previous next


JERUSALEM, Hierusalem, Ἱεροσόλυμα, Eth. Ἱεροσολυμίτης, the ancient capital of Palaestine, and the seat of the Hebrew kingdom.


The name by which this ancient capital is most commonly known was not its original appellation, but apparently compounded of two earlier names, [p. 2.17]attached, perhaps, to two neighbouring sites afterwards incorporated into one. The sacred narrative, by implication, and Josephus, explicitly, recognise from the first a distinction between the Upper and the Lower city, the memorial of which is supposed to be retained in the dual form of the Hebrew name HEBREW]. The learned are divided in opinion as to whether the Salem of Melchizedek is identical with Jerusalem. St. Jerome, who cites Josephus and a host of Christian authorities in favour of their identity, himself maintaining the opposite conclusion, says that extensive ruins of the palace of Melchizedek were shown in his day in the neighbourhood of Scythopolis, and makes the Salem of that patriarch identical with “Shalem, a city of Shechem” (Gen. 33.18); the same, no doubt, with the Salim near to Aenon (St. John, 3.23), where a village of the same name still exists in the mountains east of Nablûs. Certain, however, it is that Jerusalem is intended by this name in Psalm 76.2, and the almost universal agreement of Jews and Christians in its identity with the city of Melchizedek is still further confirmed by the religious character which seems to have attached to its governor at the time of the coming in of the children of Israel, when we find it under the rule of Adonizedek, the exact equivalent to Melchizedek ( “righteous Lord” ). Regarding, then, the latter half of the name as representing the ancient Salem, we have to inquire into the origin of the former half, concerning which there is considerable diversity of opinion. Josephus has been understood to derive it from the Greek word ἵερον, prefixed to Salem. In the obscure passage (Ant. 7.3.2) he is so understood by St. Jerome; but Isaac Vossius defends him from this imputation, which certainly would not raise his character as an etymologist. Lightfoot, after the Rabbies, and followed by Whiston, regards the former half of the name as an abbreviation of the latter part of the title Jehovah-jireh, which this place seems to have received on occasion of Abraham offering up his son on one of the mountains of “the land of Moriah.” (Gen. 22.8, 14.) Reland, followed by Raumer, adopts the root HEBREW yarash, and supposes the name to be compounded of HEBREW and HEBREW which would give a very good sense, “hereditas,” or “possessio hereditaria pacis.” Lastly, Dr. Wells, followed by Dr. Lee, regards the former part of the compound name as a modification of the name Jebus, HEBREW, one of the earlier names of the city, from which its Canaanitish inhabitants were designated Jebusites. Dr. Wells imagines that the HEBREW was changed into HEBREW, for the sake of euphony; Dr. Lee, for euphemy, as Jebusalem would mean “the trampling down of peace” --a name of ill omen. Of these various interpretations, it may be said that Lightfoot's appears to have the highest authority; but that Reland's is otherwise the most satisfactory. Its other Scripture name, Sion, is merely an extension of the name of one particular quarter of the city to the whole. There is a further question among critics as to whether by the city Cadytis, mentioned in Herodotus, Jerusalem is intended. It is twice alluded to by the historian: once as a city of the Syrians of Palaestine, not much smaller than Sardis (3.5); again, as having been taken by Pharoah Necho, king of Egypt, after his victory in Magdolum (2.159). The main objections urged against the identity of Cadytis and Jerusalem in these passages, are, that in the former passage Herodotus is apparently confining his survey to the sea-border of Palaestine, and that the fact narrated in the second is not alluded to in the sacred narrative. But, on the other hand, there is no mention in sacred or profane history of any other city, maritime or inland, that could at all answer to the description of Cadytis in respect to its size: and the capture of Jerusalem by Necho after the battle of Megiddo,--which is evidently corrupted by Herodotus into Magdolum, the name of a city on the frontier of Egypt towards Palaestine, with which he was more familiar,--though not expressly mentioned, is implied in Holy Scripture; for the deposition and deportation of Jehoahaz, and the substitution and subjugation of Jehoiakim, could not have been effected, unless Necho had held possession of the capital. (2 Kings, 24.29--35; comp. 2 Chron. 36.3.) It may, then, safely be concluded that Cadytis is Jerusalem; and it is remarkable that this earliest form of its classical name is nearly equivalent to the modern name by which alone it is now known to its native inhabitants. El-Khuds signifies “the Holy (city),” and this title appears to have been attached to it as early as the period of Isaiah (48.2, 52.1), and is of frequent recurrence after the Captivity. (Nehem. 11.1, 18; St. Matth. 4.5, 27.53.) Its pagan name Colonia Aelia Capitolina, like those imposed on many other ancient cities in Palaestine, never took any hold on the native population of the country, nor, indeed, on the classical historians or ecclesiastical writers. It probably existed only in state papers, and on coins, many of which are preserved to this day. (See the end of the article.)


Jerusalem was situated in the heart of the mountain district which commences at the south of the great plain of Esdraelon and is continued throughout the whole of Samaria and Judaea quite to the southern extremity of the Promised Land. It is almost equidistant from the Mediterranean and from the river Jordan, being about thirty miles from each, and situated at an elevation of 2000 feet above the level of the Mediterranean. Its site is well defined by its circumjacent valleys.


(1) In the north-west quarter of the city is a shallow depression, occupied by an ancient pool. This is the head of the Valley of Hinnom, which from this point takes a southern course, confining the city on the western side, until it makes a sharp angle to the east, and forms the southern boundary of the city to its south-east quarter, where it is met by another considerable valley from the north, which must next be described.

(2) At the distance of somewhat less than 1500 yards from the “upper pool” at the head of the Valley of Hinnom, are the “Tombs of the Kings,” situated at the head of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which runs at first in an eastern course at some distance north of the modern city, until, turning sharply to the south, it skirts the eastern side of the town, and meets the Valley of Hinnom at the south-east angle, as already described, from whence they run off together in a southerly direction to the Dead Sea. Through this valley the brook Kedron is supposed once to have run; and, although no water has been known to flow through the valley within the annals of history, it is unquestionably entitled to the alias of the Valley of the Kedron.

The space between the basin at the head of the Valley of Hinnom and the head of the Valley of [p. 2.18]Jehoshaphat is occupied by a high rocky ridge or swell of land, which attains its highest elevation a little without the north-west angle of the present town. The city, then, occupied the termination of this broad swell of land, being isolated, except on the north, by the two great valleys already described, towards which the ground declined rapidly from all parts of the city. This rocky promontory is, however, broken by one or two subordinate valleys, and the declivity is not uniform.

(3) There is, for example, another valley, very inferior in magnitude to those which encircle the city, but of great importance in a topographical view, as being the main geographical feature mentioned by Josephus in his description of the city. This valley of the Tyropoeon (cheese-makers) meets the Valley of Hinnom at the Pool of Siloam, very near its junction with the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and can be distinctly traced through the city, along the west side of the Temple enclosure, to the Damascus gate, where it opens into a small plain. The level of this valley, running as it does through the midst of a city that has undergone such constant vicissitudes and such repeated destruction, has of course been greatly raised by the desolations of so many generations, but is so marked a feature in modern as in former times, that it is singular it was not at once recognised in the attempt to re-distribute the ancient Jerusalem from the descriptions of Josephus. It would be out of place to enter into the arguments for this and other identifications in the topography of ancient Jerusalem; the conclusions only can be stated, and the various hypotheses must be sought in the works referred to at the end of the article.


Ancient Jerusalem, according to Josephus, occupied “two eminences, which fronted each other, and were divided by an intervening ravine, at the brink of which the closely-built houses terminated.” This ravine is the Tyropoeon, already referred to, and this division of the city, which the historian observes from the earliest period, is of the utmost importance in the topography of Jerusalem. The two hills and the intermediate valley are more minutely described as follows:-- “ (1) The Upper City.--Of these eminences, that which had upon it the Upper City was by much the loftier, and in its length the straiter. This eminence, then, for its strength, used to be called the stronghold by king David, .... but by us it was called the Upper Agora.

(2) The Lower City.--The other eminence, which was called Acra, and which supported the Lower City, was in shape gibbous (ἀμφίκυρτος).

(3) The Temple Mount.--Opposite to this latter was a third eminence, which was naturally lower than Acra, and was once separated from it by another broad ravine: but afterwards, in the times when the Asmonaeans reigned, they filled up the ravine, wishing to join the city to the Temple; and having levelled the summit of Acra, they made it lower, so that in this quarter also the Temple might be seen rising above other objects.

But the ravine called the Tyropoeon (cheese-makers), which we mentioned as dividing the eminences of the Upper City and the Lower, reaches to Siloam; for so we call the spring, both sweet and abundant. But on their outer sides the two eminences of the city were hemmed in within deep ravines, and, by reason of the precipices on either side, there was no approach to them from any quarter.

” (B. Jud. 5.4, 5.)

This, then, was the disposition of the ancient city, on which a few remarks must be made before we proceed to the new city. The two-fold division, which, as has been said, is recognised by Josephus from the first, is implied also in the sacred narrative, not only in the account of its capture by the Israelites, and subsequently by David, but in all such passages as mention the city of David or Mount Sion as distinct from Salem and Jerusalem. (Comp. Josh. 15.63; Judges, 1.8, 21; 2 Sam. 5.6--9; Psalms, 76.2, &c.) The account given by Josephus of the taking of the city is this: that “the Israelites, having besieged it, after a time took the Lower City, but the Upper City was hard to be taken by reason of the strength of its walls, and the nature of its position” (Ant. 5.2.2); and, subsequently, that “David laid siege to Jerusalem, and took the Lower City by assault, while the citadel still held out” (7.3.1). Having at length got possession of the Upper City also, “he encircled the two within one wall, so as to form one body” ( § 2). This could only be effected by taking in the interjacent valley, which is apparently the part called Millo.

