Untitled article | AdventAI

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Third-day, August 27, 1867

Historical Department.

Prophecy is History in Advance.

THE JERUSALEM OF TO-DAY.

A CORRESPONDENT sends us the following article, taken from the “English Churchman’s Magazine.” Whatever serves to give us a better idea of Jerusalem, that ancient, illustrious, and typical city, as the following article most emphatically does, will be of interest to our readers, as it must be to every student of the Bible.

The city of Jerusalem fills a place in the history of the world which is perfectly unique and unparalleled. We do not mean this merely with regard to the sanctity of her associations with the facts of our redemption, and the supernatural events of our Lord’s resurrection and ascension. Apart from this she attracts the attention of the historian and the archæologist by the extraordinary length of time over which her authentic and unbroken history extends. Jerusalem was a city in the days of Abraham, and it is now nearly four thousand years since the memorable meeting between her king Melchizedek and the patriarch victorious over the Canaanitish kings. The mountain of Moriah was the scene of the offering of Isaac, and there is not wanting a certain probability to the opinion of those who hold that there also was the true scene of the mystic vision of angels which cheered the flight of the patriarch Jacob.

Then comes the only gap in this marvelous history. Pass over the interval between the days of the patriarchs and the conquest of Canaan, and from thence forward we never lose sight of Jerusalem and of her vicissitudes. Her next appearance is in the story of Joshua’s campaigns in Palestine. Adonizedek (Josh. x, 1–21,) is now her king—a name whose affinity to that of Melchizedek agrees with the opinion that the Salem of the days of Abraham is one with the Jerusalem of the days of Joshua. From the distant days of Adonizedek to our own the annals of Jerusalem are absolutely continuous, and the history of the world may almost be said to be written in the massive remains of her walls, her fortifications, and her conduits. There we may yet discern the enormous stones laid by Jebusite masons in the old foundations of the defenses of Zion. There we may yet see the works of David, of Solomon, of Hezekiah, of Manasseh, of Nehemiah, of Herod, of the Romans, of the Crusaders, and of the Saracens. The cities of ancient Egypt have an antiquity perhaps even more towering, but the current of their history was intercepted in the far-off ages, and they speak to us only of a mysterious past which holds no communion with the intervening life of the world. Rome yet remains laden with the associations of her long career, but by the side of Jerusalem she is only a modern creation. The historic age of Jerusalem was already old ere the fabled Romulus and Numa came upon the scene. Even as her sacred Scriptures are interwoven with the religious life of almost every nation under heaven, so also her long annals are crossed by those of nearly every historic people of the world.

Not less remarkable have been the vicissitudes of this strange city. Regarded by the light of her actual fortunes, her name Jerusalem would seem to have been given in a sad and sarcastic irony. Jerusalem, “Inheritance of Peace,” of all cities in the known world she has least answered to her title, if by peace we are to understand a peace outward, and secular, and historic. “The City of the Sieges,” is the name which her actual history would rather have suggested had the name been given with any prophetic forecast of her material history. It is the one distinctive mark of Jerusalem—the number and the severity of her sieges. No city in the known world has endured so many or so destructive captures. Her continuous history opens with a siege, when we read in Judges i, 8, how the children of “Judah had fought against Jerusalem and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.” And even then we find the evidence of its peculiar strength as a place of defense; for though the “children of Judah” had thus reduced the portion of it which lay within the borders of their own tribe, that is, the “Lower City,” we read further on in the same chapter (verse 21,) that “the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem”—that is, who inhabited the fastness of the “Upper City,” or Mount Zion. And not only so, but these Jebusites still retained their ancient stronghold until the eighth year of the reign of king David, and even he did not attempt its reduction until all the rest of the country was subdued, so that its capture marked his completed conquest of the whole territory of Palestine (2 Sam. v, 6–9). From the first siege mentioned in the book of Judges to the great siege under Titus,—a space of fifteen centuries—the city was seventeen times besieged; it was razed to the ground twice, and twice its walls were destroyed. In A. D. 614, it was taken by Chosroes II., King of Persia; in A. D. 629 it was recovered by the Emperor Heraclius; the Khalif Omar took in A. D. 636; and, to pass over other occasions, it was taken by the crusading army under Godfrey of Bouillon, in the year 1099.

It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that the memorials of ancient Jerusalem, and the determination of the ancient localities, have to be sought painfully beneath the surface of the actually existing city and far below the level of the ground on which most of her modern buildings stand. It is no wonder that her minor eminences have been levelled, her valleys and her hollows filled up; that the spade and the pickaxe are the true instruments of antiquarian discovery, and that the identification even of her ancient physical outlines should, in many particulars, have become matter of vehement discussion and debate. The last thirty years have been peculiarly fruitful in writers upon the topography of Jerusalem. Scholars and antiquarians and artists have not been wanting, until the present condition of the Holy City, the chief questions as to its historic sites, and the physical peculiarities of its position have become familiar to every educated man. But M. Pierotti comes before us with claims and qualifications distinct from all who have preceded him, inasmuch as he has enjoyed opportunities such as have never before fallen to the lot of any Frank explorer. He was eight years resident in the Holy City, as architect-engineer to the Pasha of Jerusalem. During this period a large amount of building was in progress, so that his opportunities of actual excavation have been greater than those, not merely of any living man, but perhaps of any individual whatever during modern times. His own description of the sumptuous volumes now before us announces them as “the fruits of eight years of continual labor . . . in which I have been constantly occupied in excavating and removing the rubbish accumulated over the place during so many centuries, in retracing the walls, in examining the monuments and ancient remains, and in penetrating and traversing the conduits and vaults; so that I trust I am in a position to throw some fresh light upon the subject of Jewish archeology. In arranging the plan of my work, I have rested chiefly upon the Bible, the traditions of the Rabbis, and the works of Josephus, and have made but little use of any other authorities upon the ancient topography of the city; but to compensate for this I have made excavations, and watched those made by others, have formed intimacies with the inhabitants of the country, have sought for information on the spot; regardless of personal risk, have worked with my own hands under the ground, and so have obtained much knowledge of that which lies below the surface of the soil in Jerusalem; and have pursued my purpose, at one time with bribes, at another with force, and always with patience, perseverance, and courage.”

