settlement on the western hill was thus begun in the reign of David. There is no hint, however, that he took any steps to enclose such a settlement within a wall. The phrase “the way of the gate” in 2 Sam. 15:2 implies that there was still but one gate in the walls. This is in striking contrast to the number of gates in later times. The only record that we have of further action on David’s part that affected the future growth of Jerusalem refers to the way in which he took over the rock on Mount Moriah and the sacred cave under it and made a sanctuary to Jehovah. (See 2 Sam. 24.) This action, at a later time, determined the site of the temple.

7. Solomon’s Jerusalem.—David left Jerusalem a military fortress; Solomon transformed it into a city with imposing buildings. This creation of a more imposing city was in accord with the general character of Solomon’s reign. He established a large harem, made marriage alliances with many neighboring kings, maintained such an establishment that it was necessary to make a regular levy on a different portion of the country each month for supplies, and endeavored to make his capital as splendid as the capital of a rich commercial Phoenician monarch. Such a policy necessitated, probably, the enlargement of Jerusalem. David, who began life as a shepherd-boy, was content to live the simple life to the end; Solomon, born to the purple, desired to surround himself with a pomp befitting his rank. The Biblical writers were more interested in the construction of the temple and of Solomon’s palace than in any other phase of his work, but they have left us some hints of his activities in other directions.

They tell us that he “built Millo and the wall of Jerusalem” (1 Kings 9:15), that he “built the wall of Jerusalem round about” (1 Kings 3:1), and that he “built Millo and repaired the breach in the city of David, his father” (1 Kings 11:27). Evidently Millo had fallen into disrepair since David rebuilt it, and the walls of the city of David on the eastern hill were also in need of repairs. These repairs he made, but did he go further? It is intrinsically probable that he did. The king who fortified Hazor in Naphtali, Megiddo, Gezer, Beth-horon, Baalath, and Tamar would hardly leave a large suburb of his capital on the western hill unfortified. The statement that he “built the wall of Jerusalem round about,” while it does not clearly state that he did more than fortify the “city of David” on Zion, seems to imply that he did. This view is strengthened by Bliss’s discovery on the western hill of some walls that connected once with a great fortress at the southwest corner of the western hill, which he believed to be the work of Solomon.

The site of this fortress is now occupied by “Bishop Gobat’s School,” an English foundation for the education of native boys. When the school was rebuilt in 1874 Mr. Henry Maudsley examined the surface of the rock, which is escarped, or cut perpendicularly, for about 100 feet to the southeast of the school and 43 feet north of it. The scarp is about 40 feet high at the highest point; (Fig. 242). The school is built on a large projection of the scarp 45 feet square and 20 feet high. The surface of the rock under the school bears unmistakable signs that there was once an ancient tower there. To the eastward of this Bliss discovered the foundations of an ancient tower. Beyond this to the east there was a deep rock-cut ditch. The tower on its northeast corner fitted into another rock-scarp which ran northward into land on which they could not excavate.[236] The deep rock-cut ditch or moat at the east of the scarp suggests that at the period of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1188 A. D., this fortress formed the fortification of the southwest corner of the city, from which the wall ran off sharply in a direction a little east of north. This view is confirmed by the discovery which Bliss made of a wall, apparently built by the Crusaders, that ran in a north-easterly direction by an irregular course along the high part of the western hill toward the temple area. As this wall rested on remains of the Roman time it cannot well have belonged to a time earlier than the crusading period. May not, then, Maudsley’s scarp itself have been cut by the Crusaders who were most energetic and masterly builders? This seems hardly probable, for Josephus, in describing the course of the wall on the west side of the western hill, says that beginning at Herod’s palace (the modern Turkish fortress) the wall ran southward through a place called “Bethso.”[237] Bethso is a corruption of Beth-zur, which means rock-fortress—an apt description of the tower on Maudsley’s scarp. As Josephus makes no mention of the construction of a fortress at this point by Herod, it was probably built at an earlier period. The writer holds with Bliss that it is probable that the original fortress on the site of Bishop Gobat’s School was constructed by Solomon and that he enclosed the top of the western hill with a wall. Whether that wall simply enclosed the top of the hill and followed something of the same course as the wall of the Crusaders mentioned above (so Bliss thinks), or whether it ran down the eastern slope of the western hill to the southern point of the “City of David,” it is impossible now to determine.

The view that Solomon extended the city to the western hill cannot be proved, since there is no definite reference in the Bible to the western hill in the time of Solomon, and there is no inscription on the masonry found definitely to connect it with him. In consideration of all the conditions it seems probable that Solomon enclosed a part of the western hill. If so, the wall built by Solomon on the north side of the western hill was probably on the line of what Josephus called the “first wall.” This wall, was rebuilt from time to time. The dÉbris of a part of it seems still to be in place at the east end of “David Street” in modern Jerusalem. A short street, high above the surrounding levels, now runs on the top of this dÉbris.[238]

(1) Site of Solomon’s Buildings.—Concerning the building of Solomon’s palace and the temple there can be no doubt, for the Bible contains accounts of the construction of these. Their general location is also well known. They were across the little valley which separated the part of Zion called Ophel (where the city of David was situated) from the part sometimes called Moriah.[239] This hill-top included the threshing-floor of Araunah, the Jebusite (2 Sam. 24), and Solomon now enclosed this with a wall. Sir Charles Warren believed that he found portions of this wall at the southeast angle of the ancient temple area, 80 feet below the present surface of the ground. During his excavations in the years 1867-1870 he sunk at this point a shaft to the native rock, from the bottom of which a tunnel was carried inward to the base of the wall. He found twenty-one courses of drafted stones below the surface at this point, and the stones in the lower courses bore quarry marks which resemble old Hebrew or Phoenician characters.[240] The lower courses of stones were from 3 feet 6 inches to 4 feet 3½ inches in height. Some of the characters were cut in the stones; some painted on them. It is most probable that these were remains of the work of Solomon; (see Figs. 244, 245, and 246).