(4) But when in process of time the city over-flowed its old boundaries, the hill Bezetha, or New City, was added to the ancient hills, as is thus described by Josephus:--“The city, being over-abundant in population, began gradually to creep beyond its old walls, and the people joining to the city the region which lay to the north of the temple and close to the hill (of Acra), advanced considerably, so that even a fourth eminence was surrounded with habitations, viz. that which is called Bezetha, situated opposite to the Antonia, and divided from it by a deep ditch; for the ground had been cut through on purpose, that the foundations of the Antonia might not, by joining the eminence, be easy of approach, and of inferior height.”

The Antonia, it is necessary here to add, in anticipation of a more detailed description, was a castle situated at the north-western angle of the outer enclosure of the Temple, occupying a precipitous rock 50 cubits high.

It is an interesting fact, and a convenient one to facilitate a description of the city, that the several parts of the ancient city are precisely coincident with the distinct quarters of modern Jerusalem: for that, 1st, the Armenian and Jewish quarters, with the remainder of Mount Sion, now excluded from the walls, composed the Upper City; 2dly, the Mahommedan quarter corresponds exactly with the Lower City; 3dly, that the Haram-es-Sherif, or Noble Sanctuary, of the Moslems, occupies the Temple Mount; and 4thly, that the Haret (quarter) Bab-el-Hitta is the declivity of the hill Bezetha, which attains its greatest elevation to the north of the modern city wall, but was entirely included within the wall of Agrippa, together with a considerable space to the north and west of the Lower City, including all the Christian quarter.

The several parts of the ancient city were enclosed by distinct walls, of which Josephus gives a minute description, which must be noticed in detail, as furnishing the fullest account we have of the city as it existed during the Roman period; a description which, as far as it relates to the Old city, will serve for the elucidation of the ante-Babylonish capital,--as it is clear, from the account of the rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah (iii., vi.), that the new fortifications followed the course of the ancient enceinte. [p. 2.19]


1. Upper City and Old Wall.

“Of the three walls, the old one was difficult to be taken, both on account of the ravines, and of the eminence above them on which it was situated. But, in addition to the advantage of the position, it was also strongly built, as David and Solomon, and the kings after them, were very zealous about the work. Beginning towards the north, from the tower called Hippicus, and passing through the place called Xystus, then joining the council chamber, it was united to the western cloister of the Temple. In the other direction, towards the west, commencing from the same place, and extending through a place called Bethso to the gate of the Essenes, and then turning towards the south above the fountain Siloam, thence again bending toward the east to the Pool of Solomon, and running through a place which they called Ophla, it was joined to the eastern cloister of the Temple.” To understand this description, it is only necessary to remark, that the walls are described, not by the direction in which they run, but by the quarter which they face; i. e. the wall “turning towards the south” is the south wall, and so with the others; so that the Hippic Tower evidently lay at the NW. angle of the Upper City; and, as the position of this tower is of the first importance in the description of the city walls, it is a fortunate circumstance that we are able to fix its exact site.

(1) The Hippic Tower is mentioned in connection with two neighbouring towers on the same north wall, all built by Herod the Great, and connected with his splendid palace that occupied the north-west angle of the Upper City. “These towers,” says the historian,

surpassed all in the world in extent, beauty, and strength, and were dedicated to the memory of his brother, his friend, and his best loved wife.

The Hippicus, named from his friend, was a square of 25 cubits, and thirty high, entirely solid. Above the part which was solid, and constructed with massive stones, was a reservoir for the rain-water, 20 cubits in depth; and above this a house of two stories, 25 cubits high, divided into different apartments; above which were battlements of 2 cubits, on a parapet of 3 cubits, making the whole height 80 cubits.

(2) The Tower Phasaelus, which was named from his brother, was 40 cubits square, and solid to the height of 40 cubits; but above it was erected a cloister 10 cubits high, fortified with breastworks and ramparts; in the middle of the cloister was carried up another tower, divided into costly chambers and a bath-room, so that the tower was in nothing inferior to a palace. Its summit was adorned with parapets and battlements, more than the preceding. It was in all 90 cubits high, and resembled the tower of Pharus near Alexandria, but was of much larger circumference.

(3) The Tower Mariamne was solid to the height of 30 cubits, and 20 cubits square; having above a richer and more exquisitely ornamented dwelling. Its entire height was 55 cubits.

Such in size were the three towers; but they looked much larger through the site which they occupied; for both the old wall itself, in the range of which they stood, was built upon a lofty eminence, and likewise a kind of crest of this eminence reared itself to the height of 30 cubits, on which the towers being situated received much additional elevation. The towers were constructed of white marble, in blocks of 20 cubits long, 10 wide, and 5 deep, so exactly joined together that each tower appeared to be one mass of rock.

Now, the modern citadel of Jerusalem occupies the NW. angle of Mount Sion, and its northern wall rises from a deep fosse, having towers at either angle, the bases of which are protected on the outside by massive masonry sloping upward from the fosse. The NW. tower, divided only by the trench from the Jaffa gate, is a square of 45 feet. Tile NE., commonly known as the Tower of David, is 70 feet 3 inches long, by 56 feet 4 inches broad. The sloping bulwark is 40 feet high from the bottom of the trench; but this is much choked up with rubbish. To the tower part there is no known or visible entrance, either from above or below, and no one knows of any room or space in it. The lower part of this platform is, indeed, the solid rock merely cut into shape, and faced with massive masonry, which rock rises to the height of 42 feet. This rock is doubtless the crest of the hill described by Josephus as 30 cubits or 45 feet high. Now, if the dimensions of Hippicus and Phasaelus, as already given, are compared with those of the modern towers on the north side of the citadel, we find that the dimensions of that at the NW. angle--three of whose sides are determined by the scarped rock on which it is based--so nearly agree with those of Hippicus, and the width of the NE. tower-also determined by the cut rock--so nearly with the square of Phasaelus, that there can be no difficulty in deciding upon their identity of position. Mariamne has entirely disappeared.

To these towers, situated on the north, was joined within--

(4) The Royal Palace, surpassing all powers of description. It was entirely surrounded by a wall 30 cubits high, with decorated towers at equal intervals, and contained enormous banquetting halls, besides numerous chambers richly adorned. There were also many porticoes encircling one another, with different columns to each, surrounding green courts, planted with a variety of trees, having long avenues through them; and deep channels and reservoirs everywhere around, filled with bronze statues, through which the water flowed; and many towers of tame pidgeons about the fountains.

This magnificent palace, unless the description is exaggerated beyond all licence, must have occupied a larger space than the present fortress, and most probably its gardens extended along the western edge of Mount Sion as far as the present garden of the Armenian Convent; and the decorated towers of this part of the wall, which was spared by the Romans when they levelled the remainder of the city, seem to have transmitted their name to modern times, as the west front of the city wall at this part is called Abroth Ghazzeh, i.e. The Towers of Gaza.

(5) As the Xystus is mentioned next to the Hippicus by Josephus, in his description of the north wall of the Upper City, it may be well to proceed at once to that; deferring the consideration of the Gate Gennath, which obviously occurred between the two, until we come to the Second Wall. The Xystus is properly a covered portico attached to the Greek, Gymnasium, which commonly had uncovered walks connected with it. (Dict. Ant. p. 580.) As the Jerusalem Xystus was a place where public meetings were occasionally convened (Bell. Jud. 2.6.3), it must be understood to be a wide public [p. 2.20]promenade, though not necessarily connected with a gymnasium, but perhaps rather with another palace which occupied “this extremity of the Upper City;” for the name was given also to a terraced walk with colonnades attached to Roman villas. (Vitr. 5.11 .)

(6) The House of the Asmonaeans was above the Xystus, and was apparently occupied as a palace by the Younger Agrippa; for, when he addressed the multitude assembled in the Xystus, he placed his sister Berenice in the house of the Asmonaeans, that she might be visible to them. (B. J. l.c.

(7) The Causeway. At the Xystus we are told a causeway (γέφυρα) joined the Temple to the Upper City, and one of the Temple gates opened on to this causeway. That the γέφυρα, was a causeway and not a bridge, is evident from the expression of Josephus in another passage, where he says that the valley was interrupted or filled up, for the passage (τῆς φάραγγος εἰς δίοδον ἀπειλημμένης, Ant. 15.11.5.). As the Tyropoeon divided the Upper from the Lower City, and the Temple Mount was attached to the Lower, it is obvious that the Tyropoeon is the valley here mentioned. This earth-wall or embankment, was the work of Solomon, and is the only monument of that great king in Jerusalem that can be certainly said to have escaped the ravages of time; for it exists to the present day, serving the same purpose to the Mahometans as formerly to the Jews: the approach to the Mosk enclosure from the Bazaars passes over this causeway, which is therefore the most frequented thorough-fare in the city. (Williams, Holy City, vol. ii. pp. 392--397, and note, pp. 601--607.)

It is highly probable that the Xystus was nothing else than the wide promenade over this mound, adorned with a covered cloister between the trees, with which the Rabbinical traditions assure us that Solomon's causeway was shaded. It is clear that the north wall of the Upper City must have crossed the valley by this causeway to the Gate Shallecheth, which is explained to mean the Gate of the Embankment. (1 Chron. 26.16.)

