JERUSALEM, Heb., _____ Yeritshalayim, pronounced as a dual; but the old pronunciation seems to have been Yerushalem, whence, through the LXX., _____, we have the common English form). The meaning of the name is obscure, none of the current interpretations, " vision of peace," " abode of peace," and the like, being free from difficulty. A later abbreviated form is _____) Salem (Ps. lxxvi. 2), whence _____, Solyma. The ordinary Greek and Latin forms are ______, Hierosolyma. Hadrian changed the name of the city to Aelia Capitolina, and Aelia long continued the official name, and even passed over into Arabic ___ the form _____. The Arabs, however, com-monly designate Jerusalem by epithets expressive of its sanctity, Beit el Makdis, El Mukaddas, El Mukaddis, or, in the modern vernacular, more briefly El Kuds, "the sanctuary."
I. NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY AND RESULTS OF EXCAVATIONS.
The history of Jerusalem exploration dates from the year 1833, when Bonomi, Catherwood, and Arundale succeeded in obtaining admission into the Haram (Harám) enclosure and made the first survey of its buildings. In 1838 and 1852 the city was visited by the famous American traveller Dr Robinson, and his bold impeachment of the traditional topography, while raising a storm of controversy, laid the foundation of a truer understanding of the antiquities of Jerusalem. In 1849 Jerusalem was surveyed by Lieu-tenants Aldrich and Symonds of the Royal Engineers, and maps by Vandevelde, Thrupp, Barclay, and others were subsequently published. All these earlier attempts were, however, superseded in 1866 by the ordnance survey executed by Captain (now Colonel) Wilson, R.E., whose plans of the city and its environs, and of the Haram enclosure and other public buildings are the standard authorities on which all subsequent work has been based. During the years 1867-70 excavations of a most adven-turous description were carried on by Captain (now Colonel) Warren, R.E. The results, especially in the vicinity of the Haram, were of primary importance, and many stoutly contested theories have now succumbed to the testimony of the spade. During 1872-75 some further explorations were carried on by Lieutenant Conder, R.E., while for many years a most valuable series of observations of the levels of the rock beneath the rubbish on which the modern city stands has been carried out by Mr C. Schick, architect.
The present account of the city is based on the results which have thus been obtained by actual exploration ; but, although so much has been done during the last fifteen years to clear up disputed questions, much still remains to be accomplished.
The geographical situation of Jerusalem has now been determined by trigonometry to be 31° 46' 45" N. lat. and 35° 13' 25" E. long, of Greenwich (taken at the dome of the Holy Sepulchre church). The city stands at the extremity of a plateau which shelves down in a south-east direction from the watershed ridge of Judssa, which is here somewhat contorted. About a mile north of the town the ridge coming from the north is deflected towards the west at an elevation averaging 2600 feet above the Mediter-ranean, and thus passes clear of the city on its west side. From this ridge at the point of deflexion an important spur with steep and rugged eastern slopes runs out south-east for 1£ miles, and thence southwards for \\ miles more. The spur culminates in two principal summits, the most northerly 2725 feet above the sea, the second (now crowned with a village and a minaret) 2650 feet above the same level; and there is a third summit or knoll on the south terminating the spur and rising to an elevation of 2410 feet. To this chain (but more especially to the central summit with the minaret on it, now called Jebel et Tor) the name Olivet applies. The plateau between this chain and the watershed ridge is drained by two flat open valley heads which form a junction about -| mile north of the north-east angle of the modern city, and become a deep ravine with sides steep and in places precipitous, running immediately beneath and west of Olivet for a distance of 1|- miles from the junction to a well called Bir Eytib, where the bed is 1979 feet above the Mediterranean and 430 feet below the termination of the Olivet chain. This valley is the " brook " (nahal or fiumara) Kidron, bounding the site of Jerusalem on the east. A second valley (W. er Rababy) has its head in a shallow depression north-west of the city close to the watershed, whence it first runs south for about j mile, and then—rapidly deepening and flanked by low precipices—trends east for another \ mile, joining the Kidron in an open plot close to the Bir Eyiib above noticed. The second valley thus flanking Jerusalem on the west and south encloses an area half a mile wide and rudely quadrangular,—the seat of the city itself whether ancient or modern.
The site thus generally described—a natural fortress standing on spurs of hill surrounded on three sides by valleys 300 to 400 feet deep—is but imperfectly supplied with water. Only one spring exists anywhere near the city, namely, that in the Kidron valley, about 700 yards above the junction with the western ravine, now called the " spring with steps " (_____), or the " Virgin's spring." The vicinity of Jerusalem consists of strata of the Eocene and Chalk formations, having a general clip down from the watershed of about 10°E.S.E. The action of denudation has left patches of the various strata, but generally speaking the oldest are on the west. The upper part of the Olivet chain consists of a soft white limestone, with fossils and flint bands belonging to the Upper Chalk: beneath this are—first, a hard silicious chalk, with flint bands ; secondly, a soft white limestone, much used in the ancient buildings of the city; thirdly, a hard chalk, often pink and white in colour, and then known as Sta. Croce marble. The underlying beds belonging to the period of the Greensand are not visible, the lowest strata in the Kidron precipices belonging to the Lower Chalk epoch.
The actual position of the city at various times has differed but little in comparison with other capitals. The outline of the small spurs concerning which so many famous controversies have arisen is now much obscured by the accumulation of rubbish, which has been increasing ever since the time of Nehemiah (Nell, iv. 10). There is an average depth of from 30 to 40 feet of this debris throughout the town, and the foundations of the modem houses
Contours of Ancient Jerusalem, with the line of the Walls, according to Lieut, Conder.
often stand upon it. In the valleys there is a depth of 70 feet, and east of the temple in one place shafts were sunk 120 feet before the rock was reached. The natural features of the ground, although unaltered and traceable to a practised eye, are thus less sharply accentuated than in the ancient period of the city's history. As, however,'we have now more than two hundred and fifty actual observations of the rock levels in an area of 210 acres, there is no diffi-culty in recovering the general features of the ancient natural site of the town.
The quadrangle included between the two outer valleys above described is again split up by a valley, the Tyropceon of Josephus, which divides the plateau into two main spurs, —that on the east being the temple hill, that on the west the seat of the upper city. The Tyropceon is both shallower and broader than the boundary ravines already noticed, its depth averaging only from 100 to 150 feet below the crests of the ridges. Its real head is immediately outside the present Damascus gate and the north wall of the modern city, whence it runs with a curved course southwards to join the Kidron just above the junction with the western boundary valley, a distance of about 1600 yards. There is, however, a second affluent or head of the central valley on the west side of its main course—a kind of dell or theatre-shaped depression extending westwards for more than 300 yards, and measuring not quite 200 yards north and south, Thus, while the eastern ridge is unbroken, the western is divided into two summits joined by a narrow saddle which separates the head of the broad central valley just described from the upper part of the western boundary valley.
