along the brow of Zion for traces of its western termination; but without success. That quarter is now covered with mean houses and filth; and an examination can be carried on only in the midst of disgusting sights and smells. The existence of these remains of the ancient bridge, seems to remove all doubt as to the identity of this part of the enclosure of the mosk with that of the ancient temple. How they can have remained for so many ages unseen or unnoticed by any writer or traveller, is a problem, which I would not undertake fully to solve. One cause has probably been the general oblivion, or want of knowledge, that any such bridge ever existed. It is mentioned by no writer but Josephus; and even by him only incidentally, though in five different places. The bridge was doubtless broken down in the general destruction of the city; and was in later ages forgotten by the Christian population, among whom the writings of Josephus were little known. For a like reason, we may suppose its remains to have escaped the notice of the crusaders and the pilgrims of the following centuries. Another cause which has operated in the case of later travellers, is probably the fact, that the spot is approached only through narrow and crooked lanes, in a part of the city whither their monastic guides did not care to accompany them; and which they themselves could not well, nor perhaps safely, explore alone. Or if any have penetrated to the place, and perhaps noticed these large stones springing from the wall, they have probably (as I did at first) regarded their appearance 1) Antiq. XIV. 4. 2. B. J. I. 7. 2. II. 16. 3. VI. 6. 2. VI. 8. 1.— There is no mention of the time when, nor of the person by whom, the bridge was built. As however it existed in the time of Pompey about 63 B. C. (Antiq. 1. c.) it was probably ancient. At any rate it could not have been the work of Herod. as accidental; and have passed on without further examination.' Here then we have indisputable remains of Jewish antiquity, consisting of an important portion of the western wall of the ancient temple-area. They are probably to be referred to a period long antecedent to the days of Herod; for the labours of this splendourloving tyrant appear to have been confined to the body of the temple and the porticos around the court.2 The magnitude of the stones also, and the workmanship as compared with other remaining monuments of Herod, seem to point to an earlier origin. In the accounts we have of the destruction of the temple by the Chaldeans, and its rebuilding by Zerubbabel under Darius, no mention is made of these exterior walls. The former temple was destroyed by fire, which would not affect these foundations; nor is it probable that a feeble colony of returning exiles, could have accomplished works like these. There seems therefore little room for hesitation in referring them back to the days of Solomon, or rather of his successors; who, according to Josephus, built up here immense walls, "immoveable for all time."4 Ages upon ages have since rolled away; yet these foundations still endure, and are immoveable as at the beginning. Nor is there aught in the present physical condition 1) Maundrell must have passed near this spot, when he saw the large vaults with columns which he describes as running in on the S. side of Moriah. Pococke was also apparently here, and speaks of the large stones; Vol. II. p. 15. fol.-Since the above was written, I have been informed by both Messrs Bonomi and Catherwood, the well known artists, that they likewise remarked these large stones in 1833, and recognised in them the beginning of an immense arch. They regarded them too as probably among the most ancient remains in or around Jerusalem; but had no suspicion of their historical import. 2) See above, p. 418. 3) Ezra c. i. c. iii. 8 seq. c. vi. Joseph. Antiq. X. 8. 5. XI. 3. 7. XI. 4. 2. Here also it is the vaós, not the igor, which was destroyed and afterwards rebuilt by Zerubbabel. 4) Antiq. XV. 11. 3, άnivýtovS τῷ παντὶ χρόνῳ. B. J. V. 5. 1. of these remains, to prevent them from continuing as long as the world shall last. It was the temple of the living God; and, like the everlasting hills on which it stood, its foundations were laid "for all time." Thus then we have here the western wall of the ancient temple-area; on which is built up the same wall of the modern enclosure, though with far inferior materials and workmanship. The ancient southern wall is at the same time determined in like manner; for at the S. W. corner the lower stones towards the South have precisely the same character as those on the West; they are laid in alternate courses with the latter; and the whole corner is evidently one and the same original substruction. Proceeding to the S. E. corner, we find its character to be precisely similar; the same immense stones as already described,' both towards the