(8) The Council-Chamber (Βουλή, Βουλευτήριον, is the next place mentioned on the northern line of wall, as the point where it joined the western portico of the Temple. And it is remarkable that the corresponding office in the modern town occupies the same site; the Mehkemeh, or Council-Chamber of the Judicial Divan, being now found immediately outside the Gate of the Chain, at the end of the causeway, corresponding in position to the Shallecheth of the Scriptures.

We have now to trace the wall of the Upper City in the opposite direction from the same point, viz. the Hippic Tower at the NW. angle. The points noticed are comparatively few. “It first ran south-ward (i. e. with a western aspect), through a place called Bethso, to the Gate of the Essenes; then, turning E., it ran (with a southern aspect) above the fountain of Siloam; thence it bent northward, and ran (with an eastern aspect) to the Pool of Solomon, and extending as far as a place called Ophla, was joined to the eastern cloister of the Temple.”

ii. On the West Front neither of the names which occur are found again in the notices of the city: but Bethso may safely be assigned to the site of the garden of the Armenian Convent, and the Gate of the Essenes may be fixed to a spot not very far from the SW. corner of the modern city, a little to the W. of the Tomb of David, near which a remarkable ridge seems still to indicate the foundations of the ancient city wall.

iii. Along the south face of the Upper City the old wall may still be traced, partly by scarped rock and partly by foundations of the ancient wall, which have served as a quarry for the repairs of the neighbounring buildings for many ages. Its course from this point to the Temple is very difficult to determine, as the steep declivity to the Tyropoeon would make it extremely inconvenient to carry the wall in a straight line, while, on the contrary, the absence of all notice of any deviation from a direct line in a description in which the angles are uniformly noted, would seem to imply that there was no such deflection in its course. As it is clear, however, that the Upper City was entirely encompassed with a wall of its own, nowhere noticed by Josephus, except so far as it was coincident with, the outer wall, it may be safely conjectured that this east wall of the Upper City followed the brow of the ridge from the south-east angle of the Hill Sion, along a line nearly coincident with the aqueduct; while the main wall continued its easterly course down the steep slope of Sion, across the valley of the Tyropoeon, not far from its mouth,--a little above the Pool of Siloam,--and then up the ridge Ophel, until it reached the brow of the eastern valley. It may serve to countenance this theory to observe, that in the account of this wall in Nehemiah there is mention of “the stairs that go down from the city of David,” by which stairs also the procession went up when encompassing the city wall. (3.15, 12.37.)

iv. The further course of the old wall to the eastern cloister of the Temple is equally obscure, as the several points specified in the description are not capable of identification by any other notices. These are the Pool of Solomon and a place called Ophla, in the description already cited, to which may be added, from an incidental notice, the Basilica of Grapte or Monobazus. (B. J. 5.8.1.)

The Pool of Solomon has been sometimes identified with the Fountain of the Virgin, from which the Pool of Siloam is supplied, and sometimes with that very pool. Both solutions are unsatis-factory, for Siloam would scarcely be mentioned a second time in the same passage under another name, and the fountain in question cannot, with any propriety, be called a pool.

The place called Ophla--in Scripture Ophel--is commonly supposed to be the southern spur of the Temple Mount, a narrow rocky ridge extending down to Siloam. But it is more certain that it is used in a restricted sense in this passage, than that it is ever extended to the whole ridge. (See Holy City, vol. ii. p. 365, note 7.) It was apparently a large fortified building, to the south of the Temple, connected with an outlying tower (Nehem. 3.27, 28), and probably situated near the southern extremity of the present area of the Mosk of Omar. And the massive angle of ancient masonry at the SE. corner of the enclosure, “impending over the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which here actually bends south-west round the corner, having a depth of about 130 feet,” may possibly have belonged to the “outlying tower,” as it presents that appearance within (H. C. vol. ii. pp. 311, 317). It is clear, in any case, that the wall under consideration must have joined the eastern cloister of the Temple somewhere to the north of this angle, as the bend in the valley indicated by Dr. Robinson would have precluded the possibility of a junction at this angle. [p. 2.21]

2. The Second Wall, and the Lower City.

“The account of the second wall in Josephus, is very meagre. He merely says that it began at the Gate Gennath, a place in the old wall; and, after encompassing the Lower City, had its termination at the Fortress Antonia.”

There is here no clue to the position of the Gate Gennath. It is, however, quite certain that it was between the Hippic Tower and the Xystus: and the north-west angle of the Upper City was occupied by the extensive palace of Herod the Great, and its imposing towers stood on the north front of this old wall, where a rocky crest rose to the height of 30 cubits, which would of course preclude the possibility of an exit from the city for some distance to the east of the tower. Other incidental notices make it clear that there was a considerable space between the third and the second wall at their southern quarter, comparatively free from buildings, and, consequently, a considerable part of the north wall of the Upper City unprotected by the second wall :--e. g. Cestius, having taken the outer wall, encamped within the New City, in front of the Royal Palace (B. J. 2.19.5); Titus attacked the outer wall in its southern part, “both because it was lower there than elsewhere, inasmuch as this part of the New City was thinly inhabited, and afforded an easy passage to the third (or inmost) wall, through which Titus had hoped to take the Upper City” (5.6.2). “Accordingly, when the legions had carried the outer and the second wall, a bank was raised against the northern wall of Sion at a pool called Amygdalon, and another about thirty cubits from it, at the highpriest's monument.” The Almond Pool is no doubt identical with the tank that still exists at no great distance from the modern fortress; and the monument must, therefore, have been some 50 feet to the east of this, also in the angle formed by the north wall of the Upper City and the southern part of the second wall.

There is the head of an old archway still existing above a heap of ruins, at a point about half way between the Hippic Tower and the north-west angle of Mount Sion, where a slight depression in that hill brings it nearly to a level with the declivity to the north. This would afford a good startingpoint for the second wall, traces of which may still be discovered in a line north of this, quite to the Damascus gate where are two chambers of ancient and very massive masonry, which appear to have flanked an old gate of the second wall at its weakest part, where it crossed the valley of the Tyropoeon. From this gate, the second wall probably followed the line of the present city wall to a point near the Gate of Herod, now blocked up; whence it was carried along the brow of the hill to the north-east angle of the fortress Antonia, which occupied a considerable space on the north-west of the Temple area, in connection with which it will be described below.

3. The Third Wall, and the New City.

The third wall, which enclosed a very considerable space to the north of the old city, was the work of Herod Agrippa the Elder, and was only commenced about thirty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and never completed according to the original design, in consequence of the jealousy of the Roman government. The following is Josephus's account:--“This third wall Agrippa drew round the superadded city, which was all exposed. It commenced at the Tower Hippicus, from whence it extended to the northern quarter, as far as the Tower Psephinus; then, passing opposite to the Monuments of Helena, and being produced through the Royal Caves, it bent, at the angular tower, by the monument called the Fuller's, and, joining the old wall, terminated at the valley of the Kedron.” It was commenced with stones 20 cubits long and 10 wide, and was raised by the Jews to the height of 25 cubits, with the battlements.

(1) As the site of the Hippic Tower has been already fixed, the first point to be noticed in this third wall is the Psephine Tower, which, Josephus informs us, was the most wonderful part of this great work, situated at its north-west quarter, over against Hippicus, octagonal in form, 70 cubits in height, commanding a view of Arabia towards the east, of the Mediterranean towards the west, and of the utmost limits of the Hebrew possessions. The site of this tower is still marked, by its massive foundations, at the spot indicated in the plan; and considerable remains of the wall that connected it with the Hippic Tower are to be traced along the brow of the ridge that shuts in the upper part of the valley of Hinnom, and almost in a line with the modern wall. At the highest point of that ridge the octagonal ground-plan of the tower may be seen, and a large cistern in the midst of the ruins further confirms their identity, as we are informed that the towers were furnished with reservoirs for the rain water.

(2) The next point mentioned is the Monuments of Helena, which, we are elsewhere told, were three pyramids, situated at a distance of 3 stadia from the city. (Ant. 20.3.3.) About a century later (A.D. 174) Pausanias speaks of the tomb of Helena, in the city of Solyma, as having a door so constructed as to open by mechanical contrivance, at a certain hour, one day in the year. Being thus opened, it closes again of itself after a short interval; and, should you attempt to open it at another time, you would break the door before you could succeed. (Paus. 8.16.) The pyramids are next mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 2.12), as remarkable monumental pillars still shown in the suburbs of Jerusalem; and St. Jerome, a century later, testified that they still stood. (Epist. ad Eustochium Op. tom. iv. pars ii. p. 673.) The latest notice is that of an Armenian writer in the 5th century, who describes the tomb as a remarkable monument before the gates of Jerusalem. (Hist. Armen. lib. ii. cap. 32.) Notwithstanding these repeated notices of the sepulchral monuments of the queen of Adiabene, it is not now possible to fix their position with any degree of certainty, some archaeologists assigning them to the Tombs of the Kings (Robinson, Bib. Res. vol. i. pp. 465, 535--538), others to the Tombs of the Martyrs, about 3/4 of a mile to the west of the former. (Schultz, Jerusalem, pp. 63--67; Do Saulcy, tom. ii. pp. 326, 327.) A point halfway between these two monuments would seem to answer better to the incidental notices of the monuments, and they may with great probability be fixed to a rocky court on the right of the road to Nebi Samwil, where there are several excavated tombs. Opposite the Monuments of Helena was the Gate of the Women in the third wall, which is mentioned more than once, and must have been between the Nablus road and the Psephine Tower.

