Buried Cities and Bible Countries

by George St. Clair

In the next section Josephus tells us that as the city grew more populous it crept beyond its old limits, “and those parts of it that stood northward of the temple and joined that hill to the city, made it considerably larger, and occasioned that hill, which is in number the fourth, and is called Bezetha (or New City), to be inhabited also. It lies over against the Tower of Antonia, but is divided from it by a deep valley, which was dug on purpose, and that in order to hinder the foundations of the Tower of Antonia from joining to this hill.”

When we read these descriptions in the light of our plan, things become tolerably plain. The south-western hill was the Upper City—a large flat-topped hill surrounded with deep valleys, and having a level of about 2550 to 2500 feet above the sea. The eastern hill is known to be the Temple Hill, which is number three in Josephus’s description. Bezetha (number four) is distinctly described as the hill north of the Temple Hill, and only divided from it at one point by an artificial cutting. The explorers have found this cutting, carried through a narrow neck of high ground, at the north-western corner of the Haram. Thus there is no room to question that “the second hill, which was called Akra and sustained the Lower City” is the hill projecting down from the north-west like a promontory, gibbous in its form. The Upper City was divided from Akra “by a broad valley,” now partly filled up, which was called the Tyropœon Valley, and beginning near the Jaffa Gate, “extended as far as Siloam Fountain.” The summit of Akra is not more than 2480 feet above sea level—considerably lower than the Upper City—and looks lower than it is, because the whole site of Jerusalem is tilted up from the west like an inclined plane, and because the valleys about the Upper City are deeper. Josephus says the Akra hill used to be higher, and sustained the Macedonian fortress called the Akra, which dominated the Temple. Being so near and so high, it enabled the garrison to look down into the Temple courts. They used also to run out and molest the Jews who were passing from the Upper City into the Temple by the western gate (Joseph. Ant. xii. 9, 3; 1 Macc. i. 36; and Warren in “Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology,” vii. 314).

The Macedonian fortress was a thorn in the side of Jerusalem until Simon Maccabæus captured it and demolished it. At the same time he cut down the top of the hill itself; and perhaps it was with the material so obtained that he filled up the valley between Akra and the Temple. By the filling up of this valley, which it is convenient to call the Asmonean Valley, the two hills were joined together; and it would not be surprising if the terms “Akra” and “Lower City” soon after began to have an extended meaning, and to embrace all the buildings on both the hills which were now united into one.

Having now a definite conception of the original lie of the ground, and knowing the four hills of Jerusalem by name and location, we can proceed to plant a few of the ancient buildings in their proper places.

The Temple of Solomon.—We have already seen reason for placing the Temple over the very summit of Moriah; but we must now make our reasons quite conclusive, and also show the limits of the Temple courts.

In the first place the summit of the mountain is the natural position for the Temple, rather than any position on the slope. The rock called the Sakhrah and the Foundation-stone of the World has been sacred from time immemorial. It seems to be referred to in Isaiah xxviii. 16—“Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner (stone), of sure foundation.” Ezekiel also, with Josephus and the Talmud, all agree in placing the temple on the summit of the mountain (Ezek. xliii. 12).

As remarked by Dr Chaplin,[26] the question whether the “stone of foundation” was a portion of the solid rock or a movable stone is one of considerable interest in connection with the topography of the Temple. If the former, it will be easy to fix with all but absolute certainty its position, and from it as a starting-point, to lay down the sites of the temple, altar, and courts with no more uncertainty than the uncertain value of the cubit renders inevitable. The use of the word Eben would imply that it was a movable stone, but its (supposed) history, as given by the Rabbis, quite removes it from the category of ordinary stones, and represents it as the centre or nucleus from which the world was founded. The Toldoth Yesu represents it as a movable stone, and states that King David, when digging the foundation of the temple, found it “over the mouth of the abyss” with The Name engraved upon it, and that he brought it up and placed it in the Holy of Holies. “On the whole” (says Dr Chaplin) “it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than that the stone which the Rabbis write about was a portion of rock projecting three finger-breadths upwards from the floor of the Holy of Holies, covering a cavity which was regarded as the mouth of the abyss, reverenced as the centre and foundation of the world, and having the ineffable name of God inscribed upon it.”

The statements made in the Talmud and repeated over and over again with great accuracy by Rabbinic writers, supply us with the following precise information: (1) The stone of foundation (in other words, the solid rock) was the highest point within the Holy of Holies, projecting slightly above the floor, and from it the rock sloped downwards on all sides. (2) A “solid and closed foundation,” 6 cubits high, was made all round the house in order to raise the floor to (within three finger-breadths of) its summit. On the eastern side this solid foundation was covered by steps leading down to the court, 22 cubits below the summit on that side. We must agree with Dr Chaplin that the summit of the Sakhrah under the great Dome of the Rock is the only spot in the whole enclosure which answers to these data.