The enclosure of this hill-top with a wall set it apart from the rest of Jerusalem. It was a kind of separate fortress. At the time it emphasized the majesty of Solomon—his apartness from his people. This separate enclosure of the temple hill was perpetuated through the whole history of Jerusalem and is maintained today. In all periods the temple hill has been a fortress that could be defended apart from the city.

(2) Solomon’s Temple.—Of the form and situation of the buildings of Solomon on the hill that was enclosed by this new wall, there is a wide diversity of opinion. This diversity arises in part from the fact that some scholars take at their face value statements of Josephus, the Talmud, and other late sources concerning Solomon’s temple, while others attribute less weight to the statements of those sources which were written long after this temple was destroyed, and base their views rather on the earlier documents. The last is the only sound method of study, and is the course followed here. We shall take as evidence of the plan and situation of the buildings the Biblical writers who had seen them.

We are at the start confronted, however, with a difficulty, since no Biblical writer has given us an exact statement as to what part of the hill Solomon’s temple occupied. Most modern scholars hold, nevertheless, that it was built at the highest point of the hill just west of the sacred cave, which has already been mentioned,[241] and the old rock-altar above it. This view is confirmed by Josephus[242] and is undoubtedly correct, although three or four modern scholars have doubted it. The temple would naturally be built near the spot where the angel is said to have appeared to David (2 Sam. 24:16), and as angels are frequently represented in the Old Testament as appearing upon rocks (see Judges 6:11, f.; 13:19)[243] it is altogether probable that the appearance to David was on the rock-altar at the top of the hill. On this rock the animals for sacrifice were slain, as the conduits for blood still visible on its top indicate. Near it, then, or on it the altar of burnt-offerings stood. We learn from Ezekiel, who had served as a priest in the temple of Solomon, that the temple faced the east, that it stood to the west of the altar, and that there was room between the temple and the altar for twenty-five men. (See Ezek. 8:16.) The temple was a rectangular building with its greatest length running east and west. Its measurements were 124 feet for the length, 50 for the breadth, and 55 for the height. It was constructed of stones and cedar beams. The outer temple, afterward called the holy place, was 70 feet long, 34½ feet wide, and 52 feet high. Back of it was the holy of holies, where the ark was placed. It was a cube 34½ feet each way. Apparently there was a chamber above it.[244] This room was adorned with carvings of cherubim, palms, and open flowers (1 Kings 6:29, 32, 35). It had no window. According to 2 Chron. 3:14, it was separated from the holy place by a veil. The holy place contained the table of show-bread and ten golden lamp-stands (1 Kings 7:49).[245] The lattice work high up in the walls of this room (1 Kings 6:4) can have admitted only an uncertain light. The building was richly adorned with cedar and gold. It consisted of three stories, and the walls were of varying thickness, since ledges were built in them to receive the beams of the different stories. Each story contained a series of chambers for storage or the use of the priests. Those of the first story were five cubits wide, those of the second six, and those of the third seven; (see Figs. 247-249).

In front of the temple was a porch of unknown height, and before this were two bronze pillars with ornamented tops, named Jachin and Boaz. A little to the southeast of the temple in the open air was a brazen laver supported by twelve brazen oxen (1 Kings 7:23-26, 39). Before the temple Solomon also placed a brazen altar (2 Chron. 1:5, 6; 2 Kings 16:14). Another article of temple furniture is described as a “base.” It was apparently a portable holder for a laver. It was made of bronze, provided with wheels, and ornamented with figures of lions, cherubim, and palm-trees (1 Kings 7:27-37); (see Figs. 251, 252).

It is clear that the temple was not, like a modern church, intended for the accommodation of the people. It was simply Jehovah’s dwelling. Hither the priests might come to bring the offerings of the people, and to propitiate him. Solomon surrounded the temple with a court enclosed by a wall of three courses of hewn stones and cedar beams (1 Kings 6:36). This court became in later time the auditorium of the nation. Outside of this was a larger court with walls of similar construction (1 Kings 7:12); (see Fig. 243).

(3) Solomon’s Palace.—Just to the south of the temple court, separated from it only by a wall, was a middle court in which was Solomon’s own palace and the palace of Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kings 7:8). These palaces were a little lower down the hill than the temple, and Solomon had a private “ascent” by which he could go up into the temple (1 Kings 10:5). The royal palaces were so near that a shout in the court around the altar could be heard in the palace (2 Kings 11:12, 13). These palaces were built of hewn stone and cedar. South of this court was still another, separated from it by a wall. In this most southerly and lowest of the courts stood the hall of state, in which was the throne room, where Solomon sat in judgment. This hall was paneled with cedar from floor to roof. The throne was of ivory, was approached by six steps, and flanked on each side by lions (1 Kings 10:18-20). South of this and probably intended as its vestibule was the “porch of pillars,” 86 by 52 feet (1 Kings 7:6). Still south of this stood the “house of the forest of Lebanon” (1 Kings 7:2), so called because its four rows of cedar pillars were poetically suggestive of a Lebanon forest. This was the largest of all the buildings, being 172 feet long, 86 feet wide, and 52 feet high. There seem to have been two stories, the uppermost of which was supported by 45 pillars in three rows. Josephus says that the upper room of this hall was designed to “contain a great body of men, who would come together to have their causes determined.”[246] He may have been influenced, however, in making the statement by the customs of his own time.