(3) The Royal Caves is the next point mentioned on the third wall. They are, doubtless, identical with the remarkable and extensive excavations still called the Tombs of the Kings, most probably [p. 2.22]the same which are elsewhere called the Monument of Herod, and, from the character of their decorations, may very well be ascribed to the Herodian period. M. de Saulcy has lately added to our previous information concerning them, and, by a kind of exhausting process, he endeavours to prove that they could have been no other than the tombs of David and the early kings of Judah, which have always hitherto been placed on Mount Sion, where the traditionary site is still guarded by the Moslems. (Voyage en Syrie, tom. ii. pp. 228--281.)

(4) The Fuller's monument is the last-mentioned point on the new wall, and, as an angular tower occupied this site, the monument must have been at the north-east angle of the New City; probably one of the many rock graves cut in the perpendicular face of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, near one of which Dr. Schultz has described the foundations of a tower. (Jerusalem, pp. 38, 64.) The Monument of the Fuller probably gave its name to the Fuller's field, which is mentioned by the prophet Isaiah as the spot near which the Assyrian army under Rabshakeh encamped (36.2, 7.3); and the traditionary site of the camp of the Assyrians, which we shall find mentioned by Josephus, in his account of the siege, was certainly situated in this quarter. From this north-east angle the third wall followed the brow of the Valley of Jehoshaphat until it reached the wall of the Outer Temple at its north-east angle.

Having thus completed the circuit of the walls, as described by Josephus, and endeavoured to fix, the various points mentioned in his description (which furnishes the most numerous topographical notices now extant of ancient Jerusalem), we shall be in a condition to understand the most important historical facts of its interesting and chequered history, when we have further taken a brief survey of the Temple. But, first, a singular and perplexing discrepancy must be noticed between the general and the detailed statements of the historian, as to the extent of the ancient city; for, while he states the circuit of the entire city to be no more than 33 stadia, or 4 Roman miles plus 1 stadium, the specification of the measure of the wall of Agrippa alone gives, on the lowest computation, an excess of 12 stadia, or 1 1/2 mile, over that of the entire city!--for it had 90 towers, 20 cubits wide, at intervals of 200 cubits. No satisfactory solution of this difficulty has yet been discovered.


The Temple Mount, called in Scripture the Mlountain of the Lord's House, and Moriah (2 Chron. 3.1), is situated at the south-east of the city, and is easily identified with the site of the Dome of the Mosk in modern Jerusalem. It was originally a third hill of the Old City, over against Aera, but separated from it by a broad ravine, which, however, was filled up by the Asmonaean princes, so that these two hills became one, and are generally so reckoned by the historian. (B. J. 5.4.)

1. The Outer Court.

The Temple, in the widest signification of the word (τὸ ἱερόν), consisted of two courts, one within the other, though the inner one is sometimes subdivided, and distributed into four other courts. The area of the Outer Court was in great part artificial, for the natural level space on the summit of the mount being found too confined for the Temple, with its surrounding chambers, courts, and cloisters, was gradually increased by mechanical expedients. This extension was commenced by Solomon, who raised from the depth of the eastern valley a wall of enormous stones, bound together with lead, within which he raised a bank of earth to a level with the native rock. On this was erected a cloister, which, with its successors, always retained the name of “Solomon's Porch.” (στοὰ Σολομῶνος, St. John, 10.23; Acts, 3.11, 5.12.) This process of enlarging the court by artificial embankments was continued by successive kings; but particularly by Herod the Great, who, when lie reconstructed the Temple Proper (ναός), enlarged the Outer Court to double its former size, and adorned it with stately cloisters. (Ant. 15.11.5.) Of these, the Royal Porch, on the south, was the most remarkable of all his magnificent works. It consisted of four rows of Corinthian columns, distributed into a central nave and lateral aisles; the aisles being 30 feet in width and 50 in height, and the nave half as wide again as the aisles, and double their height, rising into a clerestory of unusually large proportions. The other cloisters were double, and their total width only 30 cubits. To this Outer Court there were four gates on the west, towards the city, and one on each of the other sides; of Which that on the east is still remaining, commonly called the Golden Gate.

2. The Inner Court.

The Inner Temple (ἱερόν) was separated from the Outer by a stone wall (φραγμός, see Ephes. 2.14) 3 cubits in height, on which stood pillars at equal distances, with inscriptions, in Greek and Latin, prohibiting aliens from access. To this court there was an ascent of fourteen steps, then a level space of 10 cubits, and then a further ascent of five steps to the gates, of which there were four on the north and south sides, and two on the east, but none on the west, where stood the Sanctuary (ναός).

The place of the Altar, in front of the ναός, is determined with the utmost precision by the existence in the Sacred Rock of the Moslems, under their venerated dome, of the very cesspool and drain of the Jewish altar, which furnishes a key to the restoration of the whole Temple, the dimensions of which, in all its parts, are given in minute detail in the treatise called Middoth (i. e. measures), one of the very ancient documents contained in the Mishna. The drain communicating with this cesspool, through which the blood ran off into the Kedron, was at the south-west angle of the Altar; and there was a trap connected with this cave, 1 cubit square (commonly closed with a marble slab), through which a man occasionally descended to cleanse it and to clear obstructions. Both the drain and the trap are to be seen in the rock at this day.

The Altar was 32 cubits square at its base, but gradually contracted, so that its hearth was only 24 cubits square. It was 15 cubits high, and had an ascent by an inclined plane on the south side, 32 cubits long and 16 wide.

Between the Altar and the porch of the Temple was a space of 22 cubits, rising in a gentle ascent by steps to the vestibule, the door of which was 40 cubits high and 20 wide. The total length of the Holy House itself was only 100 cubits, and this was subdivided into three parts: the Pronaus 11, the Sanctuary 40, the Holy of Holies 20, allowing 29 cubits for the partition walls and a small chamber behind (i. e. west of) the Most Holy place. The total width of the building was 70 cubits; of which the Sanctuary only occupied 20, the remainder being distributed into side chambers, in three stories, assigned [p. 2.23]to various uses. The Pronaus was, however, 30 cubits wider, 15 on the north, and 15 on the south, giving it a total length of 100 cubits, which, with a width of only 11 cubits, must have presented the proportions of a Narthex in a Byzantine church. Its interior height was 90 cubits, and, while the chambers on the sides of the Temple rose only to the height of 60 cubits, there was an additional story of 40 cubits above the Sanctuary, also occupied by chambers, rising into a clerestory of the same elevation as the vestibule.

The front of the Temple was plated with gold, and reflected back the beams of the rising sun with dazzling effect; and, where it was not encrusted with gold, it was exceedingly white. Some of the stones of which it was constructed were 45 cubits long, 5 deep, and 6 wide.

East of the Altar was the Court of the Priests, 135 cubits long and 11 wide; and, east of that again, was the Court of Israel, of the same dimensions. East of this was the Court of the Women, 135 cubits square, considerably below the level of the former, to which there was an ascent of 15 semicircular steps to the magnificent gates of Corinthian brass, 50 cubits in height, with doors of 40 cubits, so ponderous that they could with difficulty be shut by 20 men, the spontaneous opening of which was one of the portents of the approaching destruction of the Temple, mentioned by Josephus (Bell. Jud. 6.5.3), and repeated by Tacitus (Tac. Hist. 5.13).

Thus much must suffice for this most venerated seat of the Hebrew worship from the age of Solomon until the final destruction of the Jewish polity. But, in order to complete the survey, it will be necessary to notice the Acropolis, which occupied the northwest angle of the Temple enclosure, and which was, says the historian, the fortress of the Temple, as the Temple was of the city. Its original name was Baris, until Herod the Great, having greatly enlarged and beautified it, changed its name to Antonia, in honour of his friend Mark Antony. It combined the strength of a castle with the magnificence of a palace, and was like a city in extent,--comprehending within its walls not only spacious apartments, but courts and camping ground for soldiers. It was situated on an elevated rock, which was faced with slabs of smooth stone, upon which was raised a breastwork of 3 cubits high, within which was the building, rising to a height of 40 cubits. It had turrets at its four corners, three of them 50 cubits high, but that at the south-east angle was 70 cubits, and commanded a view of the whole Temple. It communicated with the northern and western cloisters of the Temple at the angle of the area, by flights of steps for the convenience of the garrison which usually occupied this commanding position ; and it is a remarkable and interesting coincidence, that the site of the official residence of the Roman procurator and his guard is now occupied by the Seraiyah, or official residence of the Turkish Pasha and his guard: for there can be no question of the identity of the site, since the native rock here, as at Hippicus, still remains to attest the fidelity of the Jewish historian. The rock is here “cut perpendicularly to an extent of 20 feet in some parts; while within the area also, in the direction of the Mosk, a considerable portion of the rock has been cut away” to the general level of the enclosure (Bartlett, Walks about Jerusalem, pp. 156, 174, 175); so that the Seraiyah, or government house, actually “rests upon a precipice of rock which formerly swept down abruptly, and has obviously been cut away to form the level below, which also bears marks of having been scarped.”

The fortress was protected towards Bezetha by an artificial fosse, so as to prevent its foundations from being assailed from that quarter. This fosse has only lately been filled in.

It is certain, from several passages, that the fortress Antonia did not cover the whole of the northern front of the Temple area; and, as the second wall, that encircled the Lower City, ended at the fortress, it is clear that this wall could not have coincided with the modern wall at the north-east quarter of the modern city. It is demonstrable, from several allusions and historical notices, that there must have been a considerable space between the second and third wall on the northern front of the Temple area. (Williams, Holy City, vol. ii. pp. 348--353.)