East and South, on the brink of the Valley of Jehoshaphat; and the line of the southern wall at this point corresponding with that at the S. W. corner. We have, then, the two extremities of the ancient southern wall; which, as Josephus informs us, extended from the eastern to the western valley, and could not be prolonged further. Thus we are led irresistibly to the conclusion, that the area of the Jewish temple was identical on its western, eastern, and southern sides, with the present enclosure of the Haram. The specifications of Josephus in respect to the immense height of these ancient walls and of the porticos which rose above them, have occasioned great difficulty aud perplexity to commentators; partly because of the undoubted exaggerations of the writer; and partly from want of an acquaintance with the nature of the ground. At the S. W. corner, there can be little doubt that the ground has been raised very 1) See above, p. 422. 2) Antiq. XV. 11. 5. considerably; and not improbably future excavations may yet lay bare stones of a larger size than any which are now visible. But at the S. E. corner, and along the eastern and southern sides in general, there is little appearance of any considerable accumulation of earth or rubbish. Upon the southern part of the enclosure internally, according to Josephus, "a broad portico ran along the wall, supported by four rows of columns, which divided it into three parts, thus forming a triple colonnade or portico. Of these the two external parts were each thirty feet wide, and the middle one forty-five feet. The height of the two external porticos was more than fifty feet, while that of the middle one was double, or more than a hundred feet. The length was a stadium, extending from valley to valley. Such was the elevation of the middle portico above the adjacent valley, that if from its roof one attempted to look down into the gulf below, his eyes became dark and dizzy before they could penetrate to the immense depth." The valley thus meant, can well be no other than that of the Kidron, which here actually bends S. W. around the corner, so that the eastern end of this high southern portico impended over it. The depth of the valley at this point, as we have seen, is about one hundred and fifty feet; which with the elevation of the wall and portico gives a total height of about 310 feet above the bottom of the valley,—an elevation sufficient to excuse the somewhat hyperbolical language of the Jewish historian. The portico along 1) Joseph. Antiq. XV. 11. 5. 2) J. D. Michaelis understood this language as referring to the elevation of the wall and portico above a valley along the South side of the temple-area; see his Zerstreute Kleine Schriften, p. 394, seq. But Josephus here and elsewhere speaks only of vallies on the East and West sides. See also Niebuhr's Remarks on this hypothesis of Michaelis; Reisebeschr. Bd. III. Anhang, p. 140; printed also in Olshausen's Topographie des alten Jerus. p. 70, seq. the eastern wall was rebuilt by Agrippa, and is described by Josephus in like manner as rising above the valley to the enormous height of 400 cubits, or more than 500 feet; which doubtless is merely an exaggerated estimate. At the N. E. corner too, the same portico was near the valley of the Kidron; which is said to have had here "a fearful depth." A greater difficulty arises, when we undertake to reconcile the length and breadth of the temple-area, as it now appears, with the accounts which have come down to us from antiquity. We have seen that the length of the present southern wall, which is identical with the ancient one, is 955 English feet, or about 318 yards. But both Josephus and the Talmud describe the upper area as a square, of which each of the sides measured, according to the former one stadium, and according to the latter 500 cubits. In the uncertainty which exists as to the length of the Jewish cubit, these two specifications throw little light upon each other. But the length of a stadium of 600 Greek feet, which is usually regarded as equal to the tenth part of a geographical mile or a fraction less than 204 yards, makes the southern side of the enclosure to be only two thirds as long as we now find it to be by actual measurement; presenting a difference of 114 yards. This may in part be accounted for, by supposing the ancient specifications to refer only to the interior open space surrounded by the broad porticos within the walls; while our measurements were taken along the outside of the walls. But even this supposition cannot well cover the whole difference; and we must here again admit, that Josephus probably had no definite measurements, but assumed one stadium as a 1) Antiq. XX. 9.7. See above on Josephus, p. 415. 2) B. J. VI. 3. 2. 4) Joseph. Antiq. XV. 11. 3. Lightfoot Opera I. p. 554. 5) The more exact specification is 604 Olympic stadia to a degree. |