As one went northward, then, up the hill from the “city of David,” he passed through a gateway into the large court. In this court he came first to the “house of the forest of Lebanon.” Beyond this he would enter through the “porch of pillars” into the splendid hall of judgment with its imposing throne. If he were a favored servant or an honored guest of the king, he might be admitted to the inner court, in which case he would behold the imposing palaces of Solomon and his principal queen. A passageway to the eastward of this more private court led the person not so favored to the sacred court about the temple.

In the construction of these buildings Solomon employed Phoenician architects and workmen. His buildings were, therefore, more imposing than those ordinarily erected in Palestine. The Phoenicians were the intermediaries of the ancient world, and were the recipients of influences from Babylonia, Egypt, the Hittites, Cyprus, and the Mycenean world. Through them something of the world’s architectural culture touched the buildings of Solomon.

8. From Solomon to Hezekiah.—Between the time of Solomon and Hezekiah, the Bible furnishes us with but little information about Jerusalem. One topographical fact is given us in the narrative of the war between Amaziah of Judah and Jehoash of Israel, before 782 B. C. After Jehoash had been victorious in the battle at Beth-shemesh, he came up to Jerusalem and “brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate, four hundred cubits” (2 Kings 14:13); (see Fig. 304). This wall was afterward repaired by Uzziah, who strengthened it with towers.Indeed, it seems probable that Uzziah’s work was more extensive and that, in order to render the city more impregnable, he added a second wall on the north. Certainly a wall existed here before the Exile, for when Nehemiah rebuilt the walls, this wall joined the temple area at its northwest corner, and we know of no king after Uzziah who would be likely to construct such a defence unless it was Hezekiah. As the city easily withstood the attack of Pekah and Rezin in 735 (Isa. 7:1, ff.), it seems probable that Uzziah was the builder.

This wall by whomsoever it was built was in all probability on the line of the so-called “second wall” of Josephus. As to just what its course was we cannot now tell, further than that it started from near the Corner Gate, near where the modern Turkish fortress now stands, and terminated at the temple area. Some have supposed that after leaving the Corner Gate it ran as far northward as the line on which the northern wall of the modern city runs, then eastward from there to a point near the present Damascus Gate, and then turned southward to the temple area. This seems improbable, however, since in the time of Zechariah the tower of Hananel, which stood near the northwest corner of the present area of the Mosque of Omar, was the most northerly point of the city. It is thus possible that this second wall may have run south of the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Its whole course accordingly lies underneath the present city. None of this has been excavated except a short part of the course near the ancient Corner Gate. In 1885, when digging was in progress for the foundations of the Grand New Hotel, just inside the Jaffa Gate and north of the Turkish fortress, a course of large Jewish stones was laid bare which the late Dr. Merrill and others believed to be a part of this second wall. The nature of the digging did not, however, disclose its course for any great distance; the part revealed ran nearly north and south.

Unless Solomon built the wall which ran from Maudsley’s scarp at the northwest corner of the western hill eastward down the slope of that hill to the southern point of the eastern hill, it must have been built by some king of this period. No hint is given us as to who built this wall. It may have been done in the reign of Jehoshaphat, which was a period of prosperity and expansion (2 Kings 3:4-12), or in the reign of Uzziah, which was also a very prosperous time. The need of stronger defenses created by the advance of the Assyrians into western Asia in the ninth and eighth centuries B. C. makes it probable that Uzziah was the builder. At all events it was accomplished by the time of Hezekiah.

In the reign of Ahaz there was a conduit (Isa. 7:3) leading from the “upper pool,” or Gihon, to a lower pool, which probably lay somewhere near the mouth of the Tyropoeon valley. This conduit has been discovered. It was designed partly to conduct water from Gihon out into the valley of the Kidron for the irrigation of the king’s gardens, and partly to fill the lower pool so that cattle could come and drink. Isaiah refers to the waters of this conduit as “the waters of Shiloah that go softly” (Isa. 8:6). Of course, this conduit was in Isaiah’s time an old one. It is impossible to tell when it was first constructed. It may have been made as early as the time of Solomon or David, or even in Jebusite times.

In the reign of Ahaz a change was made in the nature of the altar of burnt-offerings in the temple. When Ahaz went to Damascus to do homage to Tiglath-pileser IV of Assyria, he saw an altar that pleased him, and sent a pattern of it home to the high priest, Urijah, with directions to have one made like it for the temple. This Urijah did. This altar was apparently constructed of stone. It displaced the brazen altar of Solomon, which was henceforth kept for the king’s private use (2 Kings 16:10-16). It is thought by some that the measurements of this stone altar are reproduced in Ezekiel 43:13-17. The brazen altar had always been out of accord with the Hebrew law. (See Exod. 20:24-26.)

9. Hezekiah.—Apart from his reform (2 Kings 18:1-6) and the invasions of Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:9, ff.), the event of especial interest mentioned in connection with Hezekiah is that “he made the pool and the conduit and brought the water into the city” (2 Kings 20:20). Scholars are agreed that this refers to the rock-cut aqueduct in which the Siloam inscription was found.[247] This was for the time of its construction a notable engineering achievement, though recent exploration of the tunnel shows that the workers frequently went astray and cut in directions that they did not intend. Indeed, it is probable that the great bends in the tunnel were made on account of such mistakes and not as Clermont-Ganneau formerly thought in order to avoid the tombs of the kings. Up to the present, search for these tombs has been vain. They must have been somewhere on the eastern hill, but there is no reason to believe that they were at the great depth at which this tunnel was cut through the rock.

