topography of jerusalem Summary and Overview

THE TOPOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT JERUSALEM The Jerusalem of to-day is built upon the ruins of several successive cities, each erected and destroyed upon the same site, and each adding to the debris of some former town. The foundations of the Jerusalem of the O.T. and of Christ and his apostles, so far as they exist, are far below the surface of the present town. "The city shall be builded upon her own heap," said Jeremiah, Jer 30:18; and this we know has been fulfilled many times. Owing to this repeated burial of the Jerusalem of the various periods described above, the precise location of the biblical sites and ancient holy places in and about the city has led to long and sharp controversy. Even the location of Zion and Moriah has been disputed with great ability and learning. The energetic and successful explorations of the English Palestine Fund proved that remains of the ancient enclosing walls about the temple still exist, about 80 feet below the present surface. Upon these immense stone blocks, lying at that depth upon a rocky foundation, there were discovered Phoenician quarrymarks. The shafts sunk by Captains Warren and Wilson have since been filled up, and Jerusalem topography is still confused by the mazes of many conflicting opinions. A brief statement of the general divisions and features of Jerusalem has already been given under Physical Features, p. 434. The theory of Mr. Fergusson, in Smith's Dictionary, which would identify Zion with the hill on which the temple stood, has been generally rejected by scholars. The lower eastern hill, known as Mount Moriah, is the site of Solomon's temple; west of it was the higher hill of Zion, called also the city of David. Bezetha was on the north of Zion, according to Josephus.
Walls of David and of Nehemiah. -- As the walls of the old city rebuilt by Nehemiah were, it is believed, upon the old foundations, the city, as renovated after the great captivity; must have been upon the same site, and have covered nearly the same area as the Jerusalem of David and Solomon. Dr. Howard Crosby, in Johnson's Cyclopedia, says of the city as restored by Nehemiah: "Eliashib the high priest is first mentioned as leading the workers at the sheep-gate, and at the wall as far as the tower of the Hundred (Ho Meah) and the tower of Hananeel. These places we must, of course, find in the templeregion. . . . The description in Nehemiah follows the wall from the centre of the east side of the city northward. The sheep-gate must have been in the centre of the temple-precinct wall. . . . If the probatika of John 5:2 be the sheep-gate, and the Pool of Bethesda be the Fountain of the Virgin, with its intermittent flow, then we should suppose the sheep-gate to be farther south; but the Pool of Bethesda may have been within the temple-precinct, and the present Fountain of the Virgin may receive to-day the intermittent effects which in former times showed themselves in another pool, now filled up. We are inclined to think that this sheepgate is the same as the Mishneh, or 'second gate,' of Zeph 1:10, and the 'college' of 2 Kgs 22:14, where the prophetess Huldah lived. In this case the fish-gate would be the first gate (see Zeph 1:10), and would represent the north-eastern corner of the city, opposite the Mount of Olives. Between the fish-gate and the sheep-gate would stand the tower of Hananeel and the tower of Meah (or the Hundred). The 'old gate' would be found next as we follow the north wall north-westward. The course would be along the 'second wall' of Josephus, for the first or old wall seems to have been the northern fortification of Zion. The 'old gate' may be really the Jeshanah gate. 2 Chr 13:19. . . . The 'gate of Ephraim' comes next in Nehemiah (not in his account of the building, but in his record of the dedication, Neh 12:39), and may have occupied the site of the present Damascus gate. Then follows the 'broad wall' (some local peculiarities of the wall, perhaps for defence), and then we reach the 'Tower of the Furnaces,' which may have stood over the western valley, as the towers of Hananeel and the Hundred overlooked the eastern. The 'valley-gate' would correspond with the present Jaffa-gate. Near this was the 'Dragon-well.' Neh 2:13. The 'dung-gate' (if our suppositions above are correct) would be 1000 cubits south of the Jaffa-gate, Neh 3:13 -- that is, on the south-western part of Zion, over against the Birket es-Sultan (Pool of the Sultan). The 'fountain-gate' would lie on the opposite side of Zion, facing the Pool of Siloam. The 'stairs' that go down from the city of David would be found between the fountain-gate and the south-western temple-corner. They were probably an ascent from the king's gardens to the Davidian palace on Zion. The sepulchres of David, the 'king's pool,' Neh 2:14, and the house of the mighty were probably at the corner of Zion, over against the south-western temple-corner, where the wall crossed the Tyropceon. The 'armory' is in this neighborhood, at the very corner where the wall turns abruptly southward to encircle Ophel. The 'house of the high priest' and the 'house of Azariah' are near this. After turning the extreme corner of Ophel southward we reach the 'tower which lieth out from the king's high house,' which may be the extra tower discovered by Capt. Warren's subterranean explorations (Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 229). As he himself suggests, it may have been built out in order to guard the fountain of the Virgin. The 'water-gate' would be so called in relation to this fountain. By this watergate, on Ophel, was a broad street or square, where assemblies could be held in the immediate vicinity of the temple. Neh 8:1, Num 1:3, Ex 17:16. Near by was the 'horsegate,' famous as the spot where Athaliah was put to death. . . . The gate 'Miphkad ' may mark some angle of the walls connected with the division, as a special corner is here mentioned, Neh 3:32, before we reach the sheepgate again."
