« السابقةمتابعة »
the compound Jireh-salem or Jerusalem ; a name familiar to every reader of Sacred and Profane History, though to the Oriental Scholar it is better known by the simple appellation of El Kads, “ the Holy.”
On the death of David, his son Solomon, and after him the succeeding Kings of Judah, considerably enlarged the city, and at length rendered it secure by walls and towers, with trenches in the living rock. A Temple perfect in execution and design; sumptuous palaces; and numerous and stately public buildings, conspired to render Jerusalem the astonishment of the whole world.
Its Topography, as it existed at the time of our Saviour's appearance, is necessarily rendered at this distant period, and for the want of fuller and more precise documents in its history, very confused. D’Anville, indeed, whose scientific knowledge pre-eminently qualified him for such an undertaking, is the only one who appears to have succeeded in assigning the position and extent of ancient Jerusalem, from an accurate and close investigation of the local circumstances and situation of that still existing; taking the Map of Deshayes as that on which implicit reliance might be placed. Villalpandus, Brocardus, and Vitriarcus, among the early, and many more among the later Topographers, appear to differ much with themselves and with Josephus. Of these, some place Mount Sion to the North, and Acra to the South; others, and those by far the greater number, place Sion in a Southern direction; Moriah to the East, Bezetha to the West, and Acra more from the North. This latter disposition of the respective situation of these mountains is defended
by Reland against the arguments advanced by Lightfoot and other writers maintaining opposite opinions; D'Anville however thus seems to decide the question; speaking of Mount Sion, he says, “Its most remark“able declivity looks towards the South and West,
being formed by a deep ravine, which in Scripture “is denominated Ge Ben Hinnom, or the Valley of “ the Children of Hinnom. This valley, running from “ West to East, meets at the extremity of Mount Sion, “ the Valley of Kedron, which extends from North to “ South. These local circumstances, which are de“ termined by nature herself, are not liable to those “ changes which time and the fury of men may have “ made in the City of Jerusalem. It is these that “ascertain the limits of the City in that part which “ Sion occupied. It is this that advances farthest “ towards the South, and you are not only fixed in “such a manner that you cannot take in a greater
space on that side, but the utmost breadth to which “ the site of Jerusalem can possibly extend, is deter
1 Sunt qui Sionem ad Boream, Acram ad Austrum, locent. Nobis placent contraria, qui Sionem situm esse in Australi parte urbis Hierosolymitanæ ex Josepho colligimus (Bell. Jud. 5. iv. 1.) ubi muros tres describit quibus urbs cingebatur.
That Sion was the mountain on which the citadel of David was situated, and that it was south of Acra, may be inferred, from the circumstance that the Authors of the Books of Kings and Chronicles tell us, that the Sepulchres of this and many other Kings were in the city of David (Acts ii. 29). Now no Royal Sepulchres were discovered till lately, but those on the Northern side of Jerusalem; hence mistakes have arisen by supposing these to be the same as those alluded to by the Writers of the Old Testament, in consequence of which Sion has been placed on the North of Acra: but within late years a Royal Sepulchre has been discovered on the mountain SOUTH of Acra, bearing, in two instances, these words of an inscription, THC ATIAC CIWN; which at once marks the site of Sion and the City of David,
Vide Clarke's Travels, vol. ü. p. 552,
“ mined on the one hand, by the declivity of Sion whichi “ faces the West; and on the other by its opposite extremity towards Cedron and the East.” 1
Josephus it appears, either did, or intended to write a fuller description of Jerusalem than that which he left in the History of the Jewish Wars. This intention it is probable he never realized; or if he did, the writings are now altogether lost: it remains, therefore, only for us to draw such an outline, as his extant works seem to authorize; and keeping D’Anville's plan in view, it will be found that a great similarity exists between the disposition of the parts adopted by the one, with the description given by the other. 3
Jerusalem* on the North was bounded by a plain, from the right of which flowed a stream in a direction to the Mount of Olives, forming the river, or rather the brook Cedron; a torrent caused only by the rains descending from the surrounding mountains. 5 On the East it was bounded by the Vale of Jehoshaphat, so called from the sepulchre of that King standing nearly
i Dissertation on the extent of ancient Jerusalem. 2 Bell. Jud. 5, v. 8. 3 Châteaubriand remarks, that "the traditions concerning the places are
not so apt to be distorted as those relative to facts, because the face of “ the earth is not so liable to change as that of society; this is judiciously "remarked by D'Anville, who with wonderful sagacity discovers, in the “ modern city, the whole plan of ancient Jerusalem.”