If the supposition made above as to the walls of Uzziah is correct, it was Hezekiah who built the first wall across the mouth of the Tyropoeon valley so as to enclose within the city his new pool. This wall was found by Bliss. It formed the dam of the pool. It was strongly buttressed and had been rebuilt from time to time. Bliss detected five periods in its history.[248]

10. From Hezekiah to the Exile.—After Hezekiah, the general features of Jerusalem remained the same down to the time of the Babylonian Exile in 586 B. C. We hear of a Fish Gate, probably where it was at a later time, at the north of the city in the wall built by Uzziah. Zephaniah mentions in connection with it “the second quarter” of the city (Zeph. 1:10), which was probably the part of the town between the north wall of Uzziah and the older north wall of Solomon on the western hill. The prophetess Huldah lived there in the time of Josiah (2 Kings 22:14). Zephaniah also mentions a part of the city called Maktesh or the Mortar (Zeph. 1:11). This was a part of Jerusalem occupied by Phoenician traders and craftsmen. It was probably in the hollow between the two hills, i. e., in the Tyropoeon valley.

In the reign of Manasseh we hear of the sacrifice of children. For this purpose a pit was excavated on the floor of the valley of Hinnom, to the south of the city, and arrangements were made to burn the victims. This was called Topheth (Jer. 7:31). Later it was defiled (2 Kings 23:10), and to perpetuate the defilement refuse from the city seems to have been burned there. The valley of Hinnom is in Hebrew gai hinnom. Later generations conceived that the heavenly Jerusalem had also its valley of Hinnom for the consumption of its refuse, hence gai hinnom is used in the New Testament in the form Gehenna as a name of hell. (See Matt. 5:29; 10:28.)

11. The Destruction of 586 B. C.—Toward the end of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar in the year 586 it is said that the men of war fled by the way of the gate between the two walls which was by the king’s garden (2 Kings 25:4). This was evidently a gate by the Pool of Siloam, where the two walls of the eastern hill and the wall which came down the western hill and crossed the mouth of the Tyropoeon valley all came together.[249]

In August of the year 586 B. C. Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar. The temple, the royal palace, and the residences of the principal men were burned and the walls of the city were broken down (2 Kings 25:9, 10). All that was combustible was burned, including the city gates (Neh. 1:3). All portable things of value were carried away. Jerusalem now entered on a period of desolation. The city was probably not entirely deserted. Some of the poor who still managed to extract a subsistence from the desolate hills still found shelter in her ruins. All the well-to-do inhabitants were transported to Babylonia.

It is often assumed that the site of the temple was unused during the Exile and that no offerings were made there, but Jer. 41:4, 5 shows that this was not the case. Probably an altar was repaired very soon, and the poor people still went through their most indispensable religious ceremonies amid the desolation, for men came from Samaria two months after the destruction of the city to celebrate there the Feast of Tabernacles.

This destruction of the city and the deportation of its population made a very deep impression on the Jews. How their affections clung to the desolate and defaced city is touchingly depicted in the book of Lamentations and in the 137th Psalm. Indeed, the destruction of the real Jerusalem was the beginning of that ideal Jerusalem which has been so influential in the religious history of the world.[250]

12. The Second Temple.—Beyond the erection of an altar, already mentioned, the first steps toward the rebuilding of the temple were taken, so many scholars think, in the second year of King Darius of Persia, i. e., in 520 B. C. Eighteen years earlier Cyrus had made it possible for this to be done,[251] but for various reasons it had not been undertaken.[252] The man whose preaching moved the people to begin the rebuilding was Haggai, and the circumstances under which he did it are recounted in his book. Haggai’s persuasion was later seconded by the efforts of Zechariah. Through four years the house slowly rose, and was finally completed in March of the sixth year of Darius (516 B. C.), five months less than 70 years after it was destroyed.

There is no doubt that the second temple was built on the lines of the first, which were probably still traceable in the dÉbris. It was also constructed of stone which still lay about the top of the hill—stone that had been used in the work of Solomon. It was not because it was smaller than the first temple that old men who had seen that wept as they looked on the new one (Ezra 3:12), but because it was less ornate. It was probably without ornament. Josephus (Contra Apion, i, 22) says that the temple court was enclosed by a wall a plethra in length and 100 Greek cubits in breadth, i. e., 485½ by 145½ feet. It was not, then, very large. It is uncertain whether there was at this time more than one court; 1 Macc. 4:48 speaks of “courts,” but Josephus tells[253] how the people pelted Alexander JannÆus with citrons while he was officiating at the altar during the Feast of Tabernacles, so that it is probable that the courts were not separated by a wall, but by a difference of elevation. The inner court was probably higher than the other, as it is around the Mosque of Omar today.

Within this court was an altar of unhewn stones. The temple itself consisted as before of the holy place and the holy of holies. Before the holy place was a porch, and around the building there were many small chambers as formerly. The holy of holies was separated from the holy place by a veil (1 Macc. 1:22), but now it contained no ark of the covenant, as that had been lost in 586 B. C. The holy of holies in the second temple was empty except for the “stone of foundation” on which the high priest placed his censer on the day of atonement.[254] In the holy place the table of show-bread stood in front of the veil. Instead of the ten golden lamp-stands of Solomon’s temple there now stood there the lamp with seven branches (see Zech. 4). A golden altar of incense replaced it (1 Macc. 1:21) in the time of the Maccabees, though it may not have been placed there before the time of Ezra.