Of the two western hill tops, that towards the south is the largest and most lofty. It has a trapezoid shape, and terminates on all sides in steep slopes, which are in places precipitous, and it is only joined to the watershed by the connecting saddle, which is scarcely 50 yards in width. This high southern hill measures 2000 feet north and south by about 1300 feet east and west. The highest part is towards the west, where the level of the flat broad summit is about 2520 feet above the Mediterranean. The smaller northern knoll or hill top, bounded on the east by the great central valley of Jerusalem, on the south by the theatre-shaped valley which separates it from the high southern hill, and on the west by a small subsidiary depres-sion running north, rises to a summit not more than 2490 feet in elevation, or 30 feet below the flat top of the larger southern hill.
The eastern ridge, on which the temple stood, has a height towards the north of about 2500 feet; it then becomes narrower, and is artificially divided by a deep rock-cut trench running east and west. Its original form within the temple enclosure was that of a rounded top with a steep western slope and a more gentle gradient on the east, the level of the ridge falling from 2460 to 2300 feet in a length of about 500 yards. The end of this ridge is formed by a tongue of ground between the Kidron and the shallow central vallej7, falling rapidly in 400 yards to a level only 50 feet above the valley beds.
The identity of the present Haram (or sanctuary) with the ancient temple enclosure is undisputed, the only question which has arisen being whether the boundary walls now existing coincide with the outer ramparts of Herod's temple enclosure. The Haram is a quadrangle containing 35 acres, the interior surface roughly levelled, partly by filling up with earth the portions where the rock is lowest, partly by means of vaulted substructures of various ages. The most important results of Captain Warren's excavations were those connected with the exploration of the rampart walls, which measure 1601 feet on the west, 922 on south, 1530 on east, and 1042 feet on north, the south-west angle being 90° and the south-east 92° 30'. The height of the wall varies from 30 to 170 feet. On the west, on the south, and on the east for probably 1090 feet from the south-east corner, the masonry is all of one style, the stones being of great size with a marginal draft,'—the imperfect finish of the faces in some of the lower courses apparently showing that the foundation-stones were never visible above the surface. The north part of the east wall consists, however, of masonry differ-ing somewhat from the rest, the finish being rougher and the stone of inferior quality. It was found that this wall is continued for some distance beyond the north-east corner of the present area. The present north wall is of quite a different kind of masonry, and appears to be much more recent, the substructures immediately inside being only as old as the 12th century. The north-west angle is formed by a projecting scarped block of rock measuring 350 feet east and west and 50 feet north and south, the above the interior court being about 30 feet. On this scarp the modern barracks stand, and a fosse 60 feet deep and 165 feet wide is still traceable outside the rock on the north. A valley bed 100 feet below the level of the Haram court ran across the north-east portion of the area into the Kidron ; and south of this the remains of a scarp running east and west have been discovered, but are not as yet completely explored. The prolongation of this scarp east-wards cuts the east wall of the Haram at the point 1090 feet from the south angle, at which the change in the character of the masonry above explained probably occurs. The evidence thus obtained seems to indicate that an area of about 7-| acres has been added to the ancient enclosure on the north-east to give it the present quadrangular form, and the rougher masonry on the east appears to have belonged to the city wall constructed by Agrippa and not to the older wall of Herod's temple.
At the south-west angle of the Haram enclosure are the remains of an ancient arch (Robinson's arch), 42 feet span, belonging to a bridge across the Tyropceon, the west pier of which Captain Warren discovered, as well as the fallen voussoirs, lying on a pavement 40 feet beneath the surface, while under the pavement 20 feet lower was found the voussoir of a former bridge on the same site (cf. Jos., B. J., i. 7, 2). At the south-east angle of the enclosure Captain Warren found beneath the surface remains of an ancient wall of finely drafted masonry abutting on the east ram-part of the Haram, and here some unexplained marks or letters in red paint were discovered on the lower stones. The buried wall runs southward for 250 yards at a height of 70 feet, and is held to be part of the wall of Ophel. The base of a great projecting tower was also laid bare, and identified by the discoverer with the tower of Neh. iii. 25. Another noticeable discovery was the fact that an ancient aqueduct is intersected by the west Haram wall, which must consequently be more recent than the rock tunnel thus destroyed.
The facts thus ascertained allow of the identification of the great walls still standing with those which supported the outer cloisters of the temple enclosure in the time of Herod's reconstruction of the edifice. The original area of Solomon's temple enclosure was doubled by Herod (B. J., i. 21, 1), who took away the ancient foundations and made a quadrangle extending from the fortress of Antonia to the royal cloister, to which a great bridge led from the upper city (B. J., vi. 6, 2), while the eastern limit was formed by the Kidron ravine, the Ophel wall joining the plateau of the temple at the south-east angle (Ant, xv. 11, 5 ; B. J., v. 4, 2).
The scarped rock at the north-west angle of the Haram, with its outer fosse dividing the temple hill from Bezetha, answers exactly to the description by Josephus of the tower of Antonia (B. J., v. 5, 8) and thus serves to identify the north-west angle of the ancient enclosure with the corresponding angle of the modern Haram. The correspondence of the south-west angles of the two areas is established by the discovery of the great bridge, and that of the south-east angles of the same by the exploration of the Ophel wall. The northern boundary of Herod's temple probably coincided with the scarp already described, 1090 feet north of the south-east angle. The area was thus, roughly speaking, a quadrangle of 1000 feet side, from which the citadel of Antonia, as described by Josephus, projected on the north-west (cf. B. J., vi. 5, 4).
The natural water-supply of Jerusalem is from the Yirgin's spring already noticed, which comes out from be-neath the Ophel ridge in a rocky cave extending 12 feet from the face of the hill, and reached by flights of twenty-eight steps. The water flows with an intermittent action, rising from beneath the lowest steps, at intervals varying, according to the season and the rainfall, from a few hours to one or even two clays.
From this spring a rock-cut tunnel 1708 feet in length leads through the Ophel ridge to the Fool of Siloam (now Birket Silwdn), which is a rock-cut reservoir with masonry retaining-walls measuring 52 feet by 18 feet, having a rock-cut channel leading away from it to a larger pool formed by damming up the flat valley bed with a thick wall of masonry close to the junction of the Kidron and the Tyropceon.1 A rock-cut shaft—like the great tunnel a work of immense labour—leads from the spring west-wards to an entrance from the surface of the ground 120 feet above and 180 feet west of the spring. The rock tunnel was known in the 17th century, but the shaft which formed a secret entrance to the one spring of Jerusalem was discovered by Captain Warren. The water of Siloam was originally sweet, but has been fouled and made bitter since the 12th century. From the reservoir it runs south-wards to the Bir Eyub already noticed, a well 125 feet deep.
The remaining reservoirs of Jerusalem are fed by aqueducts and by the rains. West of the city is the rock-cut Mamilla pool. In the upper part of the valley of Hinnom in Birket es Sidtdn, constructed in the 12th century. Since the 14th century these two tanks have been erroneously named the Upper and Lower Pools of Gihon. Inside the city is the Patriarch's Pool near the west (the ancient Amygdalon or " Tower Pool," B. J., v. 11, 4), while imme-diately north of the Haram are the Twin Pools made by roofing in p>art of the ancient fosse, and the Birket Isrdil, measuring 360 by 130 feet, and apparently constructed after the great destruction of 70 A.D.