The next important view of Jerusalem topography is that during our Lord's day, and until its destruction by the Romans, a.d. 70. The only full description of the city near that date which has come down to us is found in Josephus. The city was defended on the east, south, and west by a single wall; upon the north three walls were successively built, the second outside of the first, and the third outside of the second. The position of these walls is one of the disputed questions in Jerusalem topography. In reconstructing the city as it appeared in our Lord's day the reader must remember that the third wall, which enclosed the new city, Bezetha, on the north, was built by Herod Agrippa, about a.d. 42, and therefore after the crucifixion and ascension of Christ. All the three walls noticed by Josephus are upon the north of the upper city, or Zion, but there is much controversy respecting the course of these walls, particularly the second and the third wall. It must be further borne in mind that the ancient walls probably included the southern portions of the hills of Zion and of Ophel, which are outside the present walls of the city.
The following description of the city before its destruction by Titus is condensed from Josephus, Jewish War, v., 4; several of his points in the course have not been identified.
"1. Jerusalem was fortified with three walls on such parts as were not encompassed with impassable valleys; in such places it hath but one wall. The city was built upon two hills. Of these hills, that which contains the upper city is much higher, and was called the citadel by King David, but it is by us called the upper market-place. The other hill, which was called Acra and sustains the lower city, is of the shape of a moon when she is horned. Over against this there was a third hill, but naturally lower than Acra, and parted formerly from the other by a broad valley. However, in those times when the Asmoneans reigned they filled up that valley with earth, and had a mind to join the city to the temple. They then took off part of the height of Acra, that the temple might be superior to it. Now, the Valley of the Cheesemongers, which distinguished the hill of the upper city from that of the lower, extended as far as Siloam, a fountain that hath sweet water. But on the outsides these hills are surrounded by deep valleys; and by reason of the precipices to them belonging on both sides, they are everywhere impassable.
"2. Now, of these three walls, the old one was hard to be taken, both by reason of the valleys and of that hill on which it was built. But besides that great advantage as to the place where they were situated, it was also built very strong, because David and Solomon and the following kings were very zealous about this work. Now, that wall began on the north at a tower called Hippicus, and extended as far as the Xistus, and then, joining to the council-house, ended at the west cloister of the temple. But if we go the other way westward, it began at the same place, and extended through a place called Bethso to the gates of the Essenes; and after that it went southward, having its bending above the fountain Siloam, where it also bends again toward the east at Solomon's Pool, and reaches as far as a certain place which they called Ophlas, where it was joined to the eastern cloister of the temple. The second wall ook its beginning from that gate Gennath which belonged to the first wall; it only encompassed the northern quarter of the city, and reached as far as the tower Antonia. The beginning of the third wall was at the tower Hippicus, whence it reached as far as the north quarter of the city and the tower Psephinus, and then was so far extended until it came over against the monuments of Helena, queen of Adiabene, the daughter of Izates; it then extended farther to a great length, and passed by the sepulchral caverns of the kings, and bent again at the tower of the corner, at the Monument of the Fuller, and joined to the old wall at the valley called the Valley of Cedron. Agrippa added to the old city, by this wall, a fourth hill, called Bezetha, or 'new city.' It lies over against the tower Antonia, but is divided from it by a deep valley, which was dug to strengthen the tower. The father of the present king, Agrippa, began the third wall, but he left off building it when he had only laid the foundations, out of the fear he was in of Claudius Caesar, lest he should suspect that so strong a wall was built in order to make some innovations in public affairs; for the city could no way have been taken if that wall had been finished in the manner it was begun, as its parts were connected together by stones 20 cubits long and 10 cubits broad, which could never have been either easily undermined by any iron tools or shaken by any engines. The wall was, however, 10 cubits wide; after that it was erected with great diligence by the Jews as high as 20 cubits, above which it had battlements of 2 cubits, and turrets of 3 cubits' altitude, insomuch that the entire altitude was 25 cubits."
This third wall is said to have been defended by 90 towers. The strongest of these was the Psephinus tower, at the north-western angle, which was upward of 100 feet in height and stood on the highest ground in the city (2572 feet above the sea).
