« AnteriorContinuar »
northward from the wall of Zion, icvicXavfievov, as Josephus describes it, to the tower of Antonia, and yet to exclude from its "encircling" sweep the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, would require such crooks and angles, such a contraction of the city area, and withal such exposure of the Lower city to an enemy commanding the slope of the hill above the wall, as must forbid the admiration which both Josephus and Tacitus bestow upon the fortifications. Dr. Barclay justly remarks that" the physical features of the everlasting hills are more permanent and reliable than the oracles of Protean tradition; and it must needs be confessed by the most devoted traditionist, that that which is topographically impossible, cannot be traditionally true." 1
This citation brings us back from our long dissertation, to the analysis of Dr. Barclay's contributions to the topography of the Holy City. In the main points thus far considered — the course of the Tyropceon and the relative positions of Zion, Acra, and the temple-hill — Dr. Barclay agrees with Dr. Robinson. His theory of the valley and the pools of Gihon, is in some points novel, and is hardly favored by the few indistinct allusions of the Old Testament, Dr. Barclay maintains that the valley of Gihon began a little northwest of the Damascus gate and extended southward to a line with the Jaffa gate, where it joined the Tyropceon, i. e. his Gihon is the Tyropceon of Williams.
"Few localities have been so much the sport of topographical speculation and tradition as this place, which has been located almost everywhere about Jerusalem, except the right place. The present locality assigned it, is the valley south-west of Jerusalem, called in the Scriptures Ben Hinnom. But the utter incompatibility of that site with the declaration (2 Chr. S3: 14) that '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,' is evidence enough of its mislocation; for, a wall built in this valley on its west side, would everywhere be located to great disadvantage, and in many places be no defence whatever, owing to the cliffs of Hinnom overtopping it. But besides this negative proof of its mislocation, the well-ascertained position of the Fish gate clearly shows that the valley of Gihon could be no other than that heading north-west of Damascus gate and gently descend
1 Page 230.
ing southward, uniting with the Tyropoeon at the north-east corner of Mount Zion, where the latter turns at right angles and runs towards Siloam. The wall, thus built by Manasseh on the west side of the valley of Gihon, would extend from the vicinity of the north-east corner of the wall of Zion in a northerly direction, until it crossed over the valley to form a junction with the outer wall at the trench of Antonia— precisely in the quarter where the Temple would be most easily assailed.
"Although this location of Gihon may be rather startling to those who are wedded to the school of oral tradition, yet it is unquestionably the only view of the matter by which Manasseh's construction of the wall can be reconciled with the " stubborn facts" of the case; most evident is it that it is perfectly consistent with everything mentioned in connection with it, either in the Scriptures or Josephus. The correctness of this location is also confirmed by the etymological import of the term. For it is certainly a most graceful and well favored valley."1
Dr. Barclay gives the following comment on 2 Chr. 32: 2-4.
"We here learn that' when Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib was come (to Lachish), and that he was purposed to fight against Jerusalem, he took counsel with his princes and his mighty men to stop the waters of the fountains which were without the city; and they did help him. So there were gathered much people together, who stopped all the fountains, and the brook that ran through the midst of the land, saying, "Why should the king of Assyria come, and find much water?' Where these various fountains were, we have now no positive means of ascertaining; though Knrogel and the spring now called the Virgin's Fount may well be numbered amongst them. Josephus mentions the existence of various fountains without the city, but does not locate or even name any of them in this connection but Siloam. (W. v. ix: 4.) 'The brook,' however,'is located with sufficient precision to enable us to trace it very definitely. We are told that it 'ran through the midst of the land.' Now a stream running through either the Kedron or Hinnom valley could in no proper sense be said to run through the midst of the land; but one flowing through the true Gihon valley, and separating Akra and Zion from Bezetha, Moriah, and Ophel, as a stream once doubtless did, could with peculiar propriety be said to "run through the midst of the (holy) land" on which the (holy) city was built." And that this is the correct meaning of the phrase is not only apparent from the force of circumstances, but is positively so declared in the Septuagint, where, moreover, it is also called a river; which at least implies a much larger stream than the Kedron, and comporU well with the marginal reading, where it is said to ' overflow through the midst of the land.' Previous to the interference of man, there was, no doubt, a very
1 Page 94.
copious stream that gushed forth somewhere in the upper portion of that shallow, basin-like concavity north of Damascus gate — which is unquestionably the upper extremity of the Gihon valley — and pursuing its meandering course through this valley, entered the Tyropoeon at its great southern curve, down which it flowed into the valley of Kedron.
"If we are to understand that the flow of these fountains was entirely arrested, they were doubtless reopened on the retreat of the invading army. But we learn from the 30th verse that one of these fountains never visibly flowed again on the exterior of the city, having been permanently conducted into the city through a secret subterranean channel; for, 'This same Hezekiah al*o stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David.'