The ancient history of Jerusalem may be conveniently divided into four periods.
  • 1. The Canaanitish, or Amorite.
  • 2. The Hebrew, or Ante-Babylonian.
  • 3. The Jewish, or Post-Babylonian.
  • 4. The Roman, or classical.

1. The Canaanitish, or Amorite Period.

Of these, the first may claim the fullest notice here, as the sources of information concerning it are much less generally known or read than those of the later periods, and anything that relates to the remote history of that venerable city cannot but be full of interest to the antiquarian, no less than to the Christian student.

It has been said that the learned are divided in opinion as to the identity of the Salem of Melchizedek with the Jerusalem of Sacred History. The writer of a very learned and interesting Review of the Second Edition of the Holy City, which appeared in the Christian Remembrancer (vol. xviii. October, 1849), may be said to have demonstrated that identity by a close critical analysis of all the passages in which the circumstances are alluded to; and has further shown it to be highly probable that this patriarch was identical, not with Shem, as has been sometimes supposed, but with Heber, the son of Peleg, from whom the land of Canaan had obtained the name of the “land of the Hebrews” or Heberites as early as the days of Joseph's deportation to Egypt. (Gen. 40.15.)

But the elucidation which the early history of Jerusalem receives from the monuments of Egypt is extremely important and valuable, as relating to a period which is passed over in silence by the sacred historian; and these notices are well collected and arranged in the review referred to, being borrowed from Mr. Osburn's very interesting work entitled Egypt, her Testimony to the Truth. After citing some monuments of Sethos, and Sesostris his son, relating to the Jebusites, the writer proceeds:--“What glimpses, then, do we obtain, if any, of the existence of such a city as Jerusalem during the recorded period? Under that name, of course, we must not expect to find it; since even in the days of Joshua and the Judges it is so called by anticipation. (Holy City, vol. i. p. 3, note.) But there is a city which stands forth with a very marked and peculiar prominence in these wars of the kings of Egypt with the Jebusites, Amorites, and neighbouring nations. We meet with it first as a fortress of the Amorites. Sethos II. is engaged in besieging it. It is situated on a hill, and strengthened with two tiers of ramparts. The inscription sets forth that it is in the [p. 2.24]land of Amor, or the Amorite; and that the conqueror ‘had made bare his right arm to overcome the chiefs of many walled cities.’ This implies that the fort in question, the name of which is inscribed upon it, was the chief stronghold of the nation. That name, when translated from the hieroglyphics into Coptic, and thence into Hebrew, is Chadash. The next notice of Chadash belongs to the reign of Sesostris, and connects it with the Jebusite nation. The Ammonites had laid siege to the city, and a joint embassy of the Jebusites and Hittites, who were then tributary to Sesostris, entreat him to come to their aid. The Egyptians having accordingly sailed over the Dead Sea, met with another embassy, from the Zuzims, which gave further particulars of the siege. The enemy had seized on the fortified camps erected by the Egyptians to secure their hold over the country, and spread terror to the very walls of Chadash. A great battle is fought on a mountain to the south of the city of Chadash. The inscription further describes Chadash as being in the land of Heth. What, then, do we gather from these combined notices? Plainly this, that Chadash was a city of the first importance, both in a military and civil point of view; the centre of interest to three or four of the most powerful of the Canaanitish nations; in a word, their metropolis. We find it moreover placed, by one inscription, in the territory of the Amorites, by another in that of the Hittites, while it is obviously inhabited, at the same time, by the Jebusites. Now, omitting for the present the consideration of the Hittites, this is the exact character and condition in which Jerusalem appears in Scripture at the time of Joshua's invasion. Its metropolitan character is evinced by the lead which Adoni-zedek, its king, takes in the confederacy of the Five Kings; its strength as a fortress, by the fact that it was not then even attempted by Joshua, nor ever taken for 400 years after. And while, as the royal city of Adoni-zedek, it is reckoned among the Amorite possessions, it is no less distinctly called Jebus (Josh. 15.8, 18.28; Judg. 1.21, 19.10) down to the days of David; the truth being, apparently, that the Amrorite power having been extinguished in the person of Adoni-zedek, the Jebusite thenceforth obtained the ascendency in the city which the two nations inhabited in ‘common. Nor is there any difficulty in accounting, from Scripture, for the share assigned by the monuments to the Hittites in the possession of the city; for, as Mr. Osburn has observed, the tribes of the Amorites and Hittites appear, from Scripture, to have bordered upon each other. The city was probably, therefore, situated at a point where the possessions of the three tribes met. Can we, then, hesitate to identify the Chadash of the hieroglyphics with the Κάδυτις of Herodotus, the El-Kuds of the Arabs, the Kadatha of the Syrians, the ’ Holy ‘ ’ City? The only shadow of an objection that appears to lie against it is, that, strictly speaking, the name should be not Chadash, but Kadash. But when it is considered that the name is a translation out of Canaanitish into hieroglyphics, thence into Coptic, and thence again into Hebrew, and that the difference between HEBREW and HEBREW is, after all, but small, it is not too much to suppose that Kadesh is what is really intended to be represented. That Jerusalem should be known to the Canaanites by such a name as this, denoting it ‘ the Holy,’ will not seem unreasonable, if we bear in mind what has been noticed above with reference to the title Adonizedek; and the fact forms an interesting link, connecting the Arabian and Syrian name for the city with its earlier nomenclature, and confirming the identity of Herodotus's Cadytis with Jerusalem. Mr. Osburn has only very doubtingly propounded (p. 66, note) the view we have undertaken to defend. He inclines to identify Chadash with the Hadashah, or Addasa, enumerated among the southernmost cities towards the border of Edom, given to Judah (Josh. 15.21) from among the Amorites' possessions. But it seems incredible that we should never hear again, in the history of Joshua's conquest, of so important a city as Chadash evidently was: besides, Hadashah seems to lie too far south. We presume Mr. Osburn will not be otherwise than pleased to find the more interesting view supported by any arguments which had not occurred to him. And we have reserved one which we think Aristotle himself would allow to be of the nature of a τεκμήριον or ‘clinching argument.’ It is a geographical one. The paintings represent Chadash as surrounded by a river or brook on three sides; and this river or brook runs into the Dead Sea, toward the northern part of it. Surely, nothing could more accurately describe the very remarkable conformation of Jerusalem; its environment on the east, south, and west, by the waters of the valleys of Jehoshaphat and Hinnom, and their united course, after their junction, through the Wady En-Nâr into the north-west part of the Dead Sea. And there are some difficulties or peculiarities in the Scripture narrative respecting Jerusalem, which the monuments, thus interpreted, will be found to explain or illustrate. We have already alluded to its being in one place spoken of as an Amorite city, in another as the chief seat of the Jebusites. The LXX. were so pressed with this difficulty, that they adopted the rendering ‘ Jebusite’ for ‘ Amorite’ in the passage which makes Adoni-zedek an Amorite king. (Josh. 10.5.) The hieroglyphics clear up the difficulty, and render the change of reading unnecessary. Again, there is a well-known ambiguity as to whether Jerusalem was situated in the tribe of Judah or Benjamin; and the view commonly acquiesced in is, that, being in the borders of the two tribes, it was considered common to both. Pernaps the right of possession, or the apportionment, was never fully settled; though the Rabbies draw you the exact line through the very court of the Temple. But how, it may be asked, came such an element of confusion to be introduced into the original distribution of the Holy Land among the tribes? The answer seems to be, that territory was, for convenience‘ sake, assigned, in some measure, according to existing divisions: thus, the Amorite and Hittite possessions, as a whole, fell to Judah; the Jebusite to Benjamin; and then all the uncertainty resulting from that joint occupancy of the city by the three nations, which is testified to by the monuments, was necessarily introduced into the rival claims of the two tribes.” (Christian Remembrancer, vol. xviii. pp. 457--459.)

The importance of the powerful Jebusite tribe, who are represented as having “more than one city or stronghold near the Dead Sea, and are engaged in a succession of wars with the kings of Egypt in the neighbourhood of its shores;” whose rich garments of Babylonish texture,--depicted in the hieroglyphics,--and musical instruments, and warlike accoutrements, testify to a higher degree of culture and civilisation than was found among the neighbouring tribes, with many of whom they were on terms of offensive and defensive alliance:--all this [p. 2.25]accounts for the firm hold with which they maintained their possession of their stronghold, the capital of their tribe, for upwards of five centuries after the coming in of the children of Israel under Joshua (cir. B.C. 1585); during which period, according to Josephus, they held uninterrupted and exclusive possession of the Upper City, while the Israelites (whether of the tribe of Judah or of Benjamin is uncertain) seem only to have occupied the Lower City for a time, and then to have been expelled by the garrison of the Upper City. (J. AJ 5.2. §§ 2, 5, 7; comp. Judges, 1.8, 21, 19.10--12.)

2. The Hebrew, or Ante-Babylonian Period.

It was not until after David, having reigned seven years in Hebron, came into undisputed possession of the kingdom of Israel, that Jerusalem was finally subjugated (cir. B.C. 1049) and the Jebusite garrison expelled. It was then promoted to the dignity of the capital of his kingdom, and the Upper and Lower City were united and encircled by one wall. (1 Chron. 11.8; comp. J. AJ 7.3.2.)