Such was the temple as reconstructed after the Exile. In one important respect its perspective was changed. The royal palace and the administrative buildings, which before the Exile had shared the crest of the northern spur of Zion with the temple, were not rebuilt. The temple stood there alone. Little by little the part of the hill to the south of the temple was cleared of the dÉbris and the ground became a temple court. This was significant of the religious condition of the post-exilic time. Kings had vanished; the worship of Jehovah held the supreme place in the thought of the people.

13. Nehemiah and the Walls.—For seventy-two years after the temple was rebuilt, the walls of the city still lay in ruins. That they were at last restored was due to the patriotism and energy of a noble young Jew, Nehemiah, who had been a cup-bearer to Artaxerxes I of Persia. The story of how he obtained the royal permission to return to Jerusalem as governor, with authority to rebuild the walls, how upon his arrival he traced by their ruins the lines of the old walls, with what energy and amid what difficulties he pushed their rebuilding to completion in the course of three months in the year 444 B. C., is told in detail in Nehemiah 1-7 and need not be repeated here.

At the northwest corner of the western hill there was placed in the wall at this time a gate called the Valley Gate (Neh. 3:13). This was the gate discovered by Bliss[255] a little to the east of the old fortress on Maudsley’s scarp. When the wall was completed, a ceremony of dedication was held. At this festival two processions started from this Valley Gate; one of these went around the south side of the city, the other around the north side (Neh. 12:31-40). They met at the temple. The procession that went around the south side of the city passed by the Dung Gate, which was situated in the southern wall well down the hill, then by the Fountain Gate, near the Pool of Siloam, then up the “ascent of the wall” by the stairs of the “City of David,” and passed the Water Gate somewhere above the spring of Gihon. Still above this, probably just to the east of the temple area, was the Horse Gate (Neh. 3:28). The other company, starting from the Valley Gate at the southwest corner of the city, passed northward by the “Tower of the Furnaces” unto the broad wall, above the Gate of Ephraim, by the Old Gate, and by the Fish Gate, past the Tower of Hananel and the Tower of Hammeah, unto the Sheep Gate. This description, together with the line of the previous wall, enables us approximately to determine the outline of post-exilic Jerusalem; (see Fig. 305). The one point of doubt has to do with the line of the second wall on the north of the city, laid out probably by Uzziah. As that line is directly under the present city it has never been possible to follow it by excavations. We can only conjecture what its course may have been. The towers of Hananel and Hammeah were clearly north of the temple area. They probably fortified the wall along the edge of a shallow valley which separated Moriah from the hill north of it. This hill was later called Bezetha.

14. Late Persian and Early Greek Periods.—After the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, we have no clear topographical references to Jerusalem until the second century B. C. It seems probable that Jerusalem and Judah rebelled against one of the later Persian kings and that the city suffered.[256] We hear that Ptolemy I of Egypt also captured Jerusalem,[257] but whether these experiences led to any modification in the form of the city, we do not know. The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, often called Ecclesiasticus, which was written about 180 B. C., indicates that Jerusalem was a carefully organized city. Many professions and much commerce were represented in it, as well as many human sins and foibles.[258] The author declares[259] that a high priest, Simon, the son of Onias (probably Simon II, 218-198 B. C.), repaired the temple and fortified the city. What the nature of either work was, we do not know. So far as can be ascertained, he confined himself to the strengthening of old defenses, and did not change the topography.

In the early part of the reign of Antiochus IV, while many Jews were kindly inclined to Greek culture and to Greek ways, an outdoor gymnasium was established in Jerusalem.[260] This was in a hollow just above the Tyropoeon valley to the west of the south end of the temple enclosure.[261] Josephus calls it the Xystus, a Greek name that reveals its character. Some reminder that it was once a gymnasium perhaps lingers in Maidan, the modern Arabic name for the locality, which means hippodrome, or place of combat.

15. In the Time of the Maccabees.—In the MaccabÆan period the city was divided into three parts—the city proper, the temple, and the Akra or citadel. As to the situation of the Akra, there is a wide difference of opinion. Into the different theories it is impossible to go.[262] The writer agrees with George Adam Smith, that in all probability the Akra was the “City of David” of the earlier time, as 1 Maccabees states (1:33; 7:32, 33; 14:36). We first hear of this Akra in 198 B. C., when an Egyptian garrison held out in it against Antiochus III.[263] It was so shut off from the rest of Jerusalem that, though, after the onslaught of Antiochus IV on the Jews in 168 B. C., Judas MaccabÆus recovered the city and temple as early as 165 B. C., the Syrians kept possession of the Akra for twenty-three years more, until they were finally dislodged by Simon the Maccabee in 142 B. C.[264]

16. AsmonÆan Jerusalem.—During the AsmonÆan dynasty which grew out of the MaccabÆan struggle,[265] three new features were added to Jerusalem. One was a castle, to the northward of the temple area built by John Hyrcanus I, 135-105 B. C.[266] This was known to Greek-speaking Jews as Baris, which is a corruption of the Hebrew Birah, a fortress. Its walls are massive and high. It commanded the approach to the temple area from the north, and greatly strengthened the effectiveness of the temple fortification.