The Twin Pools were identified in the 4th century with Bethesda, but since the 12th that name has been given to the Birket Israil. The site of Bethesda is still doubtful. Three aqueducts supplied the city, one of which, constructed by Pilate (Ant., xviii. 3, 2), led from the so-called pools of Solomon, 7 miles distant, to the temple, and still conveys water when in repair. Its course appears on the map ; the second from the same locality probably fed the Birket Mamilla, but is now lost; the third from the north collected surface drainage and led to the temple enclosure underground, a distance of 2000 feet only. The great reservoirs in this enclosure, about thirty in number, were capable of holding a total supply of 10 million gallons of water. (c. E. c.)
II. ANCIENT JERUSALEM.
Up to the time of David the strong fortress of Jerusalem remained in the hands of the ancient Canaanite inhabitants who were known as Jebusites.2
The city was deemed impregnable, but its conquest was one of the first exploits of David, when he became king of all Israel, and had need of a capital that should serve as a base for his military operations and a centre of union for Judah and Israel. Lying on the frontier line between his own tribe of Judah and the difficult country of Benjamin, which had been the centre of the struggle with the Philis-tines since the fall of Shiloh, Jerusalem was admirably adapted for these purposes. The Jebusites were not expelled, but continued to live side by side with the Hebrews (Josh. xv. 63; Judg. i. 21 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 18; Zeck ix. 7). David himself occupied "the mountain fortress (n1VP) of Zion." which was strengthened by new walls and received the name of the city of David. Here a palace was built by Tyrian architects, and the new capital was consecrated by the removal to it of the ark.
The site of the city of David forms the fundamental question of Jerusalem topography. The current traditional view (but not that of the most ancient tradition even in the Christian church) makes Zion the southern eminence of the western lull, and places David's fortress there. More recently Messrs Warren and Conder have couteuded that the city of David is identical with the Acra of Josephus, and place the latter on the northern summit of the western hill, between the two branches of the Tyropoeon (see below). A third view places the city of David on the southern part of the Temple hill; and this opinion is not only conformed to the oldest post-Biblical tradition (1 Maccabees, Jerome, <&c.), in wiiich Zion certainly means the Temple hill, but is the only view that does justice to the language of the Old Testament.
It is necessary at the outset to clear away the popular idea that the capital of David was already a great town, occupying a situ comparable in extent with that of the later city. Certainly if all the Levites and sacred ministers mentioned in Chronicles were actually assembled at Zion in David's tune, we might conclude that the towii was already a capital on a grand scale. But the Chronicler constantly carries back later institutions into primitive times, and the early history, which alone can be viewed as a safe guide, gives quite another picture. Zion was merely one of the " mountain fortresses " found all over Palestine as places of refuge in time of invasion, and was garrisoned by a handful of mercenaries (the Gibbdrim). The whole levy of Israel in David's time was but 30,000 men (2 Sam. vi. 1 ; comp. the 40,000 of Judg. v. 8), and before the development of trade among the Hebrews Jerusalem had not the natural conditions for the growth of a great city. In the first instance the town doubtless consisted mainly of the court and its dependants, with the Jebusite popula-tion, who must have been predominantly agricultural and limited in number by the limitation of their territory. Now it is quite incredible that the Temple hill was ever excluded from Zion. Throughout the Old Testament Zion appears as the holy mountain, the seat of the sanctuary. It is true at the same time that Zion and the site of Jerusalem are interchangeable ideas in Hebrew literature ; but this only proves that the mountain of the sanctuary was essentially the mountain on which the city stood. Further, it is clear from 1 Kings viii. 1 sq,, 2 Sam. xxiv. 18, that the temple stood above the city of David, as else-where in Hebrew holy places the sanctuary crowned the hill on whose slopes the town stood. Moreover, the graves of the kings, which were certainly in the city of David, encroached on the temple enclosure (Ezek. xliii. 7, 8), which indeed at the time of the captivity was closely built up (ibid.), and stood in the middle of the city (Ezek. xi. 23). Again, Micah iv. 8 identifies the ancient " tower of the flock," the original seat of the kingdom at Jerusalem, with " Ophel of the daughter of Zion." But Ophel is one ot the few topographical names that can be traced down to the time of Josephus, whose description shows that it lay to the south-east of the temple. Still more precise is the determination given by references to the one fountain of Jerusalem, which, as we have seen, springs out under the temple hill on the east. According to Nek. iii. 15, xii. 37, the city of David was reached by a stair in the vicinity of the fountain gate and the pool of Siloah. This ascent led up above David's palace to the water gate, where in Nehemiah's time there was an open space in front of the temple (comp. Neh. viii. 1, 16 with Ezra x. 9). Thus we see that David's palace lay between the temple and the pool of Siloah or King's pool (Neh. ii. 14). These notices are the more important because the water system connected with the Virgin's spring forms almost the only quite certain part of Jerusalem's topography. The spring itself is Gihou, which from its name must have been a true spring, while 2 Chron. xxxiii. 14 teaches us to look for it in the Kidron valley (bro). The subterranean conduit which still exists had for its object to conduct the water inside the city, and appears to be that constructed by Hezekiah (2 Kings i xx. 20). In Isa. xxii. 8, 11 we read of a lower pool and an old pool (no doubt identical with the upper pool, Isa. vii. 3 ; 2 Kings xviii. 17), whose waters were collected in the time of Hezekiah, under apprehension of siege, in a reservoir between the two walls. From this passage, compared with Neh. iii. 15, we gather that Hezekiah's pool was protected by an outer line of fortification, and here lay the gate of the two walls (2 Kings xxv. 4), with the royal gardens beside them. The supplementary notices of the conduit and the outer wall, given in Chronicles, have not the weight of contemporary history, but they show the writer to have still possessed the same tradition as to the place of the city of David, for he describes its outer wall as running along the Kidron valley west of Gihou (i.e., so as to leave the fountain outside, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 14; comp. xxxii. 3, 4), and tells us that Hezekiah's conduit brought the water of Gihon in a westerly direction to the city of David (chap, xxxii. 30).
According to the Bible, then, the city of David lay on the southern part of the hill which his son crowned with the temple. The chief feature in the fortifications was a tower named Millo, perhaps on the site of the modern barracks, protecting the approach to Zion from the north. The town had but little splendour. The king occupied a wooden palace, the work of foreign craftsmen, and the ark still dwelt in curtains. Under Solomon, who had the true Oriental passion for building and luxury, and squandered enormous sums on his court, great improvements were made, especially by the erection of the twin palaces " the house of Jehovah and the house of the king," constructed of stonework strengthened by string courses of wooden beams in the still familiar style of Arabian building. The palace, which took nearly twice as long to erect as the temple, consisted of a great complex of buildings and porticos, including the porch of judgment, an armoury, and the palace of the queen.
