vv. 6-8, the Gate of Ephraim is passed by without mention, although,

according to xii. 38, 39, it existed between the Broad Wall and the Old Gate; and the Corner Gate, which we know existed, is passed over by Nehemiah.)

Verse 25. The mention now of another re-entering angle might perplex us, only that the same verse speaks of a “tower standing out from the king’s upper house,” and this may easily afford the angle.

Verse 26. We are now fairly on the Hill of Ophel, and accordingly the workers who have been set to labour here are “the Nethinim dwelling in Ophel.” There is also mention in v. 31 of a house of the Nethinim near the northern end of the east wall--still outside the Temple precincts.[31]

As soon as the Nethinim of Ophel get far enough south to look beyond the projecting tower and see the Triple Gate, they are stated to be over against the Water Gate. Lewin says that “the Water Gate proper was that of the inner Temple, to the south of the altar, and led down to the great southern gate of the outer Temple, which was probably also called the Water Gate.” The Nethinim find themselves at the same time looking eastward, or their wall facing toward the sun-rising. They are also over against the tower that standeth out. This is not the tower mentioned in the previous verse as projecting from the king’s house, but may perhaps be the one at the bend of the Ophel wall, discovered by Warren.

Verse 27. Where the Nethinim cease their work it is taken up by the Tekoites, who presently come “over against the great tower that standeth out,” namely, the large tower which Warren found. This identification struck Warren himself, and he mentions it in the “Recovery of Jerusalem,” p. 295. It now wanted but a little extension of the work to complete the junction with the Wall of Ophel, at the point where Warren found that wall to end abruptly, and the narrative tells us that the Tekoites effected the junction.

Verse 28. The Ophel Wall being in good repair, is no more referred to; but the next thing mentioned is the Horse Gate. As Warren could not find any gate in the Ophel Wall, the Horse Gate must have been north of it; and here it would be at a point convenient for entrance to Solomon’s Stables, which would be under the palace, and perhaps under the present vaults known as Solomon’s Stables. There is a depth of about 100 feet of unexplored rubbish between the floor of Solomon’s Stables and the rock at the south-eastern angle. The true stables may lie buried in this rubbish.

“Above the Horse Gate repaired the priests, every one over against his own house.” These houses of priests are in a position exactly corresponding with the house of Eliashib and others on the west side. The expression “over against,” implies that the city wall which is being repaired stands removed from the priests’ houses, which border the Temple courts, and it would be eastward of the present Haram wall. Herr Schick draws it so.

Verse 29. An East Gate is referred to (_Mizrach_), not to be confounded with the Gate Harsith, the so-called East Gate of Jeremiah xix. 2 in the Authorised Version. It may be the Shushan Gate, which, according to the Talmud, stood over against the east front of the Temple.

When we come over against the Golden Gate--which Nehemiah calls the Gate Miphkad--we are just where Warren’s tunnelling work was arrested by a massive masonry barrier--probably a part of the ancient city wall--50 feet east of the Haram wall. The wall was built of large quarry-dressed stones, and was so thick that a hole made into it for 5 feet 6 inches did not go right through. A few feet north of the Golden Gate the wall began bending north-west, as though following the contour of the hill; and Warren was also led to suspect that the wall is a high one, extending upward through the _debris_ to near the surface, since immediately above it, in the road, there are some large roughly-bevelled stones lying in the same line.[32]

In Nehemiah’s description we are now immediately at “the ascent of the corner” (_pinneh_, a projecting angle). There is no corner now visible at the surface immediately north of the Golden Gate, and no ascent from a depth. But we have seen already that the northern cloister of the Temple would strike the east wall of the Haram a little north of the Golden Gate, and consequently here would be the _corner_ of the Temple courts. We have also seen that the rock now shelves down to the north, for the valley from Herod’s Gate came out here, and at 300 feet north of Golden Gate the rubbish is 125 feet in depth, so that from this low ground there would be an _ascent_ in turning west. The wall itself would go up, ascending toward the ridge of the hill. There is no more likely spot for the elbow of the wall than that marked by the little building called the Throne of Solomon. The great depth of the valley here gave fearful height to the corner tower; and eastern imagination would be not unlikely to suggest that only Solomon or the demons could have built it.

Having reached “the ascent of the corner,” one more band of workers brings us to the Sheep Gate, where the description began.

_The Route of the Processionists._--Chapter xii. affords striking confirmation of the foregoing positions. At the dedication of the walls two companies start from the Valley Gate and go opposite ways to meet in the Temple. Presumably the Valley Gate was chosen to afford journeys of about equal length; and this is another indication that the wall did not go down to Siloam. The party going south pass the Dung Gate, and reach the Fountain Gate. And now which way will they go? The wall has been repaired right ahead of them, and also the wall turning north, and they will have to choose between two routes. The Revised Version says they went “by (_ad_) the Fountain Gate and straight before them,” and ascended _by_ the Stairs of the City of David at the going up of the wall (not _by_ this time, nor really “at,” but “_in_”--_ba-maaleth le-chomah_, _i.e._, _in_ the stairway of the wall _by_ the Stairs of David--a different stairway from the Stairs of the City of David, which descended into the valley bed).

Their way up these stairs and beyond carried them “above the house of David, even unto the Water Gate.” The house of David here is close by the king’s garden of iii. 15; and its position on the slope of the hill suggests a reason for calling Solomon’s palace the king’s upper house (or high house, iii. 25). Some say “the house of David” means David’s tomb; but if that be so, it only confirms the position which I am led to assign to the tomb. Observe also that the position required for the Water Gate here is again that of the present Triple Gate, the same as in iii. 26.