One of the AsmonÆans, probably John Hyrcanus I, built a palace in Jerusalem.[267] This palace apparently stood on the site now occupied by the Synagogue of the German Jews in Jerusalem.[268] It was connected with the temple area by a bridge,[269] of which a remnant of the easternmost span, now called “Robinson’s Arch,”[270] is still visible on the western wall of the temple enclosure. This bridge was destroyed by Pompey when he captured Jerusalem in 63 B. C.,[271] and its remains were found by Warren in the bottom of the Tyropoeon valley, 80 feet below the present surface of the ground.[272] As the AsmonÆans were high priests as well as kings, this bridge gave them easy access to the temple from their palace. The palace itself, situated on a part of the western hill that overtopped the temple hill, was so placed that the royal priest could sit in his palace and watch what was transpiring in the temple courts and in the valley below.The third accomplishment of the AsmonÆans was probably the construction of Solomon’s Pools and the High Level Aqueduct by which the water was brought into Jerusalem.[273] This work appears also to have been accomplished by John Hyrcanus I, for Timarchus, the biographer of Antiochus VII, who was a contemporary of Hyrcanus I, says of Jerusalem that “the whole city runs down with waters, so that even the gardens are irrigated by the water which flows off from it.”[274] Such a description would be quite unfitting, if all the water had been supplied by Gihon, En-rogel, and the cisterns about Jerusalem. It implies that a perpetual stream of water, such as came through one of the aqueducts, flowed into the city.

One other structure is attributed to an AsmonÆan. Alexander JannÆus was very unpopular with the Pharisees, and once, as already noted, he was pelted by the people with citrons. He thereupon erected a wooden barrier around the temple and the altar, thus excluding the laity from a close approach to the temple,[275] and creating a court for the priests alone.

Jerusalem suffered from four sieges in the troublous days when the AsmonÆan power was waning and that of Rome was being established. The first was by Haretat, King of the NabathÆans, in 65 B. C., but was lifted without result.[276] The second was that of Pompey in 63 B. C. It resulted in the capture of the city and in considerable damage. The bridge across the Tyropoeon to the royal palace was broken down.[277] The third was that of the Partisans in 40 B. C., when they captured the city and placed Antigonus, son of Aristobulus II, on the throne.[278] The fourth was that by which Herod the Great became master of Jerusalem in 37 B. C. At this time a part of the two northern walls were broken down.[279] The topography of the city was in no way changed until after the conquest by Herod, who changed the face of Jerusalem in many ways.

17. Herod the Great.—The first work of Herod was to rebuild and strengthen the fortress to the north of the temple. This he did at the beginning of his reign while Mark Antony was still in power in the East. He accordingly renamed the castle Antonia.[280] Herod also rebuilt and strengthened the walls which he had battered down in taking Jerusalem, adding towers to make them more impregnable. At the southwest corner of the city he erected three new towers,—Hippacus, Phasael, and Mariamne.[281] These all probably stood in or near the space now covered by the Turkish fortress at the Jaffa Gate. Hippacus was apparently the northwest tower of the present citadel, Phasael the easternmost of the towers in the same structure, which still bears the name “Tower of David”; Mariamne lay to the east of these. Hippacus was 80 cubits high, Phasael 90, and Mariamne 50. On the north of these, perhaps near the point where the northwest corner of the present city wall is, stood Psephinus, an octagonal tower 70 cubits high.

(1) Herod’s Palace.—In connection with the towers Hippacus and Phasael and on the site of the present Turkish citadel, Herod built a new and splendid royal palace.[282] Its walls on the west and north were the same as the old city walls; on the east and south, walls of the same massiveness were erected. It contained two halls, each the size of the sanctuary, with couches within for a hundred guests. There were many other richly furnished chambers. The towers and the palace were faced with marble. Stretching to the southward, of the palace were colonnades which bordered on open courts, in which shrubberies, fountains, and long walks abounded. These fountains were fed by the High Level Aqueduct.

This palace commanded the highest point of the southwestern hill. Its construction finally transferred the controlling power to the western hill, or as Josephus calls it, the “Upper City.” Ever after this the western hill was the seat of political power. When Procurators ruled JudÆa this palace became the prÆtorium.[283] It was to this castle that our Saviour was brought to be tried by Pontius Pilate. It was to its entrance, probably on the east, that Pilate brought Jesus and offered to release him, when the people cried: “Away with this man ... crucify him” (Luke 23: 18, 21). This palace, built by one of the ablest and most unscrupulous of men, is thus associated with one of the most sacred and tragic moments of history. From that day to this it has remained the seat of political authority in Jerusalem. Its presence on the western hill has gradually drawn the name Zion from the original city of David to the western hill, and so distorted the Old Testament traditions that even several modern scholars[284] still refuse to give credence to the clear voice of the Old Testament as to the site of the original Zion. The palace, battered down and rebuilt again and again, still retains in its walls many of the massive stones of Herod. This palace was completed about 23 B. C.

(2) Herod’s Theater.—About 25 B. C. Herod founded an athletic gathering to be celebrated every five years in honor of Augustus.[285] Josephus, in speaking of this fact, says that Herod built a theater in Jerusalem, and also a very great amphitheater in the plain. If he actually built a theater in the city, all traces of it have disappeared. To the south of the city on a hill considerably beyond the Valley of Hinnom, the remains of a great theater were discovered some years ago by the late Dr. Schick.[286] This theater faced the north, its diameter was more than 130 feet, and spectators seated in it could see Jerusalem in the distance. It is thought by some scholars that this is the theater to which Josephus alludes, as Herod would hardly have ventured to outrage Jewish feeling by placing such a structure in the sacred city. If the discovery of Dr. Schick represents Herod’s theater, it is quite unknown where the “amphitheater in the plain,” to which Josephus makes reference, was situated.