Under his son Solomon it became also the ecclesiastical head of the nation, and the Ark of the Covenant, and the Tabernacle of the Congregation, after having been long dissevered, met on the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, on Mount Moriah. (1 Chron. 21.15; 2 Chron. 3.1.) Besides erecting the Temple, king Solomon further adorned the city with palaces and public buildings. (1 Kings, 6.8.1--8.) The notices of the city from this period are very scanty. Threatened by Shishak, king of Egypt (B.C. 972), and again by the Arabians under Zerah (cir. 950), it was sacked by the combined Philistines and Arabs during the disastrous reign of Jehoram (884), and subsequently by the Israelites, after their victory over Amaziah at Bethshemesh (cir. B.C. 808). In the invasion of the confederate armies of Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Syria, during the reign of Ahaz, the capital barely escaped (cir. 730; comp. Isaiah, 7.1--9, and 2 Kings, 16.5, with 2 Chron. 28.5); as it did in a still more remarkable manner in the following reign, when invested twice, as it would seem, by the generals of Sennacherib, king of Assyria (B.C. 713). The deportation of Manasseh to Babylon would seem to intimate that the city was captured by the Chaldeans as early as 650; but the fact is not recorded expressly in the sacred narrative. (2 Chron. xxxiii.) From this period its disasters thickened apace. After the battle of Megiddo it was taken by Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt (B.C. 609), who held it only about two years, when it passed, together with the whole country under the sway of the Chaldeans, and Jehoiakim and some of the princes of the blood royal were carried to Babylon, with part of the sacred vessels of the Temple. A futile attempt on the part of Jehoiakim to regain his independence after his restoration, resulted in his death; and his son had only been seated on his tottering throne three months when Nebuchadnezzar again besieged and took the city (598), and the king, with the royal family and principal officers of state, were carried to Babylon, Zedekiah having been appointed by the conqueror to the nominal dignity of king. Having held it nearly ten years, he revolted, when the city was a third time besieged by Nebuchadnezzar (B.C. 587). The Temple and all the buildings of Jerusalem were destroyed by fire, and its walls completely demolished.

3. The Jewish, or Post-Babylonian Period.

As the entire desolation of the city does not appear to have continued more than fifty years, the “seventy years” must date from the first deportation; and its restoration was a gradual work, as the desolation had been. The first commission issued in favour of the Jews in the first year of Cyrus (B.C. 538) contemplated only the restoration of the Temple, which was protracted, in consequence of numerous vexatious interruptions, for 120 years,--i. e. until the eighth year of Darius Nothus (B.C. 418). According to the most probable chronology it was his successor, Artaxerxes Mnemon, who issued the second commission to Ezra, in the seventh year of his reign, and a third to Nehemiah in his twentieth year (B.C. 385). It was only in virtue of the edict with which he was intrusted, backed by the authority with which he was armed as the civil governor of Palaestine, that the restoration of the city was completed; and it has been before remarked that the account of the rebuilding of the walls clearly intimates that the limits of the restored city were identical with that of the preceding period: but the topographical notices are not sufficiently clear to enable us to determine with any degree of accuracy or certainty the exact line of the walls. (See the attempts of Schultz, pp. 82--91; and Williams, Memoir, 111--121.) Only fifty years after its restoration Jerusalem passed into the power of a new master (B.C. 332), when, according to Josephus, the conqueror visited Jerusalem, after the subjugation of Gaza, and accorded to its inhabitants several important privileges (Josephus, J. AJ 11.8). On the death of Alexander, and the division of his conquests among his generals, it was the ill-fortune of Judaea to become the frontier province of the rival kingdoms of Egypt and Syria; and it was consequently seldom free from the miseries of war. Ptolemy Soter was the first to seize it,--by treachery, according to Josephus (B.C. 305), who adds that he ruled over it with violence. (Ant. 12.1.) But the distinctions which he conferred upon such of its inhabitants as he carried into Egypt, and the privileges which he granted to their high priest, Simon the son of Onias, do not bear out this representation (Ecclus. 1. 1, 2.) But his successor, Ptolemy Philadelphus, far outdid him in liberality; and the embassy of his favourite minister Aristeas, in conjunction with Andreas, the chief of his bodyguard, to the chief priest Eleazar, furnishes us with an apparently authentic, and certainly genuine, account of the city in the middle of the third century before the Christian era, of which an outline may be here given. “It was situated in the midst of mountains, on a lofty hill, whose crest was crowned with the magnificent Temple, girt with three walls, seventy cubits high, of proportionate thickness and length corresponding to the extent of the building. . . . . . The Temple had an eastern aspect: its spacious courts, paved throughout with marble, covered immense reservoirs containing large supplies of water, which gushed out by mechanical contrivance to wash away the blood of the numerous sacrifices offered there on the festivals. . . . . The foreigners viewed the Temple from a strong fortress on its north side, and describe the appearance which the city presented. . . . . It was of moderate extent, being about forty furlongs in circuit. . . . . . The disposition of its towers resembled the arrangement of a theatre: some of the streets ran along the brow of the hill; others, lower down, but parallel to these, followed the course of the valley, and they were connected by cross streets. The city was built [p. 2.26]on the sloping side of a hill, and the streets were furnished with raised pavements, along which some of the passengers walked on high, while others kept the lower path,--a precaution adopted to secure those who were purified from the pollution which contact with anything unclean could have occasioned. . . . . . The place, too, was well adapted for mercantile pursuits, and abounded in artificers of various crafts. Its market was supplied with spicery, gold, and precious stones, by the Arabs, in whose neighboring mountains there had formerly been mines of copper and iron, but the works had been abandoned during the Persian domination, in consequence of a representation to the government that they must prove ruinously expensive to the country. It was also richly furnished with all such articles as are imported by sea, since it had commodious harbours--as Ascalon, Joppa, Gaza, and Ptolemais, from none of which it was far distant.” (Aristeas, ap. Gallandii Biblioth. Vet. Pat. tom. ii. pp. 805, &c.) The truthfulness of this description is not affected by the authorship; there is abundance of evidence, internal and external, to prove that it was written by one who had actually visited the Jewish capital during the times of the Ptolemies (cir. B.C. 250).

The Seleucidae of Asia were not behind the Ptolemies in their favours to the Jews; and the peace and prosperity of the city suffered no material dimimution, while it was handed about as a marriage dowry, or by the chances of war, between the rivals, until internal factions subjected it to the dominion of Antiochus Epiphanes, whose tyranny crushed for a time the civil and ecclesiastical polity of the nation (B.C. 175). The Temple was stripped of its costly sacred vessels, the palaces burned, the city walls demolished, and an idol-altar raised on the very altar of the Temple, on which daily sacrifices of swine were offered. This tyranny resulted in a vigorous national revolution, which secured to the Jews a greater amount of independence than they had enjoyed subsequently to the captivity. This continued, under the Asmonean princes, until the conquest of the country by the Romans; from which time, though nominally subject to a native prince, it was virtually a mere dependency, and little more than a province, of the Roman empire. Once again before this the city was recaptured by Antiochus Sidetes, during the reign of John Hyrcanus (cir. 135), when the city walls, which had been restored by Judas, were again levelled with the ground.

4. The Roman, or Classical Period.

The capture of the city by Pompey is recorded by Strabo, and was the first considerable event that fixed the attention of the classical writers on the city (B.C. 63). He ascribes the intervention of Pompey to the disputes of the brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, the sons of Alexander Jannaeus, who first assumed regal power. He states that the conqueror levelled the fortifications when he had taken the city, which he did by filling up an enormous fosse which defended the Temple on the north side. The particulars of the siege are more fully given by Josephus, who states that Pompey entered the Holy of Holies, but abstained from the sacred treasures of the Temple, which were plundered by Crassus on his way to Parthia (B.C. 54). The struggle for power between Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, and Herod, the son of Antipater, led to the sacking of the city by the Parthians, whose aid had been sought by the former (B.C. 40). Herod, having been appointed king by the senate, only secured possession of his capital after a long siege, in which he was assisted by Sosius, Antony's lieutenant, and the Roman legionaries. Mention has been already made of the palace in the Upper City and the fortress Antonia, erected, or enlarged and beautified, by Herod. He also undertook to restore the Temple to a state of magnificence that should rival the glory of Solomon's ; and a particular description is given of this work by the Jewish historian (Ant. 15.11.) The erection of a theatre and circus, and the institution of quinquennial games in honour of the emperor, went far to conform his city to a pagan capital. On the death of Herod and the banishment of his son Archelaus,Judaea was reduced to a Roman province, within the praefecture of Syria, and subject to a subordinate governor, to whom was intrusted the power of life and death. His ordinary residence at Jerusalem was the fortress Antonia; but Caesarea now shared with Jerusalem the dignity of a metropolis. Coponius was the first procurator (A.D. 7), under the praefect Cyrenius. The only permanent monument left by the procurators is the aqueduct of Pontius Pilate (A.D. 26--36), constructed with the sacred Corban, which he seized for that purpose. This aqueduct still exists, and conveys the water from the Pools of Solomon to the Mosk at Jerusalem (Holy City, vol.ii. pp. 498--501). The particulars of the siege by Titus, so fully detailed by Josephus, can only be briefly alluded to. It occupied nearly 100,000 men little short of five months, having been commenced on the 14th of Xanthicus (April), and terminated with the capture and conflagration of the Upper City on the 8th of Gorpeius (September). This is to be accounted for by the fact that, not only did each of the three walls, but also the Fortress and Temple, require to be taken in detail, so that the operations involved five distinct sieges. The general's camp was established close to the Psephine Tower, with one legion, the twelfth; the tenth was encamped near the summit of Mount Olivet: the fifth opposite to the Hippic Tower, two stadia distant from it. The first assault was made apparently between the towers Hippicus and Psephinus, and the outer wall was carried on the fifteenth day of the the siege. This new wall of Agrippa was immediately demolished, and Titus encamped within the New City, on the traditional camping-ground of the Assyrians. Five days later, the second wall was carried at its northern quarter, but the Romans were repulsed, and only recaptured it after a stout resistance of three days. Four banks were then raised,--two against Antonia, and two against the northern wall of the Upper City. After seventeen days of incessant toil the Romans discovered that their banks had been undermined, and their engines were destroyed by fire. It was then resolved to surround the city with a wall, so as to form a complete blockade. The line of circumvallation, 39 furlongs in circuit, with thirteen redoubts equal to an additional 10 furlongs, was completed in three days. Four fresh banks were raised in twenty-one days, and the Antonia was carried two months after the occupation of the Lower City. Another month elapsed before they could succeed in gaining the Inner Sanctuary, when the Temple was accidentally fired by the Roman soldiers. The Upper City still held out. Two banks were next raised against its eastern wall over against the Temple. This occupied eighteen days; and the Upper City was at length carried, a month after the Inner Sanctuary. [p. 2.27]This memorable siege has been thought worthy of special mention by Tacitus, and his lively abridgment, as it would appear, of Josephus's detailed narrative, must have served to raise his countrymen's ideas, both of the military prowess and of the powers of endurance of the Jews.