The First Wall. -- In respect to the course of the first wall there is, in the main, greater agreement among scholars than in respect to either of the other two. This wall began at the tower of Hippicus on the west, ran to the south around the pinnacle of the hill, enclosing Siloam, and extended to the eastern wall of the temple-precincts. South of this north wall stood the palace of Herod, the Xistus, and the bridge which crossed the Tyropoeon to the temple. Another wall ran down on the western margin of the Tyropoeon to defend the upper part of the city.
The Second Wall and Site of Calvary. -- No certain traces of the second wall have been discovered. Respecting the course of this wall there has been sharp dispute, for upon it depends the question of the genuineness of the "holy sepulchre" and of the site of Calvary. Robinson, Tobler, Hupfeld, Arnold, John Wilson, Thomson, Barclay, Bonar, Fergusson, Porter, Meyer, Ewald, Schaff, Crosby, Conder, and others, dispute the traditional site of the holy sepulchre, since in their view the second wall included its site within the city. On the other hand, Roman Catholics, as De Vogue, De Saulcy, and Sepp, and able Protestants, as Rev. Geo. Williams, Krafft, Ritter, Schultz, Rosen, Von Schubert, Raumer, Furrer, F. A. Strauss, and Lewin, argue that the second wall excluded the site of the holy sepulchre, and therefore they accept the old tradition that it is the true site of the crucifixion. From the account in the Gospels it is clear that the place of the crucifixion was outside the city. Matt 28:11; Mark 15:20-21; Luke 23:26; John 19:17; Heb 13:12-13, but it was also nigh to the city, John 19:20, and near a common thoroughfare frequented by many, Matt 27:39; Mark 15:22; John 19:20; and again, it was on a conical elevation (hence called "Place of a Skull" or Calvary, but not Mount Calvary, for which there is no Scripture warrant). Matt 27:33; Mark 15:22; Luke 23:33; John 19:17; and lastly, it was in a garden which had a sepulchre hewn in a rock, where Christ was buried. Matt 27:60; John 19:38-42.
Several writers of the fourth and fifth centuries ascribe the discovery of the site of Calvary to Helena, mother of Constantine, who found three crosses there, and who also discovered which was the true cross of our Saviour by a miracle of healing which its touch produced upon a sick woman. Helena caused a splendid church to be erected on the spot, a.d. 335. It has since been several times destroyed and rebuilt, but tradition has fixed upon this spot as the place of Christ's crucifixion and burial. The advocates of this tradition must prove that the old city excluded this site. The Rev. Geo. Williams sums up the arguments in favor of the traditional view, and Robinson presents, with marked ability, the objections to it. Dr. Schaff, in Through Bible Lands, says: "The old city was much larger and more densely inhabited than the present, and consequently more likely to include the site of that church [Holy Sepulchre] than to exclude it. ... The champions of the tradition, therefore, are bound to prove that the location of the city has greatly changed, and that the second wall of Josephus (which ran circuitously from the gate Gennath -- i.e. the garden-gate, near the tower of Hippicus -- to the fortress of Antonia, on the north of the temple-area) excluded the church of the Holy Sepulchre. This has not been proved. It is possible, but very improbable. Diligent search for wall foundations has failed so far. The ruins near the church of the Holy Sepulchre, which have been supposed by Williams and others to be fragments of the second wall, have proved to be portions of a church, and the old arch called the gate Gennath is a comparatively recent building." See Calvary. The precise course of the second wall can only be unquestionably settled by further excavations, and this, if settled, would decide whether the church of the Holy Sepulchre covers the true site of Calvary, as tradition claims, or whether Calvary must be sought elsewhere, as the weight of scholarship now seems to require. Some of those who reject the traditional site locate Calvary a few minutes' walk north of the present Damascus-gate, not far from the Grotto of Jeremiah. Here is a skull-shaped, rocky elevation, about half a mile from the fortress Antonia (Pilate's judgment-hall), and the same distance from Mount Zion (Herod's palace) and on the highway to Damascus. The spot is encircled by rock-caverns and tombs. It answers all the requirements of the Gospel narratives, and is accepted by Bishop Gobat of Jerusalem, Conrad Schick, Schaff, and others, and a similar view was advocated by Fisher Howe of Brooklyn, 1871, and more recently by Conder, 1878.
The Third Wall -situation of the third wall is likewise disputed by topographical writers. Some, as Kiepert, Fergusson, Wilson, and others, make it reach to, and possibly include, the so-called royal tombs and the whole northern mountain-plateau, on which many ruins and cisterns lie scattered. Robinson places the third wall about the middle of this locality; to this Baedeker objects on strategical grounds. Others suggest that this third wall occupied about the same site as the present north wall of Jerusalem, which view is claimed to accord with the distances given by Josephus (4 stadia to the royal tombs, 7 stadia to the Scopus), but Josephus is not always accurate. Capt. Warren advocates this latter view, that the positions of the third wall and of the present northern wall are identical, though he acknowledges that he found no decisive evidence on the subject. The reader will not be surprised at the general uncertainty which prevails in regard to the ancient walls and sacred sites in the Holy City when he remembers that it has been 27 times besieged and 17 times conquered, and often desolated. The present walls are of recent date, being built by Suleiman the Magnificent in 1542.