The site of the palace has been variously assigned by topographers. But it lay above the old residence of David * (1 Kings ix. 24), and all the indications given in the Old Testament lead us to place it quite close to the temple, with which its porticos seem to have been connected (2 Kings xvi. 18; xxiii. 11). Wellhausen indeed, from an examination of 1 Kings vi., vii., has made it probable that the royal buildings lay within the outer court of the temple (Well.-Bleek, Einl., p. 232). The clearest details are con-nected with a court of the palace called the prison court 1 (Jer. xxxii. 2), where there was a gate called the prison gate, and a great projecting tower (Neh. iii. 25-27). rl his part of the building must have been close to the temple, for it was at the prison gate that the second choir in the procession of Neh. xii. halted and stood " in the house of God," meeting the other choir, which ascended from Siloah by the stair above David's house and reached the temple at the water gate. It appears further from Neh. iii. 27 that the fortifications of the prison were adjacent to Ophel, so that the palace seems to have stood about the south-east corner of the temple area.
After the division of the kingdoms Jerusalem was shorn of its political glory. The city itself was taken by Shishak in the reign of Rehoboam, and lost the riches accumulated by Solomon. The great houses of Omri and Jehu quite overshadowed the kingdom of Judah, which forgot its weakness in the reign of Amaziah only to receive signal chastisement from Jehoash, who took Jerusalem, and partly levelled the walls (2 Kings xiv.). The decline and fall of Samaria raised the relative importance of the southern capital; the writings of the prophets show that wealth had accumulated and luxury increased, and so we find King Jotham adding an upper gate in the northern or higher court of the temple (2 Kings xv. 35 ; Jer. xxxvi. 10 ; Ezek. ix. 2), while Hezekiah, as we have already seen, laboured for the improvement of the water supply, and so rendered the city more capable to resist siege. The later history in Chronicles adds details of fortifications erected by Uzziah and Manasseh, which probably express the oral tradition current in the author's day. In the later days of the monarchy Jerusalem had so far increased that we read of a second town or quarter (2 Kings xxii. 14 ; Zeph. i. 10, Heb. ; com]). Neh. iii. 9). There was also a trading quarter called the Maktesh, inhabited by Canaanites or Tyrians (Zeph. i. 11), who still formed a large part of the mercantile population after the exile (Neh. xiii.; Zech. xiv. 21). Maktesh means mortar, so that we must suppose the traders to have lived in a hollow valley, perhaps the upper part of the Tyropceon. But the main part of the town was still grouped round the temple plateau, from which steep streets ran down the slope of the hill (Lam. iv. 1), the houses rising tier above tier, so that the roof tops com-manded a view of the environs (Isa. xxii.). According to Eastern custom the handicrafts—e.g., the bakers, Jer. xxxvii. 21—had their own streets or bazaars.
For the compass of the walls of Jerusalem at the time of its capture by Nebuchadnezzar the chief document is the account of the restoration of the fortifications by Nehemiah, who followed the old line, and speaks of the various gates and towers by their old names. His description presents many difficulties, the most intelligible part being that which deals with the eastern wall, from Siloah and the fountain gate to the point where the temple and the palace joined one another. The western boundary of the city is particularly obscure, and its position must be mainly determined by reference to the " valley gate" (Neh. ii. 13 ; iii. 13). The valley (gay) is used as a proper name, and is no doubt identical with the valley (gay) of the son of Hinnom, the Kidron valley being always called nahal i.e., fiumara. The common opinion makes this gay the valley to the west of modern Jerusalem (Wady er Rababy), in which case the valley gate must necessarily have occupied much the same position as the modern Jaffa gate, and the whole of the later upper city on the south-west hill must already have been included within the walls. This view, however, is far from indisputable. A thousand cubits south of the valley gate was the dung gate, the gate before which the rubbish heaps of the city lay. This on the common theory must have been about the south-west corner of the hill, near the present Protestant school. Between this point and the fountain gate in the vicinity of the pool of Siloah is nearly half a mile in a straight line, and the intervening wall must have been much longer if it followed the natural line of defence. Yet Nehemiah gives no account of this section of the ramparts (Neh. iii. 14, 15). His record seems to imply that the fountain gate was near the dung gate; and similarly in chap. xii. the procession which went southward to the dung gate is immediately afterwards found at the fountain gate. It is hardly possible that so important a part of the circuit should be twice omitted, and in fact the vast lacuna disappears at once if we suppose that the gay is the Tyropceon, and that the upper city of Josephus on the south-west hill was not enclosed in the circuit of Nehemiah's walls. In that case the valley gate lay on the Tyropceon, somewhere near the south-west angle of the Haram area, and the wall ran south-ward along the east side of the valley, till at the pool of Siloah an outwork was thrown out to protect the water supply.
Besides simplifying the topographical difficulties of Neh. iii., this view has several other advantages. On the received view the Tyro-pceon is nowhere mentioned in Scripture, though it lay in the heart of the city. This difficulty is removed by the view above suggested, and the third valley (V. er líabáby) appears to be quite out of re-lation to the circuit of the Biblical Jerusalem, so that one does not look for much mention of it. Again, we have seen that the Canaan-ite quarter of the city lay in a hollow—presumably in the Tyropceon, and it is very natural that the seat of Canaanite worship in the valley of Hinnom should be in the vicinity of this quarter. Once more, by plaeingthe valley gate quite near the temple, we understand how it was in this neighbourhood that the sacred procession in Neh. xii. began its course. Even at a much later date the Temple hill was the real stronghold of Jerusalem, which Judas and his suc-cessors were concerned to fortify with walls. It would have been folly in Nehemiah to enclose a much vaster and less defensible cir-cuit when the inhabitants were so few that it was necessary to draft one-tenth of the whole people into the capital (Neh. xi. 1).
The course of the wall north of the valley gate must still have skirted the base of the Temple hill east of the Tyropoeon. It is not improbable that the Maktesh or Canaanite trading quarter lay outside the fortifications, a bazaar beyond the gate being a common feature in Eastern towns. From the tower of furnaces or ovens the "broad wall" ran to the point where in the Persian time the governor of the Syrian provinces had his throne. The throne would stand in an open place by a gateway, and comparison of Neh. iii. 7 with xii. 39 shows that the gate must have been that of Ephraim, i.e., the gate of the main road leading to the north, which then as now must almost of necessity have followed the upper course of the Tyropceon, and so would skirt the walls for some distance before entering the city. In fact there were 400 cubits between the gate of Ephraim and the corner gate (2 Kings xiv. 13). The corner gate is also named the first gate (Zech. xiv. 10), and so is probably identical with the old gate of Nehemiah, For obvious engineering reasons the eminence at the north-west of the Haram area must always have been a principal point in the fortifications, and here the old gate may very well be placed. It is indeed very likely that this was the site of the ancient bastion of Millo. From the corner gate the north line of the wall ran by the fish gate to the towers of Meah and Hananeel, the hitter of which appears in Zech., loc. cit., as the opposite extremity of the city from the royal wine vats in the gardens by Siloah, while in Jer. xxxi. 38 the line between it and the corner gate is named as the natural direction of extension for the city. The tower, therefore, must have stood very near the north-east corner of the wall, but not so far east as the angle of the Haram area, which is here built out, disguising the natural line of the hill side. From Zech., loc. cit., we see that the Benjamin gate was at the east end of the north wall. There was a road into Benjamite territory over the Kidron (1 Kings ii. 37), and to this there was a natural descent by a small valley now nearly obliterated, having its head a little south of the Birket Isráíl. Here too is the direct way to Anathoth, which was through the Benjamin gate (Jer. xxxvii. 13). In Nehemiah's record the sheep gate seems to have the same position. From the angle near the tower of Hananeel and the Benjamin gate the line of the hill run southwards, trending to the east. At the extreme east point, beyond the present line of wall, and a little south of the modern golden gate, must be placed the horse gate (Jer. xxxi. 40). South of this again came the fortifications of Ophel and the upper palace, and from this point the enceinte swept round to the pool of Siloah. The lower wall of Manasseh in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 14 is described as an outwork in the Kidron valley extending all along the eastern side of the town and round the north-east corner.