The city was wholly demolished except the three towers Hippicus, Phasaelus, and Mariamne, and so much of the western wall as would serve to protect the legion left there to garrison the place, and prevent any fresh insurrectionary movements among the Jews, who soon returned and occupied the ruins. The palace of Herod on Mount Sion was probably converted into a barrack for their accommodation, as it had been before used for the same purpose. (Bell. Jud. 7.1.1, 2.15.5, 17. §§ 8, 9.)

Sixty years after its destruction, Jerusalem was visited by the emperor Hadrian, who then conceived the idea of rebuilding the city, and left his friend and kinsman Aquila there to superintend the work, A.D. 130. (Epiphanius, de Pond. et Mens. §§ 14, 15.) He had intended to colonise it with Roman veterans, but his project was defeated or suspended by the outbreak of the revolt headed by Barcochebas, his son Rufus, and his grandson Romulus. The insurgents first occupied the capital, and attempted to rebuild the Temple: they were speedily dislodged, and then held out in Bethar for nearly three years. [BETHAR] On the suppression of the revolt, the building of the city was proceeded with, and luxurious palaces, a theatre, and temples, with other public buildings, fitted it for a Roman population. The Chronicon Alexandrinum mentions τὰ δύο δημόσια καὶ τὸ θέατρον καὶ τὸ τρικάμερον καὶ τὸ τετράνυμφον καὶ τὸ δωδεκάπυλον τὸ πρὶν ὀνομαζόμενον ἀναβαθμοὶ καὶ τὴν κόδραν. A temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, from whom the city derived its new name, occupied the site of the Temple, and a tetrastyle fane of Venus was raised over the site of the Holy Sepulchre. The ruined Temple and city furnished materials for these buildings. The city was divided into seven quarters (ἄμφοδαι), each of which had its own warden (ἀμφοδάρχης). Part of Mount Sion was excluded from the city, as at present, and was “ploughed as a field.” (Micah, 3.12; St. Jerome, Comment. in loc.; Itinerarinm Hierosol. p. 592, ed. Wesseling.) The history of Aelia Capitolina has been made the subject of distinct treatises by C. E. Deyling, “Aeliae Capitolinae Origines et Historia” (appended to his father's Observationes Sacrae, vol. v. p. 433, &c.), and by Dr. Müter, late Bishop of Copenhagen (translated by W. Wadden Turner, and published in Dr. Robinson's Bibliotheca Sacra, p. 393, &c.), who have collected all the scattered notices of it as a pagan city. Its coins also belong to this period, and extend from the reign of Hadrian to Severus. One of the former emperor (IMP. CAES. TRAIAN. HADRIANVS. AVG., which exhibits Jupiter in a tetrastyle temple, with the legend COL. AEL. CAP.) confirms the account of Dio Cassius (69.12), that a temple to Jupiter was erected on the site of God's temple (Eckhel, Doct. Num. Vet. pars i. tom. iii. p. 443); while one of Antoninus (ANTONINYS. AVG. PIVS. P. P. TR. P. COS. III., representing Venus in a similar temple, with the legend C. A. C. or COL. AEL. CAP.) no less distinctly confirms the Christian tradition that a shrine of Venus was erected over the Sepulchre of our Lord. (Vaillant, Numismata Aerea imperat. in Col. pt. i. p. 239; Eckhel, l.c. p. 442.)

Under the emperor Constantine, Jerusalem, which had already become a favourite place of pilgrimage to the Christians, was furnished with new attractions by that emperor and his mother, and the erection of the Martyry of the Resurrection inaugurated a new aera of the Holy City, which now recovered its ancient name, after it had apparently fallen into complete oblivion among the government officers in Palaestine itself. (Euseb. de Mart. Palaest. cap. ii.) The erection of his church was commenced the year after the Council of Nicaea, and occupied ten years. It was dedicated on the tricennalia of the emperor, A.D. 336. (Euseb. Vita Constantini, 3.30--40, 4.40--47.) Under the emperor Julian, the city again became an object of interest to the pagans, and the account of the defeat of Julian's attempt to rebuild the Temple is preserved by Ammianus Marcellinus, an unexceptional witness (23.1: all the historical notices are collected by Bishop Warburton, in his work on the subject, entitled Julian.) In 451, the see of Jerusalem was erected into a patriarchate; and its subsequent history is chiefly occupied with the conflicting opinions of its incumbents on the subject of the heresies which troubled the church at that period. In the following century (cir. 532) the emperor Justinian emulated the zeal of his predecessor Constantine by the erection of churches and hospitals at Jerusalem, a complete account of which has been left by Procopius. (De Aedificiis Justin ani, 5.6.) In A.D. 614, the city with all its sacred places was desolated by the Persians under Chosroes II., when, according to the contemporary records, 90,000 Christians, of both sexes and of all ages, fell victims to the relentless fury of the Jews, who, to the number of 26,000, had followed the Persians from Galilee to Jerusalem to gratify their hereditary malice by the massacre of the Christians. The churches were immediately restored by Modestus; and the city was visited by Heraclius (A.D. 629) after his defeat of the Persians. Five years later (A.D. 634) it was invested by the Saracens, and, after a defence of four months, capitulated to the khalif Omar in person; since which time it has followed the vicissitudes of the various dynasties that have swayed the destinies of Western Asia.

It remains to add a few words concerning the modern city and its environs.


El-Kods, the modern representative of its most ancient name Kadeshah, or Cadytis, “is surrounded by a high and strong cut-stone wall, built on the solid rock, loop-holed throughout, varying from 25 to 60 feet in height, having no ditch.” It was built by the sultan Suliman (A.D. 1542), as is declared by many inscriptions on the wall and gates. It is in circuit about 2 1/2 miles, and has four gates facing the four cardinal points. 1. The Jaffa Gate, on the west, called by the natives Bab-el-Hailil, i. e. the Hebron Gate. 2. The Damascus Gate, on the north, Bab-el-‘Amûd, the Gate of the Column. 3. The St. Stephen's Gate, on the east, Bab-Sitti-Miryam, St. Mary's Gate. 4. The Sion Gate, on the south, Bab-en-Nebi Daûd, the Gate of the Prophet David. A fifth gate, on the south, near the mouth of the Tyropoeon, is sometimes opened to facilitate the introduction of the water from a neighbouring well. A line drawn from the Jaffa Gate to the Mosk, along the course of the old wall, and another, cutting this at right angles, drawn from the Sion to the Damascus Gate, could divide the [p. 2.28]city into the four quarters by which it is usually distinguished.

These four quarters are:--(1) The Armenian Quarter at the SW.; (2) the Jew's Quarter at the SE.,--both these being on Mount Sion; (3) the Christian Quarter at the NW.; (4) the Mahometan Quarter, occupying the remainder of the city on the west and north of the great Haram-es-Sherif, the noble Sanctuary, which represents the ancient Temple area. The Mosk, which occupies the grandest and once most venerated spot in the world, is, in its architectural design and proportions, as it was formerly in its details, worthy of its site. It was built for Abd-el Melik Ibn-Marwan, of the house of Ommiyah, the tenth khalif. It was commenced in A.D. 688, and completed in three years, and when the vicissitudes it has undergone within a space of nearly 1200 years are considered, it is perhaps rather a matter of astonishment that the fabric should have been preserved so entire than that the adornment should exhibit in parts marks of ruinous decay.

The Church of Justinian,--now the Mosk El-Aksa,--to the south of the same area, is also a conspicuous object in the modern city; and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, with its appendages, occupies a considerable space to the west. The greater part of the remaining space is occupied with the Colleges or Hospitals of the Moslems, in the vicinity of the Mosks, and with the Monasteries of the several Christian communities, of which the Patriarchal Convent of St. Constantine, belonging to the Greeks, near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and that of the Armenians, dedicated to St. James, on the highest part of Mount Sion, are the most considerable.

The population of the modern city has been variously estimated, some accounts stating it as low as 10,000, others as high as 30,000. It may be safely assumed as about 12,000, of which number nearly half are Moslems, the other half being composed of Jews and Christians in about equal proportions. It is governed by a Turkish pasha, and is held by a small garrison. Most of the European nations are there represented by a consul.