(3) Herod’s Temple.—When the palace of Herod was completed, the splendid structures of Antonia and the palace quite overshadowed the old dingy temple. The temple had frequently been repaired by the high priests, and perhaps during the MaccabÆan time had been somewhat embellished, but it nevertheless remained essentially as it had been rebuilt after the Exile. Herod had built Sebaste on the site of ancient Samaria in 27 B. C., and began about 22 B. C. to build CÆsarea. In these and other cities he had erected splendid temples to heathen deities; naturally he desired to make the temple of his capital city worthy to stand beside them. He had difficulty in persuading the Jews to let him touch the sacred house, but yielding in many things to their scruples, work was finally begun in the year 20-19 B. C. Some of the priests became carpenters and stone-cutters, so that no profane hands need touch the sacred shrine.[287] The old temple was taken down and the new one erected in the space of eighteen months. But much remained to be done and the work dragged along until after Herod’s death. In the time of Christ “forty and six years was this temple in building” (John 2:20), and it was not then completed. It was finished only in 64 A. D., six years before it was finally destroyed.[288] The temple itself occupied the site of its predecessor, and was of the same plan and dimensions. These Herod did not dare to change. They were consecrated by nearly a thousand years of sacred associations. If he could not enlarge it, however, he could make it higher, and he made its elevation a hundred cubits or 172 feet. He also enlarged the porch, making it 120 feet broad. The whole was built of huge blocks of white stone, with plates of gold upon the front.[289] The holy of holies consisted, as before, of a dark, empty room, 35 feet in each dimension. It was separated from the holy place by curtains, an outer and an inner, which were a foot apart. The holy place was still 40 by 20 cubits, but was now made 40 instead of 30 cubits high.[290] Its furniture was the same as in the second temple: the table of show-bread, the altar of incense, and the lamp with seven branches; (Fig. 250). The entrance to the holy place, 15 cubits wide and 70 cubits high, was not closed by doors. Josephus declares that it was left open to set forth the “unobstructed openness of heaven.”[291]

On the top of the temple, spikes with sharp points were arranged to prevent birds from lighting upon it and defiling it. Twelve broad steps led down from the temple to the court of the priests.[292] These steps occupied nearly all the 22 cubits of space between the porch and the altar. Not far from the steps at the south stood the great laver, which had replaced the brazen sea of Solomon’s temple. The altar of unhewn stones rose upon the sacred rock—sacred since the days of the Jebusites (and possibly since the stone age), to which it was fitted by masonry. The base of the altar was 32 cubits square and 1 high. On this rose a structure 30 cubits square and 5 cubits high. On this was a ledge 1 cubit broad, to which the horns of the altar were attached. Not far above was another ledge, also a cubit broad, on which the officiating priests might stand. Above this was the altar hearth itself, which was 24 cubits square. South of the altar was a structure of masonry on which priests could stand; north of it, the place for the slaughter of the victims. Here the victims to be slain were tied to rings in the pavement. There were tables of marble on which they could be washed and flayed. Beams supported by pillars also contained hooks on which they could be hung for quartering. Herod, as noted above,[293] probably constructed the Low Level Aqueduct. By means of this he brought a larger supply of water into the temple area, so that there was an abundance of water with which to flush the holy place, and wash away the blood and refuse with which the place must often have reeked, especially on festal days.

A low wall a cubit in height marked off the court of the priests from the court of Israel. Accounts differ as to whether this wall was on the east only or whether it ran around the whole temple. The court of Israel lay to the east of the court of the priests. Again our sources of information differ as to its exact size. Here the “congregation of Israel” could assemble to witness the sacred sacrifices. To the east of the court of Israel lay the court of the women. These were separated by a wall, but, owing to the downward slope of the hill, the court of the women was fifteen steps lower than that of Israel. Indeed, the level of the court of Israel was only maintained by a series of arches which supported a pavement. Perhaps the idea of a court for the women had been a gradual development of the post-exilic time, in which they had been permitted to watch the sacrifices from a definitely defined position in the rear of the men. At all events, this court became a prominent feature in the temple of Herod, and from elevated seats on its eastern side women could still watch the sacred ceremonies of the temple. With the exception of this gallery, the court of the women was open to men. It was 135 cubits square and so was relatively large. Apparently the temple treasury was situated in this court, together with the money boxes, for women had access to these. Here probably Christ was sitting when he saw the poor widow cast into the treasury her two mites (Mark 12:41, f.; Luke 21:1, f). Around these courts ran a wall 43 feet high. This wall was pierced by nine gates, four on the north, four on the south, and one on the east. A gate also separated the court of the women from the court of Israel. Either the gate that opened out of the court of the women to the eastward, or the one between the court of the women and the court of Israel (it is uncertain which one) had been given by one Nicanor and was of fine Corinthian bronze. It was sometimes called “the gate beautiful” and sometimes “Nicanor’s gate.” It was by this gate, and so near the treasury where people were devoting their money to religion, that Peter and John found the lame man begging (Acts 3:2, f.).