The long blank in the history of the Jews which follows the time of Nehemiah makes it impossible to trace the progress of Jerusalem in any detail. Under the Persian empire the Jews enjoyed little prosperity. Alexander spared the city, but in 320 its walls were rased by Ptolemy I. (Appian, Syr., 50). A period of comparative prosperity followed, culminating in the high priesthood of Simon II. (219-199 B.C.), who repaired the temple and strengthened its defences and fortified the city. The walls were again destroyed and the city burned by the army of Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 B.C. "When Judas Maccaba?us reconsecrated the temple (165) he also fortified the holy mountain of Zion (the Temple hill) with wall and towers. Once more rased by the Greeks, the walls of the city were renewed with hewn stone by Jonathan.
It is plain froml Mace. iv. 60, vi. 7, x. 11, that up to this time the fortified city was still identical with the Temple hill; but a new topographical problem is raised by what is related of the citadel (Akra) erected by Epiphanes to dominate the town. The Akra is identified by the author with the city of David. It continued to be held by the Greeks after the town was fortified by the Macca-bees, and indeed was ultimately reduced by the erection of a special wall cutting off the Greek garrison from access to the city and market (xii. 36). The natural inference from all this is that the Greek citadel lay on the Temple hill, and presumably on the site of the later Antonia. That hill is certainly the Zion of 1 Mace.; and the city of David, with which the Akra is identified, had always meant the fortress of Zion. The same result seems to follow from the language of Josephus. When Josephus lived Jerusalem was almost a new town. Under the Maccabees, and again under Herod, the prosperity of the Jews was greater than at any previous time. The sanctuary was a centre of pilgrimage from the most distant lands, and the sovereigns of Jerusalem had an empire greater than any of the kings after Solomon. The growth of the city must have been enormous, and the great buildings of Herod and his successors had wholly changed its aspect, especially in the quarter of the temple and on the western hill where the royal palace stood. These changes were very apt to mislead an uncritical writer with regard to the ancient topography, and in fact Josephus falls into a radical blunder by assuming that the fortress of David belonged to the upper city, like the royal castle of his own day, and that the western hill had always been part of Jerusalem. But of Jerusalem as he himself saw it he gives a vivid description (B. J., v. 4, 1). The city stood on two hills divided by the Tyropceon valley, into which the houses descended tier beneath tier. The higher western hill was called the upper market, the lower hill across the Tyropceon was the citadel hill, and was called indifferently the Akra or the lower city. That this Akra included the ridge south of the temple is clear from several marks: the hill was a/j.<piKvpTos, "hog-backed"; it was cut off by ravines on the outer side, and had a continuous approach to the temple, which stood on the higher ground ; finally, it extended to Siloah at the mouth of the Tyropceon. Thus we see that, though Josephus himself has lost the true tradition as to the city of David, he furnishes additional proof that the citadel hill, still identified with it by the author of 1 Mace., was no other than the eastern hill.
A different view of the Akra was maintained by Robinson, and has been elaborated by Messrs Warren and Conder in connexion with recent better observations as to the two heads of the Tyropoj.on valley. It is maintained that the Akra was a knoll, west of the Temple hill and north of the traditional Zion, between the two heads of the Tyropceon. To gain any show of plausibility for this view it is necessary to lay great weight on a statement of Josephus that the Temple hill was once a third eminence lower than the Akra, and divided from it by a broad ravine, ami that Simon after taking the Akra destroyed the citadel and laboured for three years to reduce its site below the level of the temple plateau and fill up the inter-vening hollow (B. J., v. 4 : Ant., xiii. 6, 6). This story is pro-bably exaggerated, for according to the early and trustworthy evi-dence of 1 Mace. xiii. the Akrawas not destroyed, but only purged, and strengthened by additional fortifications on the sacred moun-tain. And in any case we know that the Akra was opposite the temple, and that in the time of Josephus there was no longer a ravine between, whereas the city opposite the temple to the west was still cut off by the deep Tyropceon {Ant., xv. 11, 5), except where a bridge led to the palace on the western hill. Nor is it possible that the western head of the Tyropceon can be the deep ravine which, according to Josephus, separated the upper and lower city, for that head is the theatre-shaped basin described in Ant., xv. 11, 5 as facing the temple across the ravine.
Under the Hasmonean dynasty we meet with the first unambiguous evidence that the city had extended to the loftier western hill, where a new palace was erected overlooking the temple (Ant., xx. 8, 11). This continued to be the royal quarter, and was raised to great splendour by Herod, who covered a vast extent of ground with his palace, its courts and pleasure grounds. The palace of Herod embraced two edifices transcending the temple in magnificence, and the three enormous adjoining towers, Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamne, made the upper city the strongest part of Jerusalem. Here also in Herod's days stood the xystus or gymnasium, beneath the Hasmonean palace, where a bridge spanned the Tyropceon. The bridge already existed under the later Hasmoneans, when the new-quarter had as yet minor importance and the Temple hill was still the only citadel. Here the warlike high priest Hyrcanus usually dwelt in the castle (Bapts, MTa) which Herod afterwards converted into the fortress of Antonia in the north-west corner of the enceinte of the temple (Ant., xv. 11, 4; B. J., v. 5, 8). Antonia had the form of a square keep, with loftier towers rising pinnacle-Uke at the corners. It commanded the temple and therefore the whole lower city, and by its two staircases the Roman soldiers descended into the porticoes of the temple to keep order among the worshippers (comp. Acts xxi. 35).
When Pompey besieged the Temple hill in 65 B.C, the-bridge was broken down, and the Tyropceon afforded a complete defence on the west. His assault was made from the north, where there was a strong wall with towers and a deep fosse which was with difficulty filled up to permit the advance of his siege train. This fosse must be identified with the rock-cut trench north of the Haram area, and from Josephus's description seems to have been still the northern limit of the town. The walls destroyed by Pompey were restored by Antipater, and ten years later yielded, after an obstinate resistance, to Herod and the Romans (37 B.C). The Baris, occupied by Antigonus, was not surrendered till the temple and the rest of the city had been carried by storm, and we now read of two walls which had to be reduced successively.