Travels into Palestine, &c. 4 See the plan of the city opposite the title page.
5 Torrens hic est vero nomine quam æstivo tempore flumen esse desinat et vallis nomen habeat, adeoque sicco pede transeatur.
Relandi Pal. Illust. Ü. 294.
in its center. This valley was formed by the mountains of Jerusalem on the one side, and the Mount of Olives on the other.2 On the South it was bounded by the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, or Tophet, a name derived from the drum which the worshippers of Moloch beat in this place during their sacrifices. 3 On the West it was bounded by a valley formed on
1 Called also the Valley Cedron, from the river flowing through it. has The Valley of the Mountains,” from being every where surrounded by them. “The Valley of Siloa,” from a village in it of that name. Valley of Benediction,” because there, Jehoshaphat and his people blessed the Lord. Vide Joel, iii. 1, 2, 3.
2 The Mount of Olives, or Mount of Unction, has three distinct summits, the middle of which is the highest; and so commanding is the view of “ Jerusalem afforded here (says Clarke), that the eye roams over all the,
streets and around the walls, as if in the survey of a plan or model of “the city.” They are thus described as having been polluted by Heathen abominations. And the high PLACES that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the Mount of Corruption (i. e. Mount of Olives) which Solomon the King of Israel had builded for ASHTORETH, the abomination of the Sidonians; and for Chemosh, the abomination of the Moabites; and for Milcom, the abomination of the Children of Ammon, did the King defile. 2 Kings xxii. 13. (See Travels, vol. 2. p. 578.) It is situated from Jerusalem at the distance of a Sabbath-day's journey, or 2,000 cubits (Acts i. 12), and is remarkable for being the place so much resorted to by our Saviour and his Disciples, from whence he foretold the destruction of the city; but more particularly from the circumstance that the loftiest summit was the scene of his ascension.
3 Jer. vii. 31. Beausohe says, that “in our Saviour's time, the Jews flung the rubbish of the city and the bones of the sacrifices into this " place, and kept there a continual fire to consume them. This they “reckoned as an emblem of Hell, and therefore gave it the name of “ Gehenna.”—Quaresmius thus describes it:-“In suburbis sanctæ civitatis
et parte ejus Orientali, vergente tamen ad Austrum, in extrema ac pro
pinquiori parte vallis Raphidim, sub monte offensionis ad meridiam fontis 4 Siloe est vallis illa Gehennon dicta ; in qua antiquitas lucus erat, in quo “ turpissimis crudelissimisque sceleribus et idolatriis fuit Deus optimus maximus offensus."
Euclid. Terræ Sanctæ, ii. p. 274,
the one side by the precipices of the City, and on the other by Gihon, and the surrounding mountains. Nearly opposite the South West corner of the city, was the fountain Siloam or Gihon: that these were considered as one and the same, may be deduced from that passage in the book of Kings, where David commands his son to be brought down to Gihon, or as it is rendered in the Chaldaic version to Siloam ; from which it has been concluded that these two names were appropriated to the same fountain : ' besides this, there seems to have been a pool also of the same name within the city; probably that now found at the foot on the Southern side of Moriah: this it appears was by Hezekiah connected with the fountain, from which circumstance it is not unlikely that the same name was given to both. 2
Opposite the center of the Western side of the city, Calvary is supposed to have been situated; rendered memorable from having been the scene of our Saviour's death and sufferings; this also is thought to have been separated from the city, by the “ Place of a Skull,” called Golgotha by the Evangelists.3
The 1 In Mintert's Lexicon of the New Testament, this explanation is given: " Nomen fontis, qui et Gihon vocabitur; i Reg. i. 33. dicitur, Deducite “ Solomonem ad GIHON et deduxerunt eum ad SILOAM. Unde Kim“ chius: Gihon est Siloam, et vocatur duplici nomine."
In voce Einweise Villalpandus and Brocardus both conceive the fountain of Gihon and that of Siloam to be the same, particularly as the Fountain Gate was on the Western side of the city. See also Lightfoot. In Isaiah, viii. 6, it is said, “Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah, which flow
softly, &c.” upon which Rabbi Solomon Isacides remarks, “ that it is a “ Fountain, and its name is Gihon.” Vide Celarius Geo. Antiq. lib. iii. ch. 13. According to Maundrel, it is 160 paces long and 67 broad, walled round.
2 2 Chron. xxxii. 30.
3 Mark, xv. 22.-John, xix. 17. It has been generally supposed that Calvary, originally was a mountain, al