Outside all these courts lay the court of the Gentiles. This was separated from the courts described above by a Soreg or ritual wall, which no Gentile might pass. Herod placed inscriptions in Greek at the various gates in this ritual wall, which warned Gentiles on pain of death not to enter. The court of the Gentiles surrounded the other courts on the north, east, and south; it was, however, most extensive on the east and south; (Fig. 257). To obtain a greater area for this court on the south, Herod extended the level of the hill by erecting great arches which supported a pavement. This structure still remains; it is now called “Solomon’s stables”; (Fig. 258). In the Crusading period horses were stabled there. Around the court thus enlarged ran a beautiful colonnade. The pillars for this and for Herod’s palace were quarried from the rock around Jerusalem. One pillar which had a defect and was accordingly never moved from the quarry was found a few years since in front of the Russian cathedral north of the city.

Although the temple has passed away and other sacred buildings have since the second century been erected in succession near its site, the expanse of the court of the Gentiles remains, and as the devout Christian visits it he seems almost to hear the footfalls of Christ and of Paul!

18. The Pool of Bethesda.—Another spot connected with the life of Christ lay not far from the temple on the north; it was the Pool of Bethesda. It was situated near the Sheep Gate, which was just northeast of the temple. Since the thirteenth century the Birket Israin[294] which lies between the temple area and the modern St. Stephen’s Gate has been identified by some with Bethesda. Since 1889 it has been thought by many that two pools discovered in that year, now far under ground, in the land of the Church of St. Anne, just north of St. Stephen’s Gate, constituted the Pool of Bethesda; (see Fig. 259). It is really impossible to decide between the two possibilities on the evidence we have. Both are in the region where we should look for the Pool of Bethesda.

19. Gethsemane.—Two other spots near Jerusalem are of the deepest interest to the Christian student—the Garden of Gethsemane and Golgotha. The fact is certain that the Garden of Gethsemane lay on the western slope of the Mount of Olives. (See Luke 22:39; John 18:1; Mark 14:26, 32.) Since the sixteenth century the Roman Catholics have shown a little garden, which lies just above the Kidron, as the Garden of Gethsemane. More recently the Russian Church has walled in the space next above it as the real garden. There is no certainty that the garden was on either site. To the Jews of the first century a garden was not a place for flower-beds, but an olive orchard, and such an orchard may have extended widely over the hillside. We cannot now identify the spot made sacred by the Master’s agony, but we know as we look at this hillside that it was somewhere on it.

20. Calvary.—The site of Calvary or Golgotha is not so easily discerned. Since the year 326 A. D., when Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, visited Jerusalem, there has been a continuous tradition in favor of the site on which the Church of the Holy Sepulcher stands. We know from Hebrews 13:12 that the crucifixion took place outside the city walls. Unfortunately, we cannot tell whether the second wall of this period ran north or south of the spot on which the Church of the Holy Sepulcher stands, for the whole region lies under the modern city, where excavation has been impossible. If the second wall turned eastward before it had gone as far north as this spot, it may well be that the crucifixion occurred where the church now stands. Pilate condemned Jesus at the palace of Herod near the gate Gennath at the northwest corner of the city of that day. Doubtless the mob swept along with Jesus through the gate Gennath to the spot called Golgotha. If the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was on that spot, the walk was not a long one; (see Fig. 260).

In 1849 Otto Thenius suggested that the hill north of the modern Damascus Gate above “Jeremiah’s Grotto” was the real Golgotha; (Figs. 261, 262). This was also suggested by Fisher Howe in 1871, and advocated by Gen. C. E. Gordon in 1881. Near it is a garden in which is a rock-hewn tomb; (Figs. 263, 264). Since the days of Gordon a kind of Protestant tradition and cult has grown up about this spot that in certain quarters evokes some of the devotion called forth among Catholics and Oriental Christians by the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. It must be said that the tomb in the garden is, like many similar tombs in the neighborhood, probably not earlier than the third or fourth century A. D., and there is really no more reason for regarding this spot as Golgotha than any other hill-top near the city. The exact spot where our Lord suffered is not certainly known.

Ecclesiastical tradition has fixed upon many other spots in Jerusalem as the places where certain events in the life of Christ occurred, but none of these has a sufficient degree of probability in its favor to merit a mention in an archÆological work.

21. Agrippa I and the Third Wall.—In the reign of Herod Agrippa I (41-44 A. D.), Jerusalem was again enlarged. Agrippa built a third wall on the north. Its course is described by Josephus,[295] but as most of the landmarks mentioned by him are unknown, opinions differ as to its course. It is certain that it started at the tower Hippacus and went northward to the tower Psephinus, that it enclosed the hill Bezetha, and that it ran along the edge of the Kidron valley to join the old wall. Some scholars suppose that it ran about on the line of the present northern Turkish wall of the city; others, as Robinson and Merrill, thought it ran much further north so that its northeastern corner was near the “Tombs of the Kings.” While there is not decisive evidence in the matter, the first view, that the third wall ran near the line of the modern wall, seems the more probable. This wall was begun by Agrippa, who did not dare to finish it lest Claudius should suspect him of an intention to rebel. It was, however, completed by the Jews before the last tragic struggle of the years 66-70, and formed one of the features of Jerusalem when Paul made his later visits to the city.

We have not space to follow the fortunes of Jerusalem further. The history of the “Virgin Daughter of Zion” since 70 A. D., when the walls were broken down and the temple destroyed never to be rebuilt, has been no less checkered and tragic than in the centuries that preceded,[296] but the hearts of all Christians as well as of Jews and Mohammedans turn to her with sympathy and affection, because of their debt to the holy men who at various times, from David to Paul, lived in her and walked her streets, and because of her tragic associations with the life and death of One who was more than man.