The most important buildings erected by Herod have already been alluded to, and his reconstruction of the temple will be considered under that heading. But the walls of the city as they existed at the time of the siege by Titus must still be described. They were three in number. The first wall consisted of a rampart to the north of Herod's palace, connecting Hippicus in the citadel of the upper city with the western porch of the temple, and of another line skirting the face of the western hill from Hippicus southward, thence curving round beyond Siloah, and joining the eastern wall of the temple enclosure at Ophel. Several traces of this wall still exist. The second wall, connecting a point in the northern line of the first wall with Antonia, enclosed the new town or trading quarter. Outside both these walls, on the hill side sloping southwards towards the temple, a suburb called Bezetha had grown up, which Agrippa I. in the time of Claudius Caesar began to protect with a third wall conceived on a gigantic scale, but never altogether finished. The precise compass of this wall, which began at Hippicus and rejoined the first wall in the Kidron valley, has been much disputed,—the great tower o£ Psephinus, which stood on very high ground, and formed its north-west angle, being supposed by some to have stood near the modern castle of Goliath (Kasr Jalud), while others place it as far north as the Russian cathedral. The measurements by which it has been proposed to decide the northern limits of Jerusalem are the distance of 3 stadia from the city to the tomb of Queen Helena of Adiabene (commonly identified with the Tombs of the Kings, Ktibur es Scddtin), and the circuit of 33 stadia assigned by Jose-phus to the whole city. These measurements would seem to imply that the ancient city stretched further north than the modern walls, but they can hardly claim to be taken as mathematically accurate; the estimates of the compass of the city vary, and Eusebius places it at 27 stadia. This again would imply a line closely coincident with the north wall of the modern town, agreeing with the remains of ancient scarping still visible, and with the express statement of Josephus that the line of the third wall passed through the royal caves, i.e., the catacombs, or the cotton grotto and grotto of Jeremiah, which are separated by a kind of fosse cut through the live rock, and manifestly forming part of the old wall line. In the siege under Titus the Romans successively carried the third and second walls. They then occupied Antonia, which was levelled to facilitate the approach of the forces for the attack on the temple stronghold. The temple was opened by fire rather than force, and, the Jewish leaders having retired to the upper city, the lower town from the temple to Siloah was burned by the Romans. The capture of the upper city was effected by a regular approach with mounds and battering rams (September 70 A.D.), and even then the huge citadel of Herod could only have yielded to famine had it not been abandoned by the Jewish leaders in a vain attempt at escape. Its three great towers, with a portion of the western wall, were left as a memorial, and of this group the so-called tower of David (Phasael) still stands.
The rebuilding of Jerusalem by Hadrian seems to have been originally conceived in a spirit friendly to the Jews, and there is even some evidence that the restoration of the temple was contemplated or commenced. After the great revolt, however, M\ia Capitolina was transformed into a purely pagan town with seven quarters and many buildings of heathen fashion. The spread of Christianity and the rise of the practice of pilgrimage gave a new importance to the city of the crucifixion and resurrection, and in the time of Constantine the discovery of the Holy Sepulchre and the erection of the magnificent church of the Anastasis (dedicated 336 A.D.) again made Jerusalem a great religious centre. In the pagan reaction under Julian an attempt was made to rebuild the temple, but was frustrated by an outburst of fire from the foundations (362). The unfortunate empress Eudocia spent her last years at Jerusalem (c. 350-360), repaired the walls, built the church of St Stephen, founded monasteries and hospitals, and enriched the churches. The next great builder was Justinian, part of whose splendid church of St Mary perhaps still remains in or to the east of the mosque El-Aksa. In 614 Jerusalem was taken by Chosroes, and the churches and sepulchre were burned, but the patriarch Modestus restored them as soon as the Persians retired. In 637 Jerusalem capitulated to the caliph Omar, who gave directions for the erection of a place of worship on the site of the "remotest shrine," i.e., the temple, to which Mahomet, according to Kor. xvii. 1, was transported from Mecca in his famous night journey. From this verse the great sanctuary of Jerusalem received the name El-Aksa, now generally confined to the building at the south end of the Haram. The original mosque as described by Arculphus (670) was a rude edifice of wood capable of containing 3000 worshippers; but soon after the sanctuary was reconstructed in a style of great magnificence by the caliph 'Abel el Malik, whose date (72 A.H. = 691 A.D.) is still read on a Cufic inscription on the Dome of the Rock, though the name of the caliph seems to have been changed to that of El-Mamiin, who restored the buildings after a great earthquake, which, according to Mokacldasy left nothing standing except the part around the mihrdb or niche indicating the direction of Mecca. In their present condition the buildings of the sanctuary show features of very various styles from the Byzantine downwards. The architectural problems which they suggest are closely connected with controversies as to the topography of the temple and the true site of the Holy Sepulchre, both of which subjects will be more conveniently discussed under TEMPLE. Apart from the question of the holy sites, the later topography of Jerusalem presents no feature that need detain us, and the subsequent fortunes of the city belong to the general history of Palestine and the crusades. (W. R. S.)
III. MODERN JERUSALEM.
It appears probable that the crusading wall ran Plate X just outside the present one on the north-west side of the town—the remains of mediaeval masonry existing all along this line. In 1192 Saladin fortified the same quarter with a second wall and a fosse, and, as remains of an interior wall are still traceable at the ruined tower called KaVat Jdlud, it appears that the two ramparts must have run about 60 yards apart on this side of the town. Dismantled in 1219 and restored again in 1229, the fortifications were again destroyed in 1239, and the present wal's were built in 1542 by Suleiman the Magnifi-cent, as witnessed by inscriptions over the present Jaffa and other gates. The following is a conspectus of the gates at different times in consecutive order :—
== TABLE ==
In 680 the city had eighty-four towers. In the 12th century the two principal ones were—first, Tancred's tower on the north-west, the present Kal'at Jdlud (Goliath's castle), where remains of a mediaeval square tower of 80 feet side still exist, and, second, David's tower, still so called (the ancient Phasaelus), forming part of the castle of the Pisans, as the present citadel was called in the 16th century.
The walls of the modern city enclose an area of 210 acres, the greater part thickly crowded with houses, although on the north-east and south there are plots of ground near the ramparts not occupied by buildings. The houses are of stone, with flat stone roofs having small domes supported on arches in the middle, and the aspect of the city is specially colourless and stony. The streets are only narrow lanes running at right angles to one another. The principal streets are the same as in the 12th century, and in many cases retain Arabic names at least four hundred years old. They are arched over here and there, and the bazaars, with portions of the Via Dolorosa and of other streets, are entirely covered in. There are now four quarters:—that of the Moslems (including the Haram) on the north-east, the Jewish quarter on the south-east, the Armenian quarter on the south-west, the Christian on the north-west. The quarters are bounded by David (or Temple) Street, running east from the Jaffa gate, and by the street running north and south immediately east of the Holy Sepulchre (called JIdrat el Yehud on the south and Tarik Bub el 'Amiid on the north). The quarters are not, how-ever, exclusively occupied by any nationality, many rich Jews having houses in the Armenian and even in the Moslem quarter. In the 12th century the present Moslem quarter was occupied by the Jews, and called the Juiverie.