It deserves particular attention that the processionists pass quickly from the Stairs of David to the Water Gate, whereas in the rebuilding, these two places are very wide apart, because the bend of the wall is followed. In iii. 15, we have the Sepulchres, the Pool, the House of the Mighty, four more bands of workers, the turning of the wall, the armoury, the house of Eliashib, the turning, the corner, and the outstanding tower--all between the point over against the Stairs of David and the Water Gate; but none of these things come in the route of the processionists. This is easy to understand if the wall makes a bay up the Tyropœon, for then the short cut in the text corresponds with the short cut in the plan; but it can hardly be made intelligible on any plan which omits this bay and carries the wall down to Siloam.

A superficial objection may be raised that the detour up the valley and _viâ_ the causeway, avoided by the processionists, would be avoided by Nehemiah in repairing the walls, for why should he do more than repair the short transverse wall, when his object was speed? My reply would be that his object was strength and safety as well as speed. The transverse wall was no sufficient protection by itself, there being an easy approach up the valley, but it was valuable as an addition to the inner walls. Besides, Nehemiah had workers enough to be engaged at all these parts at once, so that the completion of the work was not at all delayed by repairing the two north-and-south walls of the bend simultaneously with the cross wall, and indeed with the walls all round the city.

The second company, with whom was Nehemiah, started from the Gate of the Valley simultaneously with the first; and the earliest note of their progress is that they pass the Tower of the Furnaces and reach the Broad Wall. We now, of course, meet with the places in the reverse order to that in which we made their acquaintance, in following the builders from east to west. The order then was--

Sheep-Gate. Tower of the Meah. Tower of Hananel. Fish Gate. Old Gate. Broad Wall. Tower of the Furnaces.

Passing these now, in reverse order, we find the Gate of Ephraim noticed, between the Broad Wall and the Old Gate. I incline to place the Gate of Ephraim at the junction of several streets near the north-east corner of the Muristan, and I will give two reasons. (1) Taking the wall as drawn by Schick, a principal street of the city going west abuts upon the wall at that point and requires a gate. (2) A Corner Gate existed, apparently at the north-western angle of the second wall, west of the Broad Wall; the distance between the Corner Gate and the Gate of Ephraim was 400 cubits (2 Kings xiv. 13; 2 Chron. xxv. 23); and the place now proposed for the Gate of Ephraim corresponds to that distance. It may be that the tower of this gate was the throne of the governor, the viceroy of the Assyrian king.

Nehemiah’s company having at length reached the Sheep Gate entered the Temple courts and stood still in the Gate of the Guard.

Thus the two companies stood on the north and south sides of the altar, and rendered thanksgiving to God, for that an unbroken wall once more protected Jerusalem.

The line of wall being established, with the positions of David’s house, the gate between two walls, &c., we are confirmed in our conclusion that the City of David was the eastern hill and included Ophel. We see whereabouts the royal sepulchres are likely to be found by future excavation. We gain something immediately by being able to follow step by step the work of Nehemiah. And this is not all, for we obtain fresh light upon the history of the house of David at various points.

[_Authorities and Sources_:--The author himself is responsible for the views of Jerusalem topography set forth in this volume. The reader who wishes to consult other writers may find the following references useful:--“Jerusalem, a Sketch.” By Thomas Lewin. “Siege of Jerusalem.” Thomas Lewin. “Antient Jerusalem.” Joseph Francis Thrupp. “The Recovery of Jerusalem.” Sir Charles Warren. Trans. Soc. Bib. Archæol., vol. vii. (“Site of the Temple.” By Sir C. Warren). “The Holy City.” Rev. George Williams. “The Holy Sepulchre and the Temple.” James Fergusson, F.R.S. “Murray’s Handbook of Syria and Palestine.” (Dr Porter). “Quarterly Statements of the P.E. Fund” (numerous papers).]

6. _Incidents of the History better realised._

_The Taking of Jerusalem by David_:--The king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, who felt so secure in their stronghold that they mocked David by putting the lame and the blind upon the walls as defenders. Nevertheless, “David took the stronghold of Zion; the same is the City of David ... and David dwelt in the stronghold and called it the City of David” (2 Sam. v.). The stronghold here spoken of is not that which is now called the tower of David, near the Jaffa Gate, nor is the Zion here spoken of the south-western hill. The parallel statement in Josephus is that David “took the Lower City by force, but the Akra held out still.” Joab, however, scaled the fortress, the Jebusites were cast out of the Akra, and then David rebuilt Jerusalem, renamed it the City of David, and dwelt there (Antiq. vii. 3. 1 & 2). It is not the High Town which is here spoken of but the Akra; and in the place where Josephus gives a general description of the city he tells us that Akra was the hill of the Lower City, while the Upper City was called by King David the _Phrourion_, that is, the _hill-fort_ or _watch-post_.

It would seem that in those early days the south-western hill was not yet inhabited, or at any rate was not yet enclosed by a wall, although a garrisoned watch-tower stood upon it. The highest hills are not always deemed the best positions for a citadel or castle. It was not so at Athens, and it is not so in Edinburgh. The Jebusite population of Jerusalem was mostly clustered on the eastern hill. In 1879 Sir Charles Warren said: “The strongest point, to my mind, in favour of Ophel having been the ancient site of the Jebusite city is the fact of the one spring of water being found there. I have carefully noted the manner in which the Kaffirs have located themselves close to water in their various strongholds, and I think that unless there were very urgent reasons, the Jebusites would have located themselves near what is now called the Virgin’s Fountain.”