Plans of the City, -- Mr. Besant, secretary of the Palestine Exploration Fund, received 18 different reconstructions of ancient Jerusalem, by as many eminent scholars, yet all based on the authors' views of the statements in the Bible, Josephus, and by late explorers. The most important plans are those of Robinson, Schultz, Williams, Furrer, Barclay, Van de Velde, Tobler, British Ordnance Survey, and Schick. Fergusson's plan (Smith's Bible Dictionary), although the view of a distinguished architect, is too untenable to be of value or interest to the ordinary student. The chief of these plans are given upon another page.
The Temple-site. -- The site of the temple has long been a subject of controversy among scholars, but nearly all agree that it was on Mount Moriah, which is at present occupied by the Haram, wherein stands the mosque of Omar. Some place it in the south-western corner of the area now known as the Haram esh-Sherif, but the discovery of immense stones at the base of the south-eastern corner of the present Haram wall, lying in place on a rocky foundation cut out to receive them, 80 feet below the present surface, and bearing Phoenician quarry-marks, seems to confirm the earlier view that remains of the buildings of Solomon still exist there, and that Solomon's temple stood upon the centre of the Haram area or the site of the mosque of Omar, and shows the fallacy of Mr. Fergusson's view that the temple-area reached only 600 feet east from the south-western corner of the present Haram area, since these discovered stones at the southeastern corner are 900 feet eastward. The explorations of Capts. Wilson and Warren prove that the south-eastern corner is unchanged, while the southwestern has undoubtedly been added, probably by Herod. Beneath the Haram area there are aqueducts, subterranean passages, and tanks, some of them constructed, doubtless, for proper drainage and use of the temple; hence the inference from recent discoveries is that the present Haram area very nearly coincides with that of the old temple area.
Zion and the Tyropaeon. -- Two other places of interest in the Holy City besides Calvary -- which has been noticed under the second wall -- are the hill of Zion and the Tyropaeon Valley. Zion is a broad hill with an abrupt front nearly 400 feet high at one point above the southern valley, the hill having a length of 2400 feet to the Jaffa-gate, and from the Tyropaeon to the western valley a breadth of about 1600 feet. The "first wall" was built along the northern brow of Zion. The plateau of Zion included about half the ancient city. Zion is scarcely 200 feet lower than Olivet. The Tyropaeon valley, known also as the "Valley of the Cheesemongers," extended from the junction of the Hinnom and Kedron valleys northward, dividing Zion from Moriah, and, according to one view, continued northward toward the present Jaffa-gate, but, according to another view, turned toward the present Damascus-gate; while a third view supposes that it covered the two branches reaching to the two gates above named. The portion of the valley between Zion and Moriah increased rapidly in depth as it extended southward, and at the south-western corner of the temple-area the bed of the valley was 90 feet below the present surface, giving an entire altitude of wall amounting to 150 feet, and in Herod's time to over 200 Plans of Ancient Jerusalem. The five plans given above indicate the views of some of the best authorities in regard to the topography of ancient Jerusalem. The first wall enclosed the old part of the town, or "upper city," upon Mount Zion, and extending to the Walls of the temple-enclosure. The second wall enclosed the old suburb, or "lower city," upon Acra. The plan of Sepp (Roman Catholic) puts the site of the present church of the Holy Sepulchre outside that wall, in accordance with the traditional view. The other plans include that site within the second wall, in which case it cannot have been the place of the crucifixion, which took place outside of the city. The third wall was built by Agrippa, eleven years after the death of Christ. Date of plans: Robinson, 1841-1856; Sepp, 1873; Tobler, 1849-1858; Schick. 1876; Conder, 1879. For the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the genuine Calvary are: De Vogue, De Sauley, Sepp (Roman Catholic), Williams, Ritter, Krafft, Schultz, Strauss (Protestants); also Furrer, in Schenkel's Bibellexikon, ii. 506. Against the traditional view: Robinson, Tobler, John Wilson, Thompson, Barclay, Bonar, Fergusson, Porter, Van de Velde, Meyer, Ewald (all Protestants); also Schaff, Through Bible Lands, p. 259, and Conder, in Handbook of the Bible, p. 350. feet; so that the statement of Josephus no longer seems a foolish exaggeration: "If any one looked down from the top of the battlements, he would be giddy, while his sight could not reach to such an immense depth." The gates, pools, and environs of the Holy City may be appropriately noticed under the description of modern Jerusalem.