Viewed from the Mount of Olives, the most conspicuous object is the Haram enclosure, occupying nearly one-sixth of the city, with the Dome of the Rock rising in the centre and the Aksa mosque extending to the southern wall, while between these two buildings are the tall cypresses which surround the fountain El lids. Arcades with pointed arches stand on the flights of steps leading to the platform surrounding the Dome of the Rock, and three minarets rise from the west and north walls, while the great eastern rampart is unbroken save by the projecting tower of the Golden gate. In the Jewish quarter two large synagogues with domes—one painted green—are conspicuous, while the church and convent of St James is the special feature of the Armenian quarter. Close to the Jaffa gate rise the square tower of David and a minaret within the citadel, while immediately east of this fortress stands the Protestant English church and the large palace of the Anglo-German Protestant bishop. North-east of these are seen the two domes of the rotunda and choir of the Holy Sepulchre, and immediately south of them the minaret of Omar's mosque on the site of the great hospital of St John. The modern Latin cathedral and patriarchate appear behind the Holy Sepulchre church, while the highest ground outside the city on the north-west is occupied by the Russian cathedral, hospice, and consulate, only completed in 1866.
The country round the city is barren and stony. Olive groves exist on the north, and the white slopes of Olivet are dotted with the trees whence it is named. Vineyards also exist on the west, but since the destruction of the fruit trees by Titus (B. J., v. 3, 2) the vicinity of Jerusalem seems always to have presented a sterile appearance.
The number of churches and monasteries in the modern city, without counting many crusading chapels now either in ruins or else converted into mosques, is very large. There are 18 monasteries of the Greek Orthodox sect, 8 Catholic (or Latin), including the patriarchate, 3 Armenian, 2 Coptic, 1 Syrian, 1 Armenian Catholic, 1 Greek Catholic, and 1 Abyssinian. The Protestant institutions, including schools, &c, number 14 in all. In the Jewish quarter there are no less than 14 synagogues and 2 schools. There are also many charitable institutions in and near the city, of which the principal are Rothschild's hospital near the south wall, founded in 1855, and Sir Moses Montefiore's alms-houses, west of the great reservoir called Birket es Sidtdn. In the centre of the city excavations have been carried on by the German Government (to whom the site was given by the sultan) in the grounds of the crusading convent of Sta. Maria Magna (now called El Muristda) immediately east of the hospital of St John; a Lutheran chapel is now established in the ruins. The Moslem buildings of the city date principally from the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries, and some of the ancient Moslem schools near the Haram are remarkably solid structures. There are two barracks, one on the scarped rock (Antonia) north of the Haram, the other in the citadel on the south-west. The serai or court-house is near the former. All the European powers are represented by resident consuls, and every nationality has some kind of hospice or hotel for the reception of pilgrims. The market-places have remained unchanged from very early times, the upper or vegetable market being in the upper city opposite the tower of David, and the bazaars or lower markets in the valley north of David Street. The money-changers occupy the site of the old exchange of the 12th century (first established by Charlemagne) in the western portion of David Street.
Jerusalem under the Turks is the capital of southern Palestine (about 2000 square miles), and the seat of a mutasarrif under the wdly of Syria. The mejlis or town council consists of 8 members :—4 Moslem, 3 Christian, 1 Jewish, the latter being the chief rabbi of the Sephardim. The export trade of the city consists chiefly of oil, corn, sesame, cotton (of poor quality), and soap, also of rosaries, crucifixes, and cameos, carved in olive wood and mother of pearl. The imports in 1871 amounted to ¿672,000, includ-ing cotton, wool, hardware, timber, silk, and glass from England and Austria; wines and spirits from France ; and £3500 value of flour from Russia. Rice is imported in coasting vessels from Egypt; wine, spirits, dried fish, &c, from Cyprus and the Greek islands ; carpets and shawls are brought by the Moslem and Christian pilgrims. There are also a few potteries in the city.
The present cemeteries of Jerusalem are six in number. The Moslem inhabitants bury immediately outside the east wall of the Haram, especially beside and north of the Golden gate, while a second Moslem cemetery exists on the knoll of Jeremiah's grotto, and a third (on the site of the old Camarium Beonis) is close to the Mamilla pool west of the city. The Christians have cemeteries on the south-west of the brow of Sion, and the Jews are buried on Olivet opposite the temple, excepting the Karaites who have a cemetery on the south-east part of Sion.
The remains of an old Christian cemetery, including tombs belonging to the old church of St Sion, are found in the southern boundary valley, and there are a few sepulchres of crusading date near the north-east corner of Jerusalem on the outside. Of the ancient Jewish tombs the most striking are that known as the Tombs of the Kings, and the monument called Absalom's tomb on the east of the Kidron valley, which is perhaps the tomb of Alexander Jannaeus (B. J., v. 7, 2).
The climate of Jerusalem is healthy in comparison with that of the plains beneath it. A fresh sea breeze blows throughout the day in summer, and the average daily maximum temperature is 86° F. August is the hottest month, but in May the prevalence of dry east winds is specially trying. The autumn months are very unhealthy. In winter there are occasionally heavy falls of snow, which lies on the hills for several days. The waters of the Bir Eyilb overflow annually through a hole in the ground near the well, and a running stream then flows for many days clown the Kidron valley. This overflow is a cause of re-joicing to the inhabitants, who make it a holiday occasion. The annual rainfall averages about 18 inches. Years of drought occasionally occur, when the inhabitants of the city suffer much from want of water. The repair of the aqueduct from Bethlehem and of the large reservoirs in the city would, however, be sufficient to ensure a plentiful supply. The present supply is obtained principally from cisterns under the houses. Slight shocks of earthquake are occasionally experienced (as for instance in 1874), and appear to have been specially prevalent in the 8th and 11th centuries (cf. Zech. xiv. 5).
The population of Jerusalem, stated in 1838 at about 11,000, has increased rapidly of late years, owing to a great increase in the Jewish population, which has risen in that time from 3000 to over 10,000 souls. According to a consular estimate in 1872, the population was as follows, the total agreeing very closely with an independent estimate by Frere Lievin the Franciscan :—Jews (Seph-ardim, 4600; Ashkenazim, GO00), 10,600; Moslems, 5000; Christians, 5300; total, 20,900.
At Easter this population is increased by about 5000 pilgrims, who crowd the narrow streets until they are almost impassable. Throughout the year there are gene-rally about 100 pilgrims in the Russian hospice. The num-ber of Jews is said to be increasing at the rate of 1200 to 1500 souls per annum, chiefly though fresh arrivals from Russia and Poland. A building-club has been established and 130 houses erected in four years by the Jews, outside the walls. Along the Jaffa road many country villas have also been erected of late by European residents as summer abodes.
A very large majority of the Christians in Jerusalem are either priests, monks, or nuns. The majority belong to the Greek Orthodox church (about 2800 souls). The Greek patriarch has a province including all Palestine, with ten bishops, viz., of Nazareth, Acre, Kerak, Tabor, Bethlehem, Lydda, Gaza, Nablus, Es Salt, and Sebastieh, the last five being residents in Jerusalem. The Russian cathedral is presided over by an archimandrite with two assistant priests and a deacon.
The Latins in Palestine are not numerous, the country villages when Christian belonging generally to the Greek church. The Latin priests and monks are principally Jesuits and Franciscans. The number of Latins in Jeru-salem is about 1500. Their churches are the cathedral of St Saviour, close to the patriarchate on the west, and the chapel of the Flagellation. They have established also many useful institutions, including a boys' school for 150 and a girls' school for 100 pupils.
The number of Armenian and Greek Catholics together does not exceed 50 souls. The orthodox Armenians are the richest sect in the city, numbering about 500. Great numbers of Armenian pilgrims visit the city, and their hospice (for 2000) is the largest in Jerusalem. Their principal church is that of St James on Siou. The Protestants (about 300) belong to the English Church and the Lutheran. The bishopric was established by England and Prussia in 1841. The mission to the Jews was established in 1824, and supports a hospital and church with resident chaplain and parsonage, a boys' school, and other institutions. There are also several German institu-tions, including a girls' school and an orphanage outside the walls. The remaining Christian sects, Copts, Syrians, and Abyssinians, number only about 200 souls. For the Jews in Jerusalem see JEWS, page 686 of the present volume.
The streets of Jerusalem at Easter present a strange spectacle from the numerous national costumes seen together. The European tourist, the Turkish nizam, the hooded Armenian, the long-haired Greek monk, are mingled with the native peasants in yellow turbans and striped mantles, with Armenian pilgrims wearing broad red sashes, Jews in Oriental costume or with the fur cap and lovelocks of the Pharisee, Russians in knee boots and padded robes, and native ladies in white mantles with black face veils
The architecture of the city, Oriental, Gothic, Byzantine, or Italian, tells the same story—that Jerusalem has been for eighteen centuries a holy city in the eyes of Jew, Christian, and Moslem alike, and the religious centre of half the world. (C. E. C.)
Literature.—For the oldest period the Bible is the only source ; for the city of Herod Josephus, to whom classical authors (Strabo, Tacitus) add little. The Talmudic material has been collected by Neubauer, Geographic du Talmud, Paris, 1868 ; comp. Schwarz's Palestine (pXH niXUD, 1845; Eng. transl., Philadelphia, 1850; German trans]., 1852). The materials for Christian Jerusalem in patristic literature, histories, and pilgrimages are immense. The best list is Tobler's Bibliographia Geographica Palestine, Leips., 1867, with the supplement (1875) for 383-1000 A.D. See also A. B. M'Grigor's Index of Passages bearing upon the Topography from Writings prior to the lUh century, Glasgow, 1876. The Arabic sources have hitherto been imperfectly utilized. Of the more ancient Istakhry and Mokaddasy (988 A.l).), on whom Yakut and Kazwini mainly depend, deserve special notice. For Arabic works on Jerusalem see H. Khalifa, ii. 139. Recent writers have chiefly followed two very modern works, the Uns Jalil of Mujir ed Din (1494 A.l)., see H. Kh., i. 453), of -which extracts are given by Williams (vol. i., app. 2), and by Sauvaire (Hist, de Jerusalem ct cV Hebron, 1876), and the Ithdf el Ahissd of Kemal ed Din (1470 A.D., see H. Kh., i. 148), which through an error of the translator Reynolds (Lond., 1836) is often ascribed to the famous Jelal ed Din (Soyuty). This book by no means deserves the authority attached to it by English writers. Kesults of recent research are embodied in the ordnance survey map, 1865 ; Zimmermann's maps, 1876, 1880; Warren's Recovery of Jerusalem, 1871. Of the innumerable topographical discussions (excluding works specially devoted to the Temple and Holy Sepulchre) may be named Reland, Palmstina, 1714; Olshausen, Zur Topographic cles alien Jerusalem, 1833; Fergusson, Topography of Jerusalem, 1847; Robinson, Biblical Researches; Thrupp, Ancient Jerusalem, 1855; Lewin, Siege of Jerusalem by Titus, 1863; Williams, The Holy City, 2d ed., 1849; Furrer, IVanderungcn, 1865 ; Id., "Jeru-salem " in Sehenkel's Bib. Lex. For the history see Williams, op. cit., and Besant and Palmer, Jerusalem, 1871 (from crusading and Arabic sources). Sociu-Badeker's Handbook deserves special notice.
Footnotes
1 A very ancient Hebrew inscription, referring to the construction of the tunnel, was discovered in June 1880. The date and many points in the reading and interpretation are still obscure.
2 In Judg. xix. 10, 1 Chron xi. 4, the city itself is called Jebus; but as this part of the Book of Judges (as well as Josh. xv. 8, xviii. 28) is probably of late date, and the older records use the name Jerusalem, it is not safe to regard Jebus as the earliest name of the city. The reference to Jerusalem in Judg. i. 7 seems to be an interpolation, and Josh. xv. 63, Judg. i. 21 to refer to the time after David.
Whether the narrator of Gen. xiv. 18 means Jerusalem by Salem, the city of Melchizedek, is still disputed, and the decision of the ques-tion is embarrassed by the uncertainty attaching to the date of his narrative. If the chapter is early, Salem can hardly mean Jerusalem, but many critics now assign to it a very late date.
See Zimmermann's Karten unci Plane zur Top. d. alt. Jerus., based on Schick's measurements (Basel, 1876); Quart. Stat. ofP.E.F., 1880, p. 82.
See Zimmermann's Karten unci Plane zur Top. d. alt. Jerus., based on Schick's measurements (Basel, 1876); Quart. Stat. ofP.E.F., 1880, p. 82.
2 See Yakut, iv. 590 ; Táj el 'Ar&s, iv. 214.
The explanatory note of an editor in 1 Kings viii. 1, " the city of David, which is Zion," cannot be strained to mean that the removal of the ark from the city of David to the temple was its removal from the mountain of Zion to another hill.
The fountain gate is the gate beside Siloah, which is itself called I the fountain (771777)) by Josephus (B. ./., v. 4, 1).
4 So in Neh. iii. 25 it is called the upper palace iu distinction from i the house of David, chap. xii. 37.
The statements of Josephus as to the topography of the city of David and Solomon are of no independent value. He possessed no sources except the Old Testament.
Another view is that Solomon's palace stood on the western hill, and was connected with the temple by a bridge. But "the ascent" of the A. V. of 1 Kings x. 5 does not exist in the original, and seems to rest on a false reading in Chronicles. In Ezek. xliv. the sovereign enters the temple from the east.
In fact at the siege of Titus the wool and clothes market and the brassworkers' bazaar still lay in much the same quarter, in the new city, outside the old line of fortification, though within the second wall (B. J., v. 8, ]).
A perpetuation of this blunder gives the current name Tower of David to the Herodian tower, probably Phasael, which still stands by the Jaffa gate. On this tower compare a paper by Schick in Zeitschr. d. Deut. Palästina- Vereins, vol. i.
B. J., vi. 7, 2 ; comp. v. 4, 1, and the association of Siloah and the Akra in v. 6, 1.
s See Warren, The Temple or the Tomb, London, 18S0; and Conder, Tent Work in Palestine, London, 1878, vol. i.
The eminence over the grotto of Jeremiah (El Heidemiyeh in Plate X.) is supposed by Lieutenant Conder to be Calvary.
Details in Chron. Pasch., 01. 224, 3.