But while the eastern hill was Zion,[33] the Akra was the stronghold of its owners and defenders, their castle occupying an advantageous promontory defended by valleys and ditches. A castle or fort so situated, could not, however, stand a siege, unless it possessed a secret supply of water; and Warren has spoken of the Virgin’s Fountain as the only spring. But there is some mystery about the _Hammam esh Shefa_, and many, including Warren himself, are inclined to believe it may be connected with a spring. The water is stated to be clear and free from the impurities of rain water, and the supply is never exhausted. The position of this “well” is in the Tyropœon Valley, in a line between Akra and the Dome of the Rock. The entrance to the fountain is by a narrow opening, but the shaft soon expands to about 12 feet square. At the bottom is an excavated chamber on one side, and a passage on the other. The passage expands into a vault, beyond which the channel becomes crooked and irregular. It appears that an ancient conduit enters the vault at the extremity of the horizontal passage, but its direction and source are unknown. May not some conduit have enabled the besieged garrison of the Akra fort to draw water from this source?

A few years ago the Rev. F. W. Birch, arguing on the supposition that it was the city on Ophel which Joab captured for David, suggested that he found his way into it by the secret tunnels and shafts from the Virgin’s Fountain. That Ophel might be captured by surprise in that way seems likely; only it was not Ophel that Joab had to capture, but Akra. The Lower City had all been taken, except that the Akra held out still. If its garrison obtained water from the _Hammam esh Shefa_, may not Joab have effected an entrance from _that_ spring? He did not have to _get up to_ a “_gutter_,” nor yet to a “water course,” but to “reach them by the aqueduct” (_B’Tzinnor_).

_David’s flight and exile; the Spies._--David at first dwelt in the stronghold (the Akra fort), but we afterwards find references to a house which he had and which was on the Ophel slope. We have had evidence of this in the Book of Nehemiah, and we find confirmation in such passages as 1 Kings viii. 1-6, where the ark is _brought up_ out of the City of David into the temple (and 2 Sam. xxiv. 18; 1 Kings ix. 24). When David decided to flee from Jerusalem because of the rebellion of Absalom, he would go down the stairs of the City of David, pass out by the Gate between two walls, and go through his own garden grounds; and then, as we are told, he passed over the Kedron, ascended Olivet, and went down to Jericho and over the Jordan.

But he left friends behind him at his house, and it was arranged that two sons of the priests should act as spies and bring him news (2 Sam. xvii.). They waited outside the city, at En Rogel, and a wench went and told them. En Rogel is now identified with the Virgin’s Fountain; and it would not be a bad place for the spies to hide in, seeing that its passages were dark, and communicated both with the hill and the valley. The maid servant, descending the staircases from above, might take a pitcher or a bucket to draw water, and so escape suspicion; the spies below on receiving the message, could hie away over the mountain to the Jericho road and Jordan.

The evidence that the Virgin’s Fountain is En Rogel will increase upon us as we proceed; but one reason may be stated here. En Rogel is etymologically the Spring of the Fuller, and was so called, no doubt, because fullers washed clothes at the place; but it may also be made to mean the Spring of the Steps, because fullers trode the clothes with their feet, and hence got their name (from _Regel_, the _foot_, and metaphorically a _step_). The Virgin’s Fountain is now called by the Arabs, _Ain Umm ed Deraj_, “Fountain of the Mother of Steps,” a designation commonly supposed to refer to the two flights of steps which lead down to it, but which may be derived by tradition from “En Rogel.” The steps were not always there. The explorers of Jerusalem say, “The pool seems originally to have been visible in the face of a cliff, and the vault and steps are modern. Possibly the original exit of the water was down the Kedron Valley.”

_Adonijah’s Banquet at the Stone of Zoheleth._--After Absalom’s death David returned to Jerusalem. But by-and-bye he grew old and infirm, and then there were speculations and plots about the succession to the throne. Adonijah thought to gain favour by assuming royal state and showing princely generosity. He set up chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him; and he slew sheep and oxen and fatlings by the stone of Zoheleth, which is beside En Rogel. Abiathar the priest was at the banquet, and Joab the veteran general; all was going merrily, and the guests shouted, “God save King Adonijah!” (1 Kings i.) But news of these proceedings was carried to David at his house on Ophel. Bathsheba came in and told him what was occurring, and reminded him of his oath that Solomon her son should sit upon the throne. While the queen was yet speaking, Nathan the prophet was announced, who confirmed the story, and inquired anxiously who was to reign. Then David called for Zadok and Nathan, the priests, and Benaiah, the soldier, chief of the king’s bodyguard, to go with them as the representative of force, and indeed to take his men, and said, “Cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon (_i.e._, Siloam Pool), anoint him there, and blow the trumpet, and say, God save King Solomon. Then ye shall come up after him, and he shall come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead.” This was done, and all the people said, “God save King Solomon!”

We shall realize these events better when we look at the position of Zoheleth, the discovery of which was one of the happy results of M. Clermont Ganneau’s investigations in 1870. Nearly in the centre of the line along which stretches the village of Siloam there exists a rocky plateau surrounded by Arab buildings, which mask its true form and extent: the western face, cut perpendicularly, slightly overhangs the valley. Steps rudely cut in the rock enable one to climb it, not without difficulty, and so to penetrate directly from the valley to the midst of the village. By this road, troublesome, and even dangerous, pass habitually the women of Siloam, who come to fill their vessels at the so-called Virgin’s Fountain. Now this passage and this ledge of rock in which it is cut are called by the fellahin, “Ez Zehweile,” which means “a slippery place,” or perhaps “the serpent stone.” This was M. Ganneau’s discovery, and he knew at once the bearings of it, in helping to fix En Rogel at the Virgin’s Fountain, and the king’s garden somewhere in its neighbourhood. Perhaps the discovery would have been made earlier, only that the village of Siloam, owing to the turbulence of its inhabitants, is almost unvisited by Europeans.

Adonijah’s feast, then, was being held at the foot of this cliff, about 70 yards across the valley from En Rogel. Solomon’s party could not be seen because the rising ground of Ophel came between. But when the anointing had taken place at the Pool of Siloam, and the party were going back up the Tyropœon toward David’s house, the people piped their music and shouted their joy till the earth rang again. The attention of Joab was attracted by the sound of the trumpet, and he enquired, “Wherefore is this noise of the city being in an uproar?” The truth was learned, and then Adonijah’s guests were afraid, and rose up and went every man his way.

_Solomon’s Change of Residence._--Solomon would at first live in the house of his father David, which was near the stairs which went down to the valley bed. “And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter and brought her into the City of David, until he had made an end of building his own house,” &c. (1 Kings iii. 1). “And Solomon was building his own house thirteen years.” “He made also a house for Pharaoh’s daughter” (close to his own house) (1 Kings vii. 1. 8). “And Solomon brought up the daughter of Pharaoh out of the City of David unto the house that he had built for her: for he said, My wife shall not dwell in the house of David, king of Israel, because the places are holy, whereunto the ark of the Lord hath come” (2 Chron. viii. 11). This incidental mention that he brought her up accords well with the relative positions of the two palaces--David’s lower down the slope of Ophel, the new one higher up. The same remark applies to bringing up the ark from David’s house to the Temple.

_The Building of Millo._--David having taken the stronghold of Zion improved his new capital by building “round about, from Millo and inward” (2 Sam. v. 9). What Millo was, or where it was located, has been one of the great puzzles of Jerusalem topography. It seems, however, to have been the great dam athwart the Tyropœon Valley. It is possible that even the Jebusites had hit upon the device and had constructed a dam in some rude fashion, and named it by a word of their own language, which afterwards clung to it. Sir G. Grove, in the “Dictionary of the Bible,” conjectures that it was the Jebusites who first built Millo, because it is difficult to assign a meaning to the word in Hebrew, while the Canaanites of Shechem also had a Millo (Judges ix. 6, 20), and because David seems to find it existing and not to build it. The statement that David built from Millo and _inward_ suits very well the identification of Millo with the great dam which was the outer defence of the Tyropœon, and to a great extent of Zion itself. It is not unlikely either that the House of Millo was a castle on the Ophel Hill, close to the eastern end of the dam, and that this was adopted by David as a residence. He may also have strengthened both the castle and the dam. This view of mine has now been adopted by Herr Schick. (See _Quarterly Statement_, January 1892, p. 22.)

But it was Solomon who so strengthened this work as to deserve the credit of having constructed it. It was one of the great works for the accomplishment of which he made a levy upon all parts of the kingdom (1 Kings ix. 15). The nature of the work is indicated in 1 Kings xi. 27--“Solomon built Millo (and so) closed up the fissure (or cleft) of the city of David his father:” either the two expressions relate to the same work, or the two works are closely associated together. Accordingly, before the work can be begun, Pharaoh’s daughter must vacate the house of Millo. She came up “out of the City of David unto her house which Solomon had built for her: then did he build Millo” (1 Kings ix. 24). The Israelites employed upon the work were the children of Joseph, and their superintendent was Jeroboam, an Ephraimite, probably already acquainted with the similar work at Shechem (1 Kings xi. 28). It is stated in the Septuagint that Jeroboam completed the fortifications at Millo, and was long afterwards known as the man who had “enclosed the City of David.” The work was so well done that Jerusalem was never again attacked from this side, although previously this side was found the most vulnerable, both by David and by the children of Simeon and Judah in earlier time.

If we are to find a Hebrew etymology for the name Millo, it seems to be a noun formed in the usual way by prefixing the letter M to the Aramæan verb _l’va_, equivalent to the Hebrew _lavah_,[34] having the meaning to wind or twist, and used to describe stairways as well as serpents and garlands. A dam across the Tyropœon would require the construction of two stairways at least, one from the bed of the Tyropœon to the top of the dam on the Ophel side, and one from the High Town down to the dam on the west.

_The Death of Athaliah._--This incident affords indications of locality in beautiful agreement with Nehemiah. When this queen-mother heard that her son, the king, had been killed by Jehu, she snatched at the sovereignty for herself, and her policy was to slay all the seed royal. But one little child escaped, carried off by its nurse, and they were secreted in the Temple by Jehoiada, the high priest. In the seventh year Jehoiada assembled the chiefs of the people in the Temple, produced the little child Joash, stood him upon the platform (or by the pillar) appropriated to the kings, and said, This is the rightful heir! The chiefs shouted their joy, when Athaliah heard the noise and rushed into the Temple to learn the cause. That she should hear so readily and find such easy access to the Temple, accords well with the supposition that she was living in Solomon’s palace, close adjoining the Temple, as Warren places it. When Athaliah saw the state of things, she cried--“Treason, treason!” But she found no friends there. The priest said, “Have her forth--slay her not in the house of the Lord! So they made way for her; and she went to the entry of the Horse Gate to the king’s house; and they slew her there” (2 Chron. xviii. 15; 2 Kings xii. 16). It is implied in this narrative that the Horse Gate was not only by the king’s house, but that it was also the nearest point which could be considered fairly beyond the sacred precincts; and this is in full agreement with the position which we have assigned it.

In the context of the passages just quoted we find that Joash is carried “by the way of the Gate of the Guard into the king’s house.” This gate must, of course, have been on that side of the palace adjoining the Temple courts; it was probably due north of the Water Gate (_i.e._, the Triple Gate), and it thus again accords with Neh. iii. 25, where the tower standing out from Solomon’s house is said to be “by the court of the guard.” The court of the guard may very well have extended from the Water Gate without to the Gate of the Guard on the Temple side of the palace. From Neh. xii. 39, it appears that there was a corresponding Gate of the Guard at the corresponding point on the north side of the altar.

_The Assassination of Joash._ When Joash grew to man’s estate he made changes which displeased his people; and the short statement is that his slaves slew him on his bed, “at the House of Millo, that goeth down to Silla” (2 Kings xii. 20, combined with 2 Chron. xxiv. 25). This has been generally regarded as obscure, and some have supposed Silla to be the same as M’sillah, a stairway at the west gate of the Temple, north of Wilson’s Arch (1 Chron. xxvi. 16). But it is more naturally the stairway at Millo itself. Joash was living at Beth Millo, David’s house, and when he heard of the conspiracy he designed to flee down the stairs and through the Gate between two walls; but being a sick man he was being carried on a litter, as Lewin remarks, and while going down Silla,--not while going down _to_ Silla, for there is no preposition here in the Hebrew text--the assassins killed him.

_The Wall destroyed by Jehoash_, king of Israel, when he came against Amaziah of Judah, extended from the Gate of Ephraim unto the Corner Gate, 400 cubits (2 Kings xiv. 13; 2 Chron. xxv. 23). We can now, by aid of Herr Schick’s plan of the second wall, and our previous study of Nehemiah, see exactly this piece of wall, south of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and running east and west.

_The Towers built by Uzziah_ were intended to strengthen the city just in this part where it had been found to be vulnerable. He “built towers in Jerusalem at the Corner Gate, at the Valley Gate, and at the turning of the wall, and fortified them” (2 Chron. xxvi. 9). The “turning” here spoken of is a re-entering angle, and not improbably that one south-east of the Church of the Sepulchre, where we find the “Throne of the Governor” in later time.

In the days of Ahaz, the grandson of Uzziah, Jerusalem was threatened by the allied forces of Rezin, king of Syria and Pekah, king of Israel. Ahaz and his people were greatly perturbed, and needed a message of advice and encouragement The word of the Lord came to Isaiah, in the Temple, saying, “Go forth now and meet Ahaz, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, in the highway of the Fuller’s Field” (Isaiah vii. 3). The upper pool here spoken of is believed to be the Virgin’s Fountain, where we find one end of a conduit which connects it with the lower pool at Siloam. But if this is what is meant, why is the spot not described shortly and plainly as En-Rogel, by which name it was already known? (1 Kings i. 9). Surely it is not the pool itself which is meant but the end of a conduit, or channel, or passage belonging to it--the end of a passage, yet not a termination in any pool. That is to say, it refers to the top of the shaft and stairway on the Ophel Hill, which had been lost so long until re-discovered by Warren. This entrance was of course known to Isaiah, and known to the king, being close by the king’s gardens. Ahaz would reach it by going out through the Gate between two walls, and was probably accustomed to walk there frequently. The place spoken of is not really stated to be “_in_ the highway of the Fuller’s Field:” in the Hebrew text the word _in_ is not found, and the passage might be rendered--“The end of the channel of the upper pool, the staircase of the Fuller’s Field.” This is an exact description of the top of the shaft on the Ophel Hill.

Here, then, we have another interesting note of locality: it appears that the Fuller’s Field was on Ophel, and Warren’s shaft was in it. We cannot but recall the statement of Josephus that St James was martyred by being thrown over the outer wall of the Temple enclosure, and that “a fuller took the club with which he pressed the clothes, and brought it down on the head of the Just one.” It is reasonable to infer that fullers were at work not far from the spot where St James fell. On the slope of the Ophel Hill Sir Charles Warren discovered a cavern which was apparently used by the fullers, for it contained vats or troughs cut in the rock. In the earth above the cave is a drain, which is of course more modern; and yet here were found glass and pottery, supposed to be early Christian.

In the days of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, the stairway shaft in the Fuller’s Field is spoken of again, and in a way that quite confirms our previous conclusions. Sennacherib, while besieging Lachish, sent his Tartan and his Rabshakeh with a strong force against Jerusalem, as an easy prey. The Assyrian officers pitched their camp at the north-west of the city, on the high ground, which was ever after known as the “Camp of the Assyrians.” But, seeing the strength of the city, they made no assault upon it; they sought a conference with Hezekiah to induce him to surrender. Learning where his palace was, that is, David’s house, on the slope of Ophel, they came and “stood at the passage of the upper pool, which is at the staircase of the Fuller’s Field” (2 Kings xviii. 17). There they called to the king, and when Hezekiah, consulting his dignity, deputed his Prime Minister, his Secretary, and his Recorder to represent him, these officers spoke from the top of the wall. The circumstances may seem to require that the wall should extend a little more southward than the wall found by Warren, but they seem to be good evidence that the Ophel shaft was outside the wall, and that the king’s house was within shouting distance of the shaft, or at any rate that the Assyrian generals thought so.

Jerusalem was not taken at this time; but in expectation of a siege, Hezekiah had made great defensive preparations. For one thing he gathered many labourers and choked up all the fountains outside the city and stopped the flow of the brook (2 Chron. xxxii. 3). He stopped the upper spring of the waters of Gihon and brought them straight down on the west side of the City of David (2 Chron. xxxii. 30). He gathered together the waters of the lower pool; he made a reservoir between the two walls for the water of the old pool; he made a pool and a conduit and brought water into the city (Isaiah xxii. 9, 11; 2 Kings xx. 20). It is probable that most of these statements relate to the same piece of work, and that work the making of Siloam Pool and the tunnel to bring water to it from the Virgin’s Fountain. There had been an “old pool” of Siloam, which is clearly traceable south-east of the present one, and this was the “lower pool of Gihon;” while the Virgin’s Fount was the “upper pool” or the “upper spring of the waters of Gihon.” The water had previously flowed from the one to the other, by an open channel down the Tyropœon Valley--a channel which has been struck at some points--and this was “the brook that flowed through the midst of the land.” The lower pool and the waters of Siloah were referred to by Isaiah in the previous reign (that is, he speaks of the waters of Siloah that go softly, viii. 6, and he implies a lower pool by speaking of the upper pool). It is reasonably argued by Dr Chaplin[35] that Siloah and Gihon were identical, and that the terms applied not only to the spring or pool but to the canal that joined them. We may assent to this if we keep in mind that the open canal existed before the rock-cut tunnel. The only difficulty we have is in thinking of the new Siloam as a reservoir between the two walls, and in understanding the use of making the tunnel if Siloam was to be outside the city. Some writers, therefore, suppose that the first wall of the city actually bent round Siloam on the southward side.

Hezekiah, besides these hydraulic works, built up all the wall that was broken down, and raised it up to the towers; and the other wall without (which it is just possible was south of Siloam Pool, only, even in that case, there is a great dam across the fissure to the north of it); and being so solicitous about this part of the city, he “strengthened Millo, the city of David” (2 Chron. xxxii. 5).

In the days of King Josiah we have mention of the prophetess Huldah, and it is stated that she lived in Jerusalem, in the _Mishneh_ (or Second Quarter). The word means second in order or in dignity, and in the case of brothers the younger. It appears to designate that part of the city which lay in the Asmonean Valley, a part inferior to Zion in dignity, and younger as an inhabited district, because originally a suburb outside the walls which encircled the hills.

_The Capture of Jerusalem and Flight of Zedekiah._--Not to multiply incidents, let us come now to the last king of Judah--Zedekiah. In his day Nebuchadnezzar came up against the city, and pitched his camp, as all had done before him, against the northern quarter. The event to be expected in such a case is described in Zeph. i. 10. There is first a noise from the Fish Gate at the head of the Asmonean Valley. Of consequence there is next a howling from the Second Quarter of Jerusalem, for the forcing of the Fish Gate has brought the invaders into the northern “suburb.” Next, the alarm having spread, there is a crashing from the hills on either side. Howl ye inhabitants of Macktesh--the “Hollow,” the southern Suburb, where dwelt the men of Tyre which brought in fish and all manner of ware (Neh. xiii. 15), and after whom the Valley was probably named--howl ye, for all the merchant people are undone, all they that were laden with silver are cut off.

Nebuchadnezzar’s generals effected an entrance at the middle gate of the north wall; and Zedekiah, as soon as he knew of it, fled away by night with his bodyguard. Whether living in Solomon’s house or David’s, his way would be down the Stairs of the City of David into the bed of the Tyropœon; and then we are distinctly told that he fled by the way of the Gate between the two walls, which was by the king’s garden (2 Kings xxv. 4; Jer. xxxix. 4; lii. 7). His plan was to take the route which David had taken when he fled from Absalom. Josephus says “that he fled out of the city through the fortified ditch” (Antiq. x. 8, 2)--a statement which quite supports our idea that the deep hollow “Suburb” was defended by a transverse wall or dam.

_Jeremiah’s Prophecy._--In order to encourage the people during the captivity, Jeremiah predicts that Jerusalem shall be again inhabited and its borders extended. The measuring line is to go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb (probably the later Bezetha, north-west of the Temple) and shall compass about to Goath (this seems to be a sweep round the north-western, western, and south-western parts of the city); and the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes (_i.e._, Topheth, the broad junction of the present Hinnom and Tyropœon Valleys), and all the fields (eastward) unto the Brook Kedron (and then northward), unto the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east shall be holy unto the Lord (Jer. xxxi. 28). This reference again confirms the position we have assigned to the Horse Gate.

Zechariah also describes Jerusalem in its length and breadth. It is to be lifted up and inhabited from Benjamin’s Gate (the east gate of the temple in Ezekiel’s plan, Ezek. xlviii. 32), unto the place of the first gate (the first gate of the city, a gate near the north-east corner--as the Hebrew language reads from right to left, so goes the numbering here), unto the Corner Gate. This is from east to west; the north and south extremes named by Zechariah are the Tower of Hananel (same position as Antonia) and the king’s wine-presses (which we may guess to be southward of the king’s garden).

_The Locality of the King’s Garden_ is an important point in Jerusalem topography. M. Clermont Ganneau inclines to place it on the eastern side of Ophel; but his reason seems to be insufficient. The great eastern valley of Jerusalem, so commonly called the Kedron, is divided by the fellahin of Siloam into three parts, and the middle part--extending from the south-east angle of the Haram to the junction of valleys a little north of Joab’s well--they call _Wady Fer’aun_, or “Pharaoh’s Valley.” M. Ganneau believes that this signifies, in their minds, simply the _Valley of the King_, and is equivalent to the King’s Garden.[36] M. Ganneau might claim in his favour the statement of Josephus that Adonijah’s feast, “by En Rogel,” took place near the fountain that was in the king’s paradise (or park).[37] But the paradise or park was something different from the garden, and Josephus does not use the word paradise to describe the king’s gardens in which Uzziah was buried, but the word _kepois_.[38] It is worth notice also that if the Virgin’s Fountain was in the king’s park, it was almost certainly outside the city. Again, the fact that the royal park included within it the spring of water makes it probable that the shaft in connection with it was on the royal property also, for the kings would hardly allow the free use of a spring which they deemed their own. And then, if the shaft was on the royal grounds (although that part was still traditionally called the Fuller’s Field) it would be natural that Isaiah should find king Ahaz walking there.

Amos prophesied in the days of Uzziah, “two years before the earthquake” (Amos i. 1). This earthquake, although not noticed in the history, was of a terrible character, and the people fled before it (Zech. xiv. 5). As Josephus tells the story, it was just as Uzziah was entering the Temple that the building suddenly started asunder; the light flashed through, and at the same moment the leprosy rushed into the king’s face. The hills around felt the shock, and a memorial of the crash was long preserved in a large fragment, or landslip, which, rolling down from the western hill, was brought to rest at the base of the eastern hill, and there obstructed not only the roads but the paradises of the kings. Josephus says that this occurred at the place called Eroge, and Dean Stanley is confident that he means En Rogel;[39] but here again it is necessary to notice that it is the king’s paradises which are spoken of and not the king’s gardens.

It is quite clear that the king’s gardens were near the Gate between two walls, as mentioned in the account of Zedekiah’s flight; and it seems certain that the Gate between two walls was in the Tyropœon.

_7. Sieges of Jerusalem understood by the topography._--The capture of Jerusalem by David, the investment of it by Sennacherib, and the overthrow of it by Nebuchadnezzar have already been described. Time would fail me to go into detail concerning all the sieges that followed; and probably a brief treatment of two or three will be sufficient for the reader. We desire to show how much clearer the history becomes in the light of modern survey and investigation; and for this purpose a few examples are enough.

Jerusalem on three sides was protected by deep ravines, and an enemy, looking up, saw the brow of every hill surmounted by high walls. At first he might imagine the Tyropœon Valley was accessible from the south, since the dam or transverse wall was lower in position than the walls which it joined together; but no doubt the dam or wall was strongly built. Even if he could get within it, there was the Causeway in front and walls on either side, and he would only be in what Josephus calls a fortified ditch. The assailants of Jerusalem--who doubtless knew their business--always chose to assault it from the high ground north and north-west. The king’s palace, therefore, on Ophel was about the last place which an enemy could reach, and not until he had broken through two or three walls.

When Pompey advanced against Jerusalem (B.C. 64), the population was divided. The party of Hyrcanus opened the gates to him; but the party of Aristobulus retired to the Temple, breaking down the bridge which communicated with the city. This may have been an arch on the site of the present Wilson’s Arch. Pompey, having sent a garrison into the city itself, laid siege to the Temple, purposing to assault it from the north. He “filled up the ditch on the north side of the Temple.” That would be the artificial cutting at the north-west corner. He filled up the valley also, Josephus tells us (Wars, i. 7, 3), “and indeed it was a hard thing to fill up that valley, by reason of its immense depth, especially as the Jews used all the means possible to repel them from their superior station.” This is the valley which Warren found, crossing the present Haram area, falling away from the north side of the platform to a depth of 200 feet, and passing out into the Kedron north of the Golden Gate. Probably it was only partially filled up at this time. Pompey then erected towers upon the bank which he had made, and brought engines to bear; but it was not until the third month of the siege that he made himself master of the Temple.

In B.C. 37, Herod, like all preceding generals, pitched his camp on the north side (Josephus, Wars, i. 17, 9). The Jews in this warfare made mines--perhaps in the ground banked up by Pompey--and surprised the Romans by sudden sorties from below. But the first wall was captured in forty days--(Antiq. xiv. 16, 2. This was of course the wall which we know as the second)--and the Lower City being thus taken, the Jews retired into the Upper City and into the Temple. The Upper City was taken by storm after fifteen days more. But here the destruction ceased. Herod was going to reign in Jerusalem, and did not wish to do more damage than was inevitable in the capture of the city. He sought to save the Temple, and only some of the cloisters about it got burnt down.

Afterwards, to ingratiate himself with the Jews, Herod rebuilt the Temple, and enlarged the precincts of it. It would seem that Solomon’s palace had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s generals and never rebuilt. Herod’s own palace was in the High Town. The area formerly occupied by Solomon’s palace was now taken into the Temple precincts, the south-west corner was raised up from its low level and added also; and along this southern front was built a royal cloister, 100 feet high. To make an approach to this cloister from the west, Robinson’s Arch was erected, and if there was no viaduct from the western hill there must have been a staircase to ascend from the valley. On the north side also the Temple precincts were enlarged, by taking in the ground which Pompey had raised to a higher level. The Baris or castle in which Nehemiah had lived was reconstructed and strengthened, renamed Antonia, and connected with the Temple.

In another quarter Herod strengthened the city very much. The reader will have noticed that while it was a usual thing with assailants to attack the north wall, and take the Lower City as a preliminary to assaulting the Upper City, yet there was one spot where the Upper City might be approached at once from the outside. This was by the Valley Gate, and was owing to the fact that the second wall started from the Gennath Gate to go northward, whereas the wall of the Upper City was prolonged westward. Herod determined to strengthen this part of the city all the more because his own palace was in this part; so he built three strong towers, which he named Hippicus, Phasaelus, and Mariamne. Hippicus was at the outer angle; the base of it remains, and is the foundation of the north-west tower of the present citadel, which measures 45 feet square. Phasaelus remains, and is the one conspicuous object on the right hand as the traveller enters the Jaffa Gate. It is 70 feet by 56 feet, and is solid to the height of 60 feet; the stones are bevelled, like those round the Haram, and do not appear ever to have been disturbed. The site of Mariamne is less certain, but it probably corresponded with the third tower which we see marked in almost every plan of the so-called Castle of David.

The Jerusalem of Herod’s day was the Jerusalem which Jesus Christ would be familiar with.

In the year 43 A.D., Agrippa built a third wall, to enclose the suburban dwellings which had sprung up on the north. This third wall began at the tower Hippicus, went northward, and had a tower called Psephinus at its north-west angle, then passed eastward “over against” the monuments of Helena, queen of Adiabene (the so-called “Tombs of the Kings,” half a mile out, on the great north road), then passed by the caverns of the kings, bent southward at the tower of the north-eastern corner, and finally joined the old wall at the valley “called the Valley of Kedron” (Josephus, Wars, v. 4, 2). “The city could no way have been taken if that wall had been finished in the manner it was begun.” But Agrippa “left off building it when he had only laid the foundation, out of the fear he was in of Claudius Cæsar.” The wall was 10 cubits wide, and was afterwards raised as high as 20 cubits, above which it had battlements and turrets. In the course of the third wall, according to Josephus, there were ninety towers, as compared with sixty in the first; and the whole compass of the city was 33 furlongs. He also says that the ninety towers were 200 cubits apart; but this would make the third wall alone more than 5 miles in length, and so we judge that some mistake has crept into the text. Therefore we shall venture to take the present north wall of the city as representing Agrippa’s wall, notwithstanding that the entire circumference would then be less than 33 furlongs. There seems to be no sufficient evidence for going beyond the present wall. It is a wall which begins at the tower Hippicus, by the Jaffa Gate. The position of the great corner tower Psephinus seems to be indicated by the ruined castle called _Kalat Jalud_ (Giant’s Castle), just within the present north-west angle. The Damascus Gate is “over against” the so-called Tombs of the Kings, for a spectator standing at the Tombs would look down directly upon that gate. The “royal caverns” we may identify with the Cotton Cavern, the quarry whence the kings of Judah obtained the stone for the great buildings of the city. The entrance to them is in the face of the scarped rock, about 300 feet east of the Damascus Gate, and the city wall runs right across the entrance. At the north-east corner of the present wall we find the tower which Josephus assigns to that point--“the most colossal ruins after those at the north-west corner.” A trench cut in the rock at the foot of the eastern wall is deflected here, passes round the corner, and goes west; it does not go any further north as we might expect it to do if the wall ever extended further north. And then the wall from the north-east corner is brought southward and joins the Haram wall, the junction not being at the north-east angle of the Haram, but much nearer to the Golden Gate, at the deep valley which Pompey began to fill up. We have to bear in mind that this third wall had been built before the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, in A.D. 70.

Titus began by investing the city on the north and the west. The place he selected for his attempt on the outer wall was just west of the Pool of Hezekiah, because there the wall of the High Town was not covered by the second wall, and he thought to capture the third wall and then at once assault the first.

When Titus had taken the outer wall he encamped in the north-west part of the city between the second and third walls; and at the same time extended his line from the “Camp of the Assyrians” to the Kedron Valley. His attempt to storm the High Town at the uncovered portion of the wall failed because of the strength of Herod’s towers. He then made an attempt on the Temple platform from the north, but failed because the valley there was deep and the Temple was strongly fortified. He had hoped, when he took the Wall of Agrippa, to be able to assault Antonia from the north, without taking the second wall; but it now appeared to him that that castle might best be assaulted on the west. These considerations induced him to attack the second wall. After some effort, a breach was made, and the Romans entered the middle city. They were once driven out by the Jews, and kept out for a time; but by-and-bye they gained entrance again, and then, made wise by experience, they demolished the second wall, or the northern part of it, and so were able to keep their ground.

Antonia was now assaulted on its western side; but the business was difficult, and the struggle was long. The mounds which the Romans cast up were undermined by the Jews and destroyed. The mines, however, weakened the outer wall of the castle, and that fell also. The Romans were filled with hope; but the Jews had foreseen the event, and had run up another wall behind. The courage of the Romans was damped by the sight of this second wall. But a few days after, they scaled it by a night surprise, and at the same time forced their way into Antonia through the mine under the wall. The Jews, in a panic, rushed away into the Temple, where they were able to defend themselves as in a fortress. But fighting now took place daily, until at length the northern cloisters of the Temple were burnt down, the inner Temple was assaulted, and eventually the whole fabric was reduced to ashes.

The Jews were now crowded in the Upper City, and confined to that. Titus held a parley with them across the bridge above the Xystus--that is, at Wilson’s Arch--offering them terms. But they declined his conditions, and so the siege had to go on. The Ophel quarter was now plundered and burnt; and then a grand effort was made against the Upper City. Mounds were thrown up, and the assault was delivered simultaneously from several points--on the west, by Herod’s palace, on the north-west part of the town a little east of the tower Phasaelus, and on the north-east at the Xystus, which extended from Wilson’s Arch southward. The strong city at last fell, and its walls and buildings were razed to the ground.

We know that it rose again from its ashes, and has had an eventful history since; but it is not our purpose to follow its fortunes farther.

In seeking to understand the descriptions given by Josephus, writers have been much puzzled by his mention of a ravine “called the Kedron ravine.” It could not well be the Kedron Valley itself, or it would hardly be spoken of in this way; besides which, we are told that the eastern portion of Agrippa’s wall joined the old wall at the ravine called Kedron. This would be too indefinite a note of place if the wall and the ravine ran parallel with one another. Moreover, the north-east angle of the Temple cloisters was built over the said ravine, and the depth was frightful (Wars, vi. 3, 2). The depth was frightful at the angle, rather than at the eastern side. There could be no right understanding of the references, until Sir Charles Warren’s labours showed that a deep valley crosses the Haram north of the Golden Gate, and contains within it the Birket Israil. It was only a “so-called ravine” to Josephus, because the western portion had been filled up by Pompey, and the eastern mouth was cut across by the Wall of Agrippa. Warren’s discovery of this ravine, and demonstration of its depth, is a glorious instance of the value of excavation work in questions of Jerusalem topography.

[_Authorities and Sources_:--The Works of Josephus. “Siege of Jerusalem.” Thomas Lewin. “Jerusalem, a Sketch.” Thomas Lewin.]