A few sites of historical interest remain to be noticed in the environs of Jerusalem: as the valleys which environ the city have been sufficiently described at the commencement of the article, the mountains may here demand a few words.

The Scopus, which derived its name, as Josephus informs us, from the extensive view which it commanded of the surrounding country, is the high ground to the north of the city, beyond the Tombs of the Kings, 7 stadia from the city (B. J. 2.19.4, 5.2.3), where both Cestius and Titus first encamped on their approach to the city (ll. cc.): this range is now occupied by a village named Shâphât,--the Semitic equivalent to the Greek σκοπός. On the east of the city is the Mount of Olives, extending along the whole length of its eastern wall, conspicuous with its three summits, of which the centre is the highest, and is crowned with a pile of buildings occupying the spot where Helena, the mother of Constantine, built a Basilica in commemoration of the Ascension of our Lord. (Eusebius, Vita Constantini, 3.12, Laudes, § 9.) A little below the southern summit is a remarkable gallery of sepulchral chambers arranged in a semicircle concentric with a circular funnel-shaped hall 24 feet in diameter, with which it is connected by three passages. They are popularly called “the Tombs of the Prophets,” but no satisfactory account has been given of these extensive excavations. (Plans are given by Schultz, Krafft, and Tobler, in the works referred to below.) Dr. Schultz was inclined to identify this with the rock περιστήριον, mentioned by Josephus in his account of the Wall of Circumvallation (B. J. 5.12), which he supposes to be a translation of the Latin Columbarium. (See Dict. Ant. art. Funus, p. 561b.)

In the bed of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, immediately beneath the centre summit of Mount Olivet, where the dry bed of the brook Kedron is spanned by a bridge, is the Garden of Gethsemane, with its eight venerable olive-trees protected by a stone wall; and close by is a subterranean church, in which is shown the reputed tomb of the Virgin, who, however, according to an ancient tradition, countenanced by the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), died and was buried in that city. (Labbe, Concilia, tom. iii. col. 573.)

A little to the south of this, still in the bed of the valley, are two remarkable monolithic sepulchral monuments, ascribed to Absalom and Zechariah, exhibiting in their sculptured ornaments a mixture of Doric, Ionic, and perhaps Egyptian architecture, which may possibly indicate a change in the original design in conformity with later taste. Connected with these are two series of sepulchral chambers, one immediately behind the Pillar of Absalom, called by the name of Jehoshaphat; the other between the monoliths, named the Cave of St. James, which last is a pure specimen of the Doric order. (See A General View in Holy City, vol. ii. p. 449, and detailed plans, &c. in pp. 157, 158, with Professor Willis's description.)

To the south of Mount Olivet is another rocky eminence, to which tradition has assigned the name of the Mount of Offence, as “the hill before Jerusalem” where king Solomon erected altars for idolatrous worship (1 Kings, 11.7). In the rocky base of this mount, overhanging the Kedron, is the rockhewn village of Siloam, chiefly composed of sepulchral excavations, much resembling a Columbarium, and most probably the rock Peristerium of Josephus. Immediately below this village, on the opposite side of the valley, is the intermitting Fountain of the Virgin, at a considerable depth below the bed of the valley, with a descent of many steps hewn in the rock. Its supply of water is very scanty, and what is not drawn off here runs through the rocky ridge of Ophel, by an irregular passage, to the Pool of Siloam in the mouth of the Tyropoeon. This pool, which is mentioned in the New Testament (St. John, 9.7, &c.), is now filled with earth and cultivated as a garden, a small tank with columns built into its side serves the purpose of a pool, and represents the “quadriporticum” of the Bordeaux Pilgrim (A.D. 333), who also mentions “Alia piscina grandis foras.” This was probably identical with Hezekiah's Pool “between the two walls” (Is. 22.11), as it certainly is with the “Pool of Siloah by the king's garden” in Nehemiah (3.15, 2.14; comp. 2 Kings, 25.4. The arguments are fully stated in the Holy City, vol. ii. pp. 474--480. M. de Saulcy accepts the identification.) The king's gardens are still represented in a verdant spot, where the concurrence of the three valleys, Hinnom, Jehoshaphat, and Tyropoeon [p. 2.29]forms a small plain, which is cultivated by the villagers of Siloam.

In the mouth of the southern valley which forms the continuation of these three valleys towards the Dead Sea, is a deep well, variously called the Well of Nehemiah, of Job, or Joab; supposed to be identical with Enrogel, “the well of the spies,” mentioned in the borders of Judah and Benjamin, and elsewhere (Josh. 15.7, 18.16; 2 Sam. 17.17; 1 Kings, i. 9).

On the opposite side of the valley, over against the Mount of Offence, is another high rocky hill, facing Mount Sion, called the Hill of Evil Council, from a tradition that the house of Annas the highpriest, father-in-law to Caiaphas (St. John, 18.13, 24), once occupied this site. There is a curious coincidence with this in a notice of Josephus, who, in his account of the wall of circumvallation, mentions the monument of Ananus in this part (5.12.2); which monument has lately been identified with an ancient rock-grave of a higher class,--the Aceldama of ecclesiastical tradition,--a little below the ruins on this hill; which is again attested to be “the Potter's Field,” by a stratum of white clay, which is still worked. (Schultz, Jerusalem, p. 39.)

This grave is one of a series of sepulchres excavated in the lower part of this hill; among which are several bearing Greek inscriptions, of which all that is clearly intelligible are the words ΤΗΞ. ΑΤΙΑΞ. ΞΙωΝ., indicating that they belonged to inhabitants or communities in Jerusalem. (See the Inscriptions in Krafft, and the comments on his decipherments in the Holy City, Memoir, pp. 56--60).

Higher up the Valley of Hinnom is a large and very ancient pool, now called the Sultan's (Birket-es-Sultan), from the fact that it was repaired, and adorned with a handsome fountain, by Sultan Suliman Ibn-Selim, 1520--1566, the builder of the present city-wall. It is, however, not only mentioned in the mediaeval notices of the city,but is connected by Nehemiah with another antiquity in the vicinity, called En-nebi Daûd. On Mount Sion, immediately above, and to the east of the pool, is a large and irregular mass of building, supposed by Christians, Jews, and Moslems, to contain the Tomb of David, and of his successors the kings of Judah. It has been said that M. de Saulcy has attempted an elaborate proof of the identity of the Tombs of the Kings, at the head of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, with. the Tomb of David. His theory is inadmissable ; for it is clear, from the notices of Nehemiah, that the Sepulchres of David were not far distant from the Pool of “Siloah,” close to “the pool that was made,” and, consequently, on that part of Mount Sion where they are now shown. (Nehem. 3.16--19.) The memory of David's tomb was still preserved until the destruction of Jerusalem (Josephus, J. AJ 13.8.4, 16.7.1; Acts, 2.29), and is noticed occasionally in the middle ages. (See Holy City, vol. ii. pp. 505--513.) In the same pile of buildings, now occupied by the Moslems, is shown the Coenaculum where our Lord is said to have instituted the Last Supper. Epiphanius mentions that this church was standing when Hadrian visited Jerusalem (Pond. et Mens. cap. xiv.), and there St. Cyril delivered some of his catechetical lectures (Catech. 16.4). It was in this part of the Upper City that Titus spared the houses and city wall to form barracks for the soldiers of the garrison. (Vide sup.)

Above the Pool of the Sultan, the Aqueduct of Pontius Pilate, already mentioned, crosses the Valley of Hinnom on nine low arches; and, being carried along the side of Mount Sion, crosses the Tyropoeon by the causeway into the Haram. The water is conveyed from Etham, or the Pools of Solomon, about two miles south of Bethlehem. (Josephus, B. J. 2.9.4.)

The mention of this aqueduct recalls a notice of Strabo, which has been perpetually illustrated in the history of the city; viz., that it was ἐντὸς μὲν εὔϋδρον ἐκτὸς δὲ παντελῶς διψηρόν . . . . . αὐτὸ μὲν εὔϋδρον, τὴν δὲ κν́κλῳ χώπαν ἔχον λυπρὰν καὶ ἄνυδρον. (xvi. p. 723.) Whence this abundant supply was derived it is extremely difficult to imagine, as, of course, the aqueduct just mentioned would be immediately cut off in case of siege ; and, without this, the inhabitants of the modern city are almost entirely dependent on rain-water. But the accounts of the various sieges, and the other historical notices, as well as existing remains, all testify to the fact that there was a copious source of living water introduced into the city from without, by extensive subterranean aqueducts. The subject requires, and would repay, a more accurate and careful investigation. (See Holy City, vol. ii. p. 453--505.)

Besides the other authorities cited or referred to in the course of this article, the principal modern sources for the topography of Jerusalem are the following:--Dr. Robinson's Biblical Researches, vols. i. and ii; Williams's Holy City; Dr. Wilson's Lands of the Bible; Dr. E. G. Schultz, Jerusalem; W. Krafft, Die Topographie Jerusalems; Carl Ritter, Die Erdkunde von Asien, &c., Palästina, Berlin, 1852, pp. 297--508: Dr. Titus Tobler, Golgotha, 1851; Die Siloahquelle und die Oelberg, 1852; Denkblätter aus Jerusalem, 1853; F. de Saulcy, Voyage autour de la Mer Morte, tom. 2.



hide References (8 total)
  • Cross-references from this page (8):
    • Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 11.8
    • Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 13.8.4
    • Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 16.7.1
    • Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 5.2
    • Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 7.3.2
    • Pausanias, Description of Greece, 8.16
    • Vitruvius, On Architecture, 5.11
    • Tacitus, Historiae, 5.13
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: