^{page 17 note a} The Recovery of Jerusalem, a narrative of exploration and discovery in the City and the Holy Land. By Capt. Wilson, R.E., and Capt. Warren, R.E. London. Bentley. 1871.

^{page 17 note b} “Our excavations in the city have established the certainty of a valley running down from the citadel (at the Jaffa Gate) to the Sanctuary.” Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 268.

^{page 17 note c} Archæologia, xli. 116.

^{page 17 note d} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 309.

^{page 18 note a} Bell. v. 4, 2.

^{page 18 note b} Jer. xxx. 19, 4: 2 Kings, xxv. 4.

^{page 18 note c} Tacitus, Hist. v. 11.

^{page 20 note a} The placing of the Temple at the south-west corner of the Haram, and the leading arguments in support of it, are not new, but will be found in the author's Siege of Jerusalem by Titus, and in a much earlier work by James Fergusson, Esq. entitled An Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem, 1847. To him must be given the credit of having first suggested what I conceive to be the true theory of the Temple site. On this point we agree; on all others—the sites of Antonia and the Acra, the genuineness of the Holy Sepulchre, and the lines of the city walls—we unfortunately differ.

^{page 20 note b} Ant. xv. 11, 3 ; xx. 9, 7; Bell. vi. 5, 4.

^{page 20 note c} Ant. xv. 11, 5.

^{page 20 note d} Ant. xx. 9,7.

^{page 20 note e} Ant. xv. 11, 5.

^{page 20 note f} See Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem, p. 13.

^{page 20 note a} 21 ΔιακόΨαντες δὲ τὸ τροπάρκτιον τεῖχος, κ.τ.λ τειχίσαντες δὲ ἐκ ῤίζης τιχῆ κυκλῷ τόν λόΦον, κ.τ.λ. Bell. v. 5, 1; Ant. xv. 11, 3.

^{page 21 note b} Ant. xiv. 4, 2 ; Bell. i. 7, 2 ; ii. 16, 3 ; vi. 6, 2 ; vi. 8, 1.

^{page 21 note c} Siege of Jerusalem, p. 136.

^{page 21 note d} Bell. v. 4, 2.

^{page 22 note a} ὀκτάπηχυν τὸ εὖος, Bell. vi. 5, 1. Josephus is here speaking of the wall of the inner Temple. But it is implied in another passage that both walls were of the same dimensions, for he tells us that “the cloisters of both Temples were supported by a wall of marvellous breadth,” and so assumes that they were both of equal breadth: “ΑμΦω δὲ ᾖσαν μεγάλον τείχονς αὐτὸ τεῖχος ἔγον μέγιστον. Ant. XV. 11, 3.

^{page 22 note b} Captain Wilson, in his Notes on the Ordnance Survey, p. 27, makes the distance 64 feet, i.e. half a foot less.

^{page 22 note c} This argument is taken from the Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem, p. 12 et seq.

^{page 23 note a} Ant. XT. 11, 5.

^{page 23 note b} For this argument the author is indebted to the Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem, p. 15.

^{page 24 note a} Barclay, p. 489; Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 111.

^{page 24 note b} “It appears that the road to the Prophet's Gate from the Tyropœon Valley may have been by means of a causeway raised forty-six feet above the rock. Whether it may have been solid or supported on arches is not apparent.” Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 115.

^{page 25 note a} “At twenty-four feet came in contact with a mass of masonry, apparently the voussoirs and drafted stones of a fallen arch and wall.” Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 76.

^{page 25 note b} “It runs east and west, and is shewn as piercing the sanctuary wall on plan. It is singularly like the vaulted passage leading from the Prophet's Gate. It is of the same width, and runs the same distance into the sanctuary, but it does not appear to turn round as the other passage does.” Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 116.

^{page 25 note c} Ibid. p. 117.

^{page 25 note d} εἰς τὴν ἄλλην πόλιν. Ant. xv. 11, 5.

^{page 25 note e} Τοὺς ὐπονόμονς τοῦ'Ιεοῦ. Bell. v. 3, 1 ; and see vii. 2, 3.

^{page 26 note a} Barclay, 527.

^{page 26 note b} Bell. ii. 17, 6; vi. 6, 2.

^{page 26 note c} Τὰς ίερονργίας. Ant. XX. 8, 11.

^{page 26 note d} Ant. XX. 8, 11.

^{page 27 note a} ἐπέκειτο τῷ ‘Ιερῷ. Ant. xii. 9, 3. ὑπερκειμένη τὸ ‘Ιερόν. Ant. xii. 5, 4.

^{page 27 note b} κατίοντι ἐκ τῆς” Ακρας. Ant. xii. 10, 5.

^{page 27 note c} Φρούριον γὰ ἐπέκειτο … τῷ ‘Ιεῷ ἡ’ Αντωνία. Bell. v. 5, 8. τὸ ὑπὲ τοῦ 'Ιεοῦ Φρούριον. Ant. xiii. 16, 5.

^{page 27 note d} ἀναβαίνοντες. Ant. xv. 11, 4.

^{page 27 note e} τῆς Ακρας.κατεργασάμενοι τὸ ὕψος, ἐποιήσαντο χθαμαλώτερον, ὡς ὑπερΦαίνοιτο καὶ ταύτης τὸ 'Ιεόν. Bell. v. 4, 1.

^{page 28 note a} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 314.

^{page 28 note b} Τειχίσαντες δὲ ἐκ ῥίζης τριχῆ κύκλῳ τὸν λόΦον. Bell, v. 5, 1. διακόψαντες δὲ τὸ ποσάκτιον τεῖχοςτοσοῦτον προσέλαβον, &c. Ibid.

^{page 28 note c} κατὰ λίβα. Ant. xv. 11,3.

^{page 28 note d} Bell. v. 5, 2; and see vi. 5. J.

^{page 28 note e} Ant. xv. 11, 3.

^{page 29 note a} ἰσοπέδονς (τὰς Φάραγγας) τῇ κονΦῇ τοῦ ὄρονς, ἐΦ' ἧς ὀ ναός ῴκοδόμητο κατεσκεύασε. Ant. viii. 3, 9.

^{page 29 note b} τὰ κοῖλα τῶν περὶ τεῑχος ἐμπλήσας τοῑς κατὼ (not κατὼ), τὴν ἐπιΦάνειαν τὴν ἄνω καὶ λεῖονἐποόησε. Ant. xv. 11, 3.

^{page 29 note c} ἐν τῷ ὄει τοῦ οἴκον. 1 Macc. iv. 46.

^{page 29 note d} τὸ ὄρος τοῦ 'Ιεοῦ τὸ παὰ τὴ” Ακραν. 1 Macx. xiii. 52.

^{page 29 note e} οί παρ'αὐτοῦ. 1 Mace. xiii. 52.

^{page 29 note f} The Hebrew for castle, and identical with the Bireh of Nehemiah, ii. 8.

^{page 29 note g} Ant. xviii. 4, 3.

^{page 29 note h} τλησίον τῷ ‘Ιερῶ Βάριν. Ant. xviii. 4, 3.

^{page 30 note a} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 118.

^{page 30 note b} Bell. v. 5, 1.

^{page 30 note c} Ant. viii. 3, 1; xv. 11, 3 ; xx. 9, 7.

^{page 30 note d} “Towards the west from the Triple Gate the rock falls more gently. At the Double Gate, whose sill is on a level with that of the Triple Gate, it is probably at a depth of 30 feet. It then falls more rapidly to about 90 feet from the south-west angle, where appears to be the bed of the Tyropoeon Valley. This point is 90 feet below the sill of the Triple Gate. The rock now rises again rapidly to the west, having risen about 30 feet at the south-west corner.” Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 119.

^{page 31 note a} ἀνελὼν δὲ τοὺς ἀχαίονς θεμελίονς. Ant. xv. 11, 3.

^{page 31 note b} ἅς μὲν (the cloisters of the outer Temple) ἀνῳκοδόμησεν ἐκ θεμελίων. Bell. i. 21, 1.

^{page 31 note c} “Found Phœnician characters imprinted on the stamp (on the pottery). One inscription was read by an authority as ‘The King.’” Recovery of Jerusalem, i. 152. “Mr. Deutsch's discovery of Phœnician characters, similar to those on the walls of Sidon, enables us to ascribe the execution to that race.” Ibid, ii 390.

^{page 31 note d} “I found this large course continued to the south-east angle, and thence running north along the east wall for 24 feet. The course is unbroken between the Huldah and Triple Gate. Thence to the single gate there is one stone in situ, and, from a point 70 feet from the south-east angle to the angle itself, the course again is in a good state of preservation.” Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 120.

^{page 31 note e} “It is apparent that this great course did not reach so far as the south-west angle, or, in other words, that the western portion of the wall is of a different construction to the eastern.” Ibid. p. 122.

^{page 31 note f} “Herod built the present south-west angle of the sanctuary.” Ibid. p. 110.

^{page 31 note g} Ibid. p. 123.

^{page 31 note h} Ibid. p. 123.

^{page 31 note i} Ibid. p. 122.

^{page 31 note k} Ibid. p. 101.

^{page 31 note l} Ibid. p. 104.

^{page 32 note a} Ant. xiv. 4, 2; Bell. i. 7, 2.

^{page 32 note b} Recovery of Jerusalem, page 230.

^{page 32 note c} “The rock which is found within a foot of the site of the Triple Gate shelves down rapidly to the south-east angle, falling 100 feet in 300. Towards the west, from the Triple Gate, the rock falls more gently. &c.” Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 119.

^{page 32 note d} Ant. xx. 9, 7.

^{page 33 note a} “All the masonry and arches above the level of the Single and Triple Gates are comparatively modern.” Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 134; and see Remarks, ibid. p. 126.

^{page 33 note b} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 229.

^{page 33 note c} Ibid. p. 230.

^{page 33 note d} Ibid. p. 231.

^{page 33 note e} Ibid. p. 231.

^{page 33 note f} 2 Chron. xxiii. 4.

^{page 33 note g} Ant. ix. 7, 2.

^{page 33 note h} 2 Chron. xxiii. 4.

^{page 34 note a} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 289.

^{page 34 note b} “The southern side of the Temple must hare coincided with the present south wall of the sanctuary, because we find the wall of Ophel coming in at the south-east angle,” &c. Ibid. p. 311.

^{page 34 note c} τῇ πὸς ἀνατολὴν στοᾷ τοῦ 'Ιεοῦ. Bell. v. 4, 2.

^{page 34 note d} Bell. vi. 6, 3. See Williams, H. C. 2nd ed. ii. 365, note.

^{page 35 note a} “Josephus tells us that the Porch of Solomon, in the time of Herod, overlooked the Kedron,” &c. Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 317.

^{page 35 note b} διϊοῦ ἀπὸ πῆς ἐῴας Φάραγγος ἐπὶ τὴν ἑσπέριον, ὀν γὰρ ἦν ἐκτεῖναι προσωτέω δυνατόν”. Ant, xv. 11, 5.

^{page 35 note c} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 119.

^{page 35 note d} Ant. xv. 11, 5.

^{page 36 note a} Τὴν βόρειον στὰν ἐνέπρησαν μέχρι τῆς ἀνατολικῆς ὄλην, ὧν ἡ συναπτούσα γωνία τῆς Κεδρῶνοςκαλνμένης Φάραγγος ὑπεδεδόμητο. Bell. vi. 3, 2.

^{page 36 note b} The Cedron is here called, somewhat irregularly, a valley, but in perusing the Old Testament it must be remembered that the two valleys of Hinnom and Jehoshaphat are invariably distinguished. The valley of Hinnom is always referred to as היְגֵ (valley), and the Valley of Jehoshaphat as למגַ (torrent), and so in the New Testament the Cedron is called the Torrent (τοῦ χειμάῤῥον τῶν Κέδρων). John xviii. 1. This distinction is often important as determining localities. Thus Nehemiah went out by the Valley Gate (איְּנַתַ), we know, therefore, that he went down the Valley of Hinnom. Nehem. ii. 13. On the other hand the Fountain of Gihon was in the Torrent (לתַּנַּבַ), and, therefore, in the Valley of Jehoshaphat. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 14. Gihon was thus the Fountain of the Virgin. Thus Hezekiah “stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David.” 2 Chron. xxxii. 30. The city of David was certainly the eastern hill, and the water of the Fountain of the Virgin runs to this day by the cat of Hezekiah from the eastern side of the hill to Siloam at the foot of the western side. These two fountains were formerly the upper and lower Gihon, but the name of Gihon has perished, and the Upper Gihon, now the Fountain of the Virgin, was in the time of Josephus the Pool of Solomon (who was anointed king there), and the Lower Gihon was the Pool of Siloam. The passage above referred to in Chron. xxxiii. 14, has been translated “and (Manasseh) built a wall without the city of David on the west side of Gihon, in the valley even to the entering in at the Fish Gate.” But Gihon was not near the Fish Gate, and the words should be translated “on the west side of Gihon in the valley, and at the entering in at the Fish Gate.” This is the text both in the Hebrew and in the Septuagint.

Captain Warren has come to the conclusion that the Cedron is the veritable Valley of Hinnom. But the idea is untenable. The very first mention of the Valley of Hinnom (Josh. xv. 8) amounts to a confutation. Thus the northern border of the tribe of Judah is traced from the mouth of the Jordan westward, “and the goings out thereof (or termination) were at Enrogel, and the border went up by the valley of the Son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite. The same is Jerusalem “Josh. xv. 8, Enrogel was at the King's Gardens below Siloam, Ant. ix. 10, 4 (where 'Ερωγή (Enrogel) is placed at the King's Gardens, παραδείσονς τοὺς βασιλικούς); and compare 1 Kings i. 9, with Ant. vii 14, 4. Afterwards, in an inverse order, the southern border of the tribe of Benjamin is traced as “descending to the Valley of Hinnom to the side of Jebus on the south, and descending to Enrogel.” Josh, xviii. 16. These passages show clearly that the boundary line between the two tribes ran along the Valley of Hinnom at the south of Jebus, or, in other words, that the Valley of Hinnom lay to the south and not to the east of the city. All Jerusalem was therefore in the tribe of Benjamin, and the portion of this tribe was the smallest, because, says Josephus, it comprised the two leading cities of Jerusalem and Jericho, 'Ιεριχῶντα γὰρ καὶ τὴν 'Ιεροσολυμιτῶν πόλιν ἔλαβον. Ant. v. 1, 22. Captain Warren has allowed himself to be misled by the mistranslation of our Bible, “go forth into the valley of the Son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the East Gate.” Jerem. xix. 2. But the word הּוסדְםם is derived not from םדֶהֶ (sol), and so meaning the east, but from שׁדֶחֶ (testa), and signifies the Pottery Gate, which was in the south wall and opposite the Potters’ Field. Gesenius and Simon and all the best authorities agree that is the true rendering. The Cedron or Eastern valley was the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and it is so called by Eusebius about a.d. 300, (Onomast. Κοιλάς) : and by Antoninus Martyr (c. 24) about A.D. 600; and has borne the same name down to the present day.

^{page 37 note a} Ant. viii. 1, 5 ; ix. 7, 3. Bell. v. 2, 3; 7, 3; 12, 2. This distinction between the Cedron simply and the Cedron ravine so called was first pointed out by the author.

^{page 37 note b} τό τε ἰερὸν καὶ τὰ πέριξ ἐπ’ οὐκ ὀλίγον, τόν τε 'OΦλᾶν καὶ ιὴν Κεδῶνα καλονμένην Φάραγγα. Bell. v. 6, 1; and see Bell. v. 4, 2.

^{page 38 note a} πλησίον τῷ 'Ιεῷ. Ant. xviii. 4, 3.

^{page 38 note b} Bell. vi. 2, 7 ; see vi. 2, 1.

^{page 38 note c} Ibid. v. 5, 8.

^{page 38 note d} This I take to be the meaning of the passage : τῆς γὰ καὶ κατὰ δύσιν σιοᾶς ιὸ συνεχὲς πὸς τὴν 'Αντωνίαν. Ibid. vi. 2, 9.

^{page 38 note c} I once thought it possible that these connecting cloisters, which increased the cloisters of the Temple from four stadia to six stadia, might have run round Antonia either on the exterior or interior. But clearly the cloisters abutted upon the castle, for there were stairs from the castle down to the roof of the cloisters, καθὰ δὲ συνῆπτο ταῖς τοῦ 'Ιεροῦ στοαῖς εἰς ἀμΦοτέας εἶχε καταβάσεις. Ibid. V. 5, 8.

^{page 38 note f} Ibid. v. 5, 2.

^{page 38 note g} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 219.

^{page 38 note h} 'Εγγώνιος. Ant. xv. 11, 4.

^{page 39 note a} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 211.

^{page 39 note b} Ibid. p. 213.

^{page 39 note c} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 213. Captain Warren adds,“On lighting up the magnesian wire and looking about me I was astonished, my first impression being that I had got into a church.” Ibid. p. 210. And so he had, as the following explanation will show. This souterrain consists, according to Captain Warren's plan, of three arched passages running parallel to each other towards the Pool of Bethesda, and no doubt formerly communicating with it. From the same pool, at the western end, ran out two other parallel arched passages, and which are proved to have been porches, for Captain Warren observes with respect to them that “the floor has a slope towards the entrance (to Bethesda) where there are four stone steps 16 inches broad and 7 inches in height. The bottom step is nearly flush with the west wall of the pool. The Birket Israel (Bethesda) never extended further to the west than its present limit at its present depth.” Ibid. p. 194. We have thus the five porches spoken of in John's Gospel; and in one of them, in the time of Antoninus Martyr, was the church of Saint Mary: “Venimus ad piscinam natatoriam quse quinque porticus habet et in una earum est basilica Sanctse Marise.” Anton, Mart. c. 27.

^{page 39 note d} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 211 and p. 219.

^{page 39 note e} Ibid. p. 220.

^{page 40 note a} Bell. v. 5, 8.

^{page 40 note b} Pierotti, p. 63.

^{page 40 note c} Pierotti, p. 20 ; and see Recovery of Jerusalem, pp. 94 and 195. Kατὰ μέσον τῆς Στουθίου 40 d καλουμένης κολυμβήθας. Bell. v. 11, 4.

^{page 40 note e} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 198 et seq.

^{page 40 note f} These parallel pools are the piscines gemellares referred to by the Bordeaux Pilgrim, a.d. 333, and are the aquœ putridœ of Antoninus Martyr. “Exinde yenimus ad arcum (arch of Ecce Homo) ubi antique porta fuit civitatis. In ipso loco sunt aquæ putridæ, in quas missus est Jeremias.” Anton. Mart. c. xxiv.

^{page 41 note a} Bell. vi. 5, 2.

^{page 41 note b} Ibid. i. 21, 1.

^{page 42 note a} Bell. vi. 2, 7.

^{page 42 note b} Ibid. vi. 1, 8.

^{page 42 note c} “The northern escarped face of Antonia is 10 feet from the Via Dolorosa.” Wilson's Notes, p. 30.

^{page 42 note d} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 303.

^{page 43 note a} Recovery of Jerusalem, 268. The author had adduced proofs of this long previously in the paper, Archæologia, xli. 116, where will be found a plan of the city, to which the reader is referred for better understanding the description which here follows.

^{page 43 note b} Bell. v. 4, 1.

^{page 43 note c} Bell. v. 4, 2.

^{page 44 note a} ἀντικρὺ γὰ ἡ πόλιςἔκɛιτο τοῦ Ἱɛοῦ. Ant. xv. 11, 5.

^{page 44 note b} τουτοδὲ ὰντικὺ τίτος ἦν λόφος, ταπɛινɛός τɛ φ ύσɛι τῆς Ἄκρας, καὶ πλρααγγι, διɛργόμɛνος ἅλλῃ πότɛον…. συνάψαι βουλόαɛνοι τῶ Ἱɛῶ τἡν πόλιν. Bell. V. 4, 1. ἐπὶ πολὺ γὰ ἔchi;ωσαν τὰς φάαγγας ἀνισοῦν βουλόμɛοι τοὺς στɛνωποὺς τοῦ ἄστɛως. Ibid. v. 5, 1.

^{page 44 note c} 2 Chron. xxxii. 5.

^{page 44 note d} See Siege of Jerusalem by Titus, p. 284.

^{page 44 note e} Bell. v. 6. 2.

^{page 45 note a} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 303.

^{page 45 note b} ἐπέκɛιτο γὰᾦ Ἱɛῶ ἡ Ἄκρα Ant. xii. 9, 3. ὑπɛρκιμένμ τὸ Ἰɛρόnu;. Ibid. xii. 5, 4. κατίοντι ἐκ τῆς Ἄκασ ɛἰς τὸ Ἱɛρόν. Ant. xii. 10, 5. 1 Mace. vii. 33.

^{page 45 note c} τὸ ὔρος τοῦ Ἱɛοῦ (the Baris or Antonia) τὸ παὰ τὴν Ἄκαν. 1 Mace xiii. 52.

^{page 45 note d} ἐν τῇ κάτω πόλɛι. Ant. xii. 5, 4.

^{page 45 note e} It may be suggested that Josephus applied the expression Low Town to the third hill, where he speaks of the four towers erected by John at the four corners of the Temple, viz. one at the north-east corner, another at the south-west corner, a third over against the Low Town, and the fourth over the π αστοφόρια, whence the priest proclaimed, by the sound of trumpet, the commencement and end of the Sabbath. Bell. iv. 9, 12. But I am satisfied that the π αστοφόρια, were at the north-west corner, which was in the direction of the main part of the city ; and consequently the other corner, which was over against the Low Town, would be at the south-east corner of the Temple which overlooked the Eastern Hill, which was the Low Town. The π αστοφόρια would thus be at the gate leading from the northern cloister, and the writer of the Maccabees connects the π αστοφόρια, with the gates τὰσ πύλασ καὶ τὰ π αστοφόρια (1 Maccabees, iv. 57); but there was no gate at the south-east corner of the Temple.

^{page 45 note f} “Ατεος δὲ (the second hill) ὁ καλούμεος” Ακρα καὶ τὴν κάτω πόλιν ὑΦεστώς Bell. v. 9, 1. τεψάμενοι τοὺς ληστὰς ἐκ τῆς κάτω πόλεως τὰ μέχρι τοῦ Σιλωὰμ πάντα ἐνέπρησαν. Ibid. vi. 7, 2. τῶν 'Ελένης βασιλείων, ἄ δὴ κατὰ μέσην τὴν” Ακραν ἦν. Ibid. vi. 6, 3. ἐκβαλὼν ἀπὸ πῆς ἄνω πόλεως σύνωθεῖ τοὺς στατιώτας εἰς τὴν κάτω τοῦτο δὲ τοῦ ἄστεως τὸ μέρος ”Ακα κέκληται, &c. Ibid. i. 1, 4.

^{page 46 note a} Nehemiah, in tracing the procession along the southern wall from west to east, says they went up by the stairs of the City of David. Nehemiah, xii. 37. And, again, Hezekiah brought the water from the Fountain of the Virgin, on the east side of the second hill, to Siloam, on “the west side of the City of David,” i. e. on the second hill. 2 Chronicles, xxxii. 30. The City of David, therefore, was the Eastern Hill.

^{page 47 note a} “The present east wall of the sanctuary has Phœnician characters on it, and has all the appearance of being a portion of the oldest work, so that if if it were not Solomonic it would have formed part of the old wall spoken of by Josephus, which I suppose to have been the work of the Kings of Judah.” Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 317. “At both the north-east and south-east angle characters in paint have been found at the foot of the walls, which are pronounced by savans to be Phœnician.” Ibid. p. 318 ; and see the pottery described at p. 152. It is also to be noted that there is no depth of débris at the foot of the wall to the north of the Haram; that is, the Haram wall is very ancient, but the wall to the north of it is comparatively modern. The wall of Agrippa, therefore, or third wall, commenced from the Haram.

^{page 47 note b} 2 Kings, xxi. 18, 26.

^{page 47 note c} 2 Kings, xxi. 18.

^{page 48 note a} Mejr-ed-din. Williams's Holy City, vol. i. Supplement, p, 150.

^{page 48 note b} Williams's Holy City, ii. 298.

^{page 48 note c} 2 Kings xxi. 18.

^{page 48 note d} 2 Kings xxi. 26.

^{page 48 note e} Ezek. xliii. 7.

^{page 48 note f} David and Solomon were both interred in the same mausoleum. Ant. xvi. 7, 1. The traditional tomb of David is on Sion, the south-west hill, the ancient Jebus. But this cannot be, for Nehemiah in tracing the line of the wall along the south of the city from west to east enumerates in order, “the gate of the fountain” and “the wall of the Pool of Siloah by the king's garden and unto the stairs that go down (to the fountain) from the city of David,” and then “the place over against the sepulchres of David and unto the pool that was made, and unto the house of the mighty.” Nehem. iii. 15. Thus the place over against the sepulchres of David was certainly to the east of the Fountain of Siloam, and the sepulchres being described as opposite to this part of the wall must have been on the other side of the valley at or close to the village of Siloam. It is remarkable that Josephus in describing the wall of circumvallation by Titus, at the south-east of the city, tells us that it ran southward along the foot of the Mount of Olives “as far as the rock called Peristereon (πειστεεῶνος), and the crest next it which faces the Valley of Siloam.” Bell. v. 12, 2. There can be no doubt that the word περιστερεών is to be derived from περιστερὰ, a pigeon, and means a columbarium, so that we find Josephus making mention of a columbarium or burial-place at the exact spot indicated by Nehemiah as the Sepulchres of David. Search therefore should be made for the Sepulchres of David on the east side of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, a little to the south of the village of Siloam.

^{page 49 note a} 1 Kings ii. 10; xi. 43 ; xv. 8, 24; xxii. 50. 2 Kings viii. 24 ; xii. 21; xv. 38 ; ix. 28 ; xiv. 20; xvi. 20. 2 Chron. ix. 31; xii. 16 ; xiv. 1; xvi. 14; xxi. 1, 20; xxiv. 16, 25; xxv. 28; xxvii. 9; xxviii. 27.

^{page 49 note b} 2 Kings, xiv. 20.

^{page 49 note c} See ante, p. 46, and Siege of Jerusalem by Titus, p. 241.

^{page 49 note d} 1 Macc. i. 31.

^{page 49 note e} As to the abhorrence of a place of burial by a Jew, see in particular Ant. xviii. 2, 3, where it is stated that to dwell upon a place polluted by sepulchres was a violation of Jewish law; and that Herod Antipas in consequence could only people Tiberias, which was thus defiled, by absolute compulsion.

^{page 49 note f} 1 Macc. i. 33. The City of David had three meanings. (1.) In its largest sense it signified Jerusalem.

Thus ἐκβαλὼν δὲ τοὺς Ἰεβουσαίους ἐκ τῆς Ἄκας (now the Castle of David or Citadel) καὶ αὐτὸσ ἀνοικοδομήσας τὰ Ἱεοσόλυμα, πόλιν αὐτὴν Δαϋίδου ποσηγόρευσε … τήν τε κάτω πόλιν καὶ τὴν Ἄκραν συνάψας. Ant, vii-3, 2. (2.) In its less comprehensive sense the City of David was the eastern hill as opposed to Jebus. See ante, p. 46, note ^a. (3.) In the most limited sense, as used by the Maccabees, it was simply and exclusively the Acra or Macedonian fortress. Whoever would understand the topography of the Maccabees must note three things : 1. That the City of David was the Acra, and the Acra only; 2. That Mount Sion was the Temple (i. e. the outer court of the Temple and what it inclosed) only; and 3. That the Mount of the House or the Mount of the Temple was neither the Acra nor the Temple, but the Baris or Castle, afterwards called Antonia.

^{page 50 note a} 1 Macc. i. 35.

^{page 50 note b} 1 Macc. iv. 38.

^{page 50 note c} 1 Macc. iv. 46.

^{page 50 note d} John, x. 22.

^{page 50 note e} 1 Macc. iv. 60 ; vi. 7.

^{page 50 note f} 1 Macc vi. 18.

^{page 50 note g} 1 Macc. vi. 62.

^{page 50 note h} 1 Macc. ix. 55.

^{page 51 note a} 1 Macc. x. 11.

^{page 51 note b} 1 Macc. xii. 36.

^{page 51 note c} 1 Macc. i 35

^{page 51 note d} Ant. xiii. 6, 7. 1 Macc. xiii. 41.

^{page 51 note e} 1 Macc. xiii. 10. Ant. xiii. 6, 7.

^{page 51 note f} 1 Macc. xiii. 51.

^{page 52 note a} εἰς ἔδαφος αὐτὴν καθεῖλεν. Ant. xiii. 6, 7. εἰς ἔδαφος καὶ πεδινὴν λειότητα, &c. ὅπως ὑψηλότερον ᾖ τὸ Ἰερόν. Ibid.

^{page 52 note b} κατεγασάμενοι τὸ ὕψος ἐποιήσαντο χθαμαλώτεον, ὡς ὑπεφαίνοιτο καὶ ταύτης τὸ Ἱεόν. Bell. v. 4, 1. In a summary of the transactions of Simon, in the Book of Maccabees, it seems to be stated that Simon continued the Acra as a garrison: κατῴκισεν ἐν αὐτῇ ἄνδας Ἰουδαίους καὶ ὠχύωσεν αὐτὴν προς ἀσφάλειαν τῆς χώρας καὶ τῆς πόλεως. 1 Macc. xiv. 37. This, if so, must have been before the resolution come to by the council to raze the Acra. I should say, however, that there is a confusion in the passage cited between the Acra and the Baris, and that what is said of the Acra was intended of the Baris, for it is certain from the same book that Simon further strengthened the Baris and dwelt in it, ποσωχύρωσε τὸ ὄρος τοῦ Ἱεροῦ καὶ ᾠκεῖ ἐκεί. 1 Macc. xiii. 52. We must believe with Josephus, that the rock of the Acra was lowered if not levelled.

^{page 52 note c} See ante, p. 27.

^{page 53 note a} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 221.

^{page 53 note b} παὰ τὴν Ἄκραν. 1 Macc. xiii. 52.

^{page 53 note c} πλησίον τῷ Ἱεῷ. Ant. xviii. 4, 3.

^{page 53 note d} 1 Macc. xiii. 52.

^{page 53 note e} As to Hyrcanus, see Ant. xviii. 4, 3. As to Aristobulus, see Ant. xiii. 11, 2.

^{page 53 note f} Ant. xiii. 15, 5.

^{page 54 note a} λαμπότερον ἤ τινα τῶν πὸ αὐτῶ βασιλέων αὐτὸν ἐκήδευσαν. Ant. xiii. 16, 1.

^{page 54 note b} 1 Macc. ii. 70; ix. 20; xiii. 25.

^{page 54 note c} Ant. xiii. 6, 6.

^{page 54 note d} Bell. v. 6, 2; v. 7, 3 ; v. 9, 2 ; v. 11, 4 ; vi. 2, 10.

^{page 54 note e} Τῶυ Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ βασιλέως μνημείων. Bell. v. 7, 3.

^{page 54 note f} τοῖς Βασιλικοῖς μνημείοις ἐνταφησόμενος. Bell. i. 9, 1.

^{page 55 note a} ἀπό τε τῆς Ἀντωνίας καὶ τῆς προσαρκτίου στοᾶς τοῦ, Ἱεροῦ καὶ πρὸ τῶν Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ βασιλέως μνημείων. Bell. v. 7, 3. It was in reading this passage that the idea first struck me that the Tombs of King Alexander must be identical with the Sakhra.

^{page 56 note a} See ante, p. 20.

^{page 56 note b} Bell. vi. 2, 10 ; v. 9, 2 ; v. 11, 4 ; v. 7, 3 ; v. 6, 2.

^{page 56 note c} Bell. v. 3, 3 ; v. 4, 2.

^{page 56 note d} ἐς τὸν τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ τόπον ναὸν τῶ Διϋ ἕτερον ἀντεγείραντος. Dion. lxix. 12.

^{page 56 note e} Ubi quondam erat templum et religio Dei, ibi Hadriani statua et Jovis idolum collocatum. Hieron. comm. in Esaiam. ii. 8.

^{page 56 note f} Dion. lxix. 16.

^{page 57 note a} καθελὼν τὸν ναὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων τὸν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις … ἐπέθηκε τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ὔνομα τῆ πόλει, Ἀιλίαν αὐτὴν ὀνομάσασ. Chron. Pascal, p. 254 a., a.d. 119 (an erroneous date) cited by Clinton, F. R., a.d. 131.

^{page 57 note b} De Hadriani equestri statua quæ in ipso sancti sanctorum loco usque in presentem diem stetit. Hieron. comm. in Matt. xxi. 15.

^{page 57 note c} Τὴν πόλιν κτίσαι, οὐ μὴν τὸ Ἱερόν. Epiphan. de Pond. et Mens. s. 14.

The testimony of the Bordeaux Pilgrim, who was at Jerusalem in a.d. 333, deserves especial notice. “In the sanctuary itself,” he says, “where was the Temple that Solomon built (in æde ipsâ ubi Templum fuit), on the marble before the altar, you would say that the blood of Zacharias had only just been spilt. The marks also of the nails of the soldiers who slew him appear over the whole area as if impressed upon wax. There also are two statues of Adrian. Not far from the statues is the worn-through stone (lapis pertusus) to which the Jews come year by year and anoint it, and lament with groans, and rend their garments, and so retire.” Here we have brought together in juxta-position to each other three things: 1. The sanctuary of the Temple of Solomon; 2. The statues of Adrian ; and 3. The wailing-place of the Jews. We know the site of the wailing-place, viz. at the south-west corner of the Haram. Here, therefore, were also the statues of Adrian, and on the same spot had stood the Temple of Solomon. Thus the Bordeaux Pilgrim entirely confirms the view that the position of the Temple was at the south-west corner of the Haram. The words “in æde ipsâ ubi Templum fuit” implies that the Temple was no more; and that the blood of Zacharias was shown amongst the ruins we learn from Jerome (a.d. 400) : “Simpliciores fratres inter ruinas Templi et altaris, sive in portarum exitibus quæ Siloë ducunt, rubra saxa monstrantes Zachariæ sanguine putant esse polluta.” Commentary on Matthew cited by De Saulcy, Mémoires de l'Institut, vol. xxvi. p. 67 (1867).

But the worthy pilgrim has fallen into one error, which we can easily account for. There was only one statue to Adrian, viz. the equestrian statue referred to by Jerome, and the other statue was erected subsequently in honour of the Emperor Antoninus. But as the inscription at the base bore the full title of Antoninus, viz. “Tito Æl. Hadriano Antonino Aug. Pio,” the pilgrim was misled by the opening words “Tito Ælio Hadriano,” and erroneously imputed the statue to Adrian. The inscription itself still exists, and has been built into the south wall of the Haram. Barclay, City of the Great King, p. 492.

The site of the Jewish Temple was evidently well known in the time of the Bordeaux Pilgrim ; and his contemporary, Eusebius, asserts the same thing. Eusebius, Theophan. B. iv. c. 18, cited by Williams, Holy City, ii. p. 414; and see Mémoires de l'Institut Imperial, xxvi. 64 (1867). And the ruins, as we have seen, are referred to by Jerome, a. d. 400; and so still later by Antoninus Martyr, a. d. 600. Ante Ruinas Templi Solomonis, &c. c. xxiii.

We may here remark that, in the time of Constantine the Great, the Jews made a second attempt to rebuild their Temple, and were barbarously punished for their insolence. Chrysost. Κατὰ Ἰουδαίων, B. vi. 333, cited by Williams, Holy City, ii. p. 334. And under the Emperor Julian a third attempt was made, under the imperial auspices, to restore the Temple of Jehovah, when, as is well known, the works were stopped by the eruption of balls of flame. Ammian. Marcel. xxiii. 1, 3. See Clinton's Fasti Rom. a. d. 363. Chrysostom alludes to these three fruitless endeavours to rebuild the Temple, αὐτοὺς (the Jews) δείκνυμι οὐκ ἅπαξ, οὐδὲ δὶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τρὶς ἐπιχειρήσαντας. … (1.) ὁᾶς τὴν πώτην ἐπιχείησιν (under Adrian). (2.) Βλἔπε δὲ καὶ τὴν μέτ' ἐκείνην ἐπὶ Κωνσταντίνου πάλιν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐπεχείησιν, κ.τ.λ. (3.) καὶ τοῖς σᾡόδα νεοῖς (the attempt under Julian) δῆλον καὶ κατιιφανές. loc. cit. Williams, Holy City, ii. 335 ; and adds that the site down to his own day (a. d. 400) still remained vacant καὶ νῦν ἐὰν ἔλθης εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, γυμνὰ ὄψει τὰ θεμέλια. loc. cit. Williams, Holy City, ii. 335.

^{page 58 note a} Chron. Pasch. a.d. 119.

^{page 58 note b} Voyage en Terre Sainte, ii. 18.

^{page 58 note c} Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 297.

^{page 58 note d} Ibid. p. 267, where will be seen a sketch of one of the capitals.

^{page 59 note a} Edrisi cited by Pierotti, i. 289 ; and so Antoninus Martyr. Petra autem ibi est quadrangula, c. 23.

^{page 59 note b} See Vitruvius, i. 7.

^{page 59 note c} A coin of Adrian has the head of the Emperor with a tetrastyle Temple on the obverse, and the inscription “Col. Æl. Cap.” on the reverse. Eckhel, iii. 442. This Temple, if the one at Jerusalem be referred to, must have been the Temple destroyed by the Jews at the time of the insurrection. It is more probable however that, as Jerusalem was restored by the name of Ælia Capitolina, the Temple meant to be represented on the coin was that of Jupiter Capitolinus at Rome.

^{page 60 note a} For further details on this subject see the author's paper on “The Mosque of Omar,” read before the Society of Antiquaries, and published in the Archæologia, xli. 135. I have since doubted whether the mosque was not erected by Diocletian himself, for the following reasons : The mosque in its design and architecture is the exact counterpart of the Temple to Jupiter, erected by Diocletian at Spalatro, so that we should naturally refer them both to the same founder if other circumstances rendered it not improbable. So far from any improbability, the supposition may be shown to be highly probable. Thus, in a.d. 296, Diocletian was at Antioch and passed through Palestine, and therefore it is likely through Jerusalem, on his way to Egypt (Photius, Codex, 256, p. 1405; Euseb. Vita Constantini, i. 19), and afterwards returned through Palestine to Antioch, and enacted the part of Jupiter, his patron god, in the Mystery or Religious Drama at the Olympia of Antioch, in October of the same year: ἐν δὲ τῷ χρόνῳτῶν Ὀλυμπίων κατέφθασεν ἐν Ἀντιοχεία ὁ αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς Διοκλητιανὸς ἐλθὼν ἐξ ᾽Λιγύπτου. Malala, lib. xii. As the Olympia were celebrated every fourth year, and a.d. 296 was one of the periodical returns of the festival, this fixes the date to that year. In a.d. 297 Galerius made an expedition against the Persians and was defeated; but in a.d. 298 renewed the war and gained a victory. Clinton's Fasti Rom. During this time Diocletian remained at Antioch and employed himself in the erection of public buildings, so that he acquired the nickname of Φιλοκτίστης, the Builder. As the name of Diocletian was traced from Διός, Jupiter, the emperor devoted himself to the honour of that god, and was called Jovius, and played the part of Jupiter, as we have seen, at the Olympia at Antioch, and built a temple to Jupiter at Daphne, in the suburbs of Antioch, Ἱερόν Ὀλυμπίου Διός. Malala, ibid. What then more likely than that, finding Adrian's image of Jupiter at Jerusalem without a temple over it, he should have proceeded to erect a temple to Jupiter at Jerusalem in imitation of the temple to Jupiter at Spalatro. Malala, being a native of Antioch, confines himself to the works of Diocletian at Antioch, and it would not fall within the scope of his history to mention the Temple at Jerusalem.

^{page 61 note a} Euseb. Vit. Constant. c. 54.

^{page 61 note b} See Tischendorf's Evang. Apocryph. p. xxv.

^{page 61 note c} Vade ad portam quæ dicitur Porta Aurea, &c. Tischendorf's Evang. Apocryph. p. 59.

Anton. Martyr, c. xxiii.

Porta manet Templi, Speciosam quam vocitarunt. Prudent. Diptych, xlvi.