"Now, had the so-called 'Upper pool of Gihon' been the ' upper watercourse or out-flow of Gihon' (of Scripture), as is generally alleged (though there is not the slightest intimation of such a thing, either in the Bible, the Works of Josephus, or any other reliable authority), there would be no propriety in mentioning that its waters were brought down 'to the west side of the city of David;' for they were already on that side. But if the fountain thus sealed was situated on the north side, then it would have been a fact sufficiently notable to deserve a special notice. But that the waters stored up in that pool were designed for quite another purpose, is most obvious; for to thiB day they are conducted — not through a deep rock-cut channel, as Hezekiah's no doubt was — but most of the way by a trifling foot-wide ditch on the surface of the ground, to a reservoir on Akra near the Jaffa gate, traditionally called Hezekiah's pool, but which most certainly is the Amygdalon pool of Josephus. If by 'the city of David' is here meant the whole city of Jerusalem, anil the water was conducted literally to the west side of Jerusalem, the enterprise was very difficult of execution, and by no means as useful as it would have been if located more centrally. It is observable, too, that in this immediate connection this term is restricted to the lower portion of Zion."1
Hitter, after citing the various references to the pool of Gihon in the Old Testament, remarks that these make it highly probable that the fountain Gihon and the "old pool" lay on the north side of the city (in the neighborhood of the present Damascus gate), and not on the western side, although later traditions locate it in the upper valley of Hinnom, westward of the Kasr Dschalud? Thrupp identifies the so-called Pool of Bethesda, near St. Stephen's gate, " the fosse of the fortress Antonia, according to Robinson,3 as the upper pool of Gihon, which he thinks was fed by a subterranean water
'Pages 307, 308. 2 Erdkunde, VIII. p. 370. 8 Bib. Res I. 331.
course.1 In his first edition of the Researches, Dr. Robinson expressed himself cautiously in favor of the identity of the present Birket el Mamilla with the upper pool of Gihon; but in his Later Researches he reargues the question, and greatly strengthens his original position. No trace is found of any other pools that could answer the description of those immense reservoirs of the ancient city. The Birket el Mamilla and the Birket es Sultan stand related to each other as the Upper and Lower pool in the basin and valley of Hinnom. An ancient aqueduct has been traced from the site of " the royal palace" near the Jaffa gate westward toward the upper pool ; but "no sources of living water have been discovered at or near the Damascus gate," and the raincisterns in that vicinity could never have fed a reservoir for the city.2 Dr. Barclay, who is the highest authority upon the present water resources of Jerusalem, says expressly that the two large tanks at Damascus gate are not to be regarded as sources of living waters. "They are entirely dry the latter part of summer, and evidently supplied by rain-water conducted into them by drains on the side of the road." 8 The Birket el Mamilla, commonly called the Upper poohof Gihon, westward of the Jaffa gate, Dr. Barclay regards as the "serpents' pool" of Josephus; while he suggests that " the true fountain of Gihon was situated in the present basin across the intervening Hill of Gareb, just opposite the traditionary pool." But this is pure conjecture. If, according to Dr. B., the fountain of Gihon already poured a stream through the city by the valley leading southward from the Damascus gate, why should Hezekiah divert it around the western side of the city to a pool without the walls, and thence conduct its overflow into the city? There would seem to be neither wisdom nor economy in such a course. The pool within the walls, which Robinson regards as that built by Hezekiah, Barclay makes the Amygdalon of Josephus. On the pool of Hezekiah, he offers the following conjecture.
"In reproving the Jews for confiding more in human means than Divine
1 Ancient Jerusalem, p. 87. 3 Researches, III 243—245. * Page 513. aid, Isaiah comments upon the defensive measures adopted by Hezekiah and his princes, when threatened by Sennacherib, in the following terms: 'Ye have seen also the breaches of the city of David, that they arc many; and ye gathered together the waters of the lower pool. And ye have numbered the houses of Jerusalem; and the houses ye have broken down to fortify the wall. Ye made also a ditch between the two walls for the water of the old pool, but ye have not looked,'etc. (Isa. xxii.9-11.) The ' ditch' and the 'lower pool' here alluded to are, therefore, evidently trenches for military defence; and, of course, the pool commonly ascribed to Hezekiah — being obviously designed for no such purpose — cannot be either of them. In exploring the Temple area and its immediate vicinity, I discovered a large pool beneath the Mechemeh and Temple street, extending eightyfour feet along side the Temple wall, which is here constructed of large .Jewish rocks like those at the YVailing-place, is ten feet deep, and still partially coated with cement. But its entire extent from east to west could not be ascertained — a wall having been built across it at a distance of fortytwo feet from the Temple wall for the purpose of supporting the buildings above. Can this be the "ditch between the two walls for the water of the old pool"—or the trench built by Hezekiah between "the First" and "Second walls " of Josephus, as a defence lo the First wall passing from Zion to the Temple, and which was supplied with water by a branch of Hezekiah's aqueduct? Or are wo to recognize the empty pool below Siloam as " the ditch 1" 1
As we have been led into a somewhat particular discussion of the water resources of Jerusalem, we will here add the valuable testimony of Dr. Barclay concerning the subterranean waters of the city. One of the first conditions of the growth of a city is an abundant supply of wholesome water. The annotations upon Dr. Trail's translation of Josephus, picture the artificial advantages of Jerusalem in this respect in glowing contrast with the natural barrenness of the surrounding region.
"Perhaps upon no city of the ancient world had greater cost been bestowed, or more skill shown, in securing for it an unfailing supply of water; and such was the repute of Jerusalem in this particular, that its strength as a fortification is frequently alluded to by profane writers, as including this grand and indispensable means of sustaining a lengthened siege. Thus Strabo, having mentioned the fact generally that Jerusalem, situated in the midst of a district destitute of water, was itself abundantly supplied therewith, presently afterwards; and, while referring to the capture of the city by Pompey, states that he took it, notwithstanding its sub