It is clear, therefore, that M. Pierotti has enjoyed opportunities of investigation altogether unprecedented, and yet with all these he scarcely seems to set at rest many of the points in debate respecting the topography of Jerusalem. There are indeed some conclusions which we can hardly think will ever be again questioned. The site of the Holy Sepulchre and the identity of the Rock under the Mosque of Omar with Solomon’s Altar of Burnt Sacrifice, are surely settled for ever. So also is the fact of the former existence of a deep valley, extending the whole way from the present Damascus gate to the valley on the south of the city. Yet with all the evidence of laborious research which it contains, there is nothing in the whole book which strikes us so forcibly as the extraordinary obstacles which were continually interfering with the desired thoroughness of exploration. Armed as M. Pierotti was with official authority, even he was compelled to content himself with brief and stolen visits to the places of interest, to disguise his objects, and to lie in wait months or even years for favorable opportunities. On some points, as, e. g., the exact course of the outer northern walls and of the valley which anciently bounded the northern side of Mount Zion, time and further observation are clearly needed to test or to confirm his views. In the meanwhile, we will endeavor to give our readers some idea of the very vivid picture of Jerusalem and its general features, which the careful perusal of M. Pierotti’s book has brought once more before our mind.

For the purposes of a general explanation, we may describe the position of Jerusalem as follows: There is a high, mountainous ridge stretching from north to south through Palestine. Its valleys are deep, sudden, and irregular. On the western side lies the maritime plain which fringes the Mediterranean; on the eastern side is the deep valley through which, in a most winding and irregular course, and with a most remarkably rapid descent, the Jordan rushes. This ridge reaches its greatest height, about 5,000 feet, at the situation of Jerusalem, and the individual hill, or mountain, on which Jerusalem stands, resembles a kind of promontory of table land, surrounded on three sides by some of those deep, sudden valleys already mentioned as frequent in the region. On the fourth or northwest side it is united by land of a high level with the general mountain system of which it forms a part. Thus Jerusalem stands on a kind of tongue-shaped mountain amid mountains. On the east, and south, and west, deep valleys cut it off from the neighboring heights, so that the plan of the high ground thus described is a kind of irregular oblong from north to south, connected by an elevated plateau on the northwest with the general table-land of the country.

This tongue or oblong is itself divided by a smaller depression or valley severing it in two also from north to south, and each portion terminates in a sharp, precipitous, rocky, pointed end, so that the tongue-form we have spoken of becomes really a double tongue, or one which is divided by the central valley above named, so as to end in two points. Of these two divisions, the western is higher than the eastern; this western portion is the Mount Zion of David, and is the site of the old Jebusite fortress which held out against the Israelites all through the times of the Judges, through all the days of Saul, and until David’s capture of it in the eighth year of his reign. The slopes of this hill to the eastward, toward the minor valley which divides it from the eastern hill, were occupied by the town which the children of Judah captured in the early days of their invasion. So much for the present for the western mountain. Eastward from the dividing valley, and exactly opposite to Zion, that is, at the southern end of the tongue of land in question, we have the not less famous mountain of Moriah. Here was the scene of Abraham’s sacrifice, here was the threshing-floor of Araunah, and here subsequently was the Temple of Solomon. Here also, in later times at the northwest angle of the Temple inclosure, was the fortress Antonia, the “Castle” mentioned in the Acts (xxi, 34, etc.), and in which was the Roman governor’s residence, and the pretorium or hall mentioned in St. Mark xv, 16. Both these famous mountains, Zion and Moriah, are at the southern extremity of the ground-plan of Jerusalem, and they look down upon the deepest portions of the surrounding valleys. Northward from each stretches the remainder of the plateau, and this remainder was in later times built

over and included within the city walls, but the Jerusalem of David included only Zion and its eastward slope, and the Jerusalem of Solomon included only Zion and Moriah. These two distinct elevations were, moreover, cut off from the rest of the plateau by an irregular cross valley running east and west, so that, to recur to our former figure, the double tongue is crossed half way by a valley running east and west. The city of David and Solomon lies to the south of this valley, while to the north of it lie the subsequent additions which grew up before its final destruction by Titus.

M. Pierotti’s experience as an architect enables him to speak with confidence regarding the date and character of the workmanship of successive ages and periods. He considers that the old Jebusite fortress “covered the platform of Zion which reaches from its southern extremity to the castle still existing on the north, and is bounded on the east by the tomb of David, the Armenian convent, and the English church. This opinion is confirmed by the remains of an old wall, which the Armenians found on building a seminary and rooms for pilgrims, and by the discovery of an ancient pool. Both these appear to be the work of a very early age, and anterior to the introduction of Phœnician art into Jerusalem.”

At a subsequent period M. Pierotti made a series of excavations with the view of tracing the line of David’s fortifications on the south and east of Zion, and “found the rock hewn vertical, or cut into steps, or else steep and broken; on it fragments of ancient masonry still remained, built of large, irregular blocks fitted together without mortar; in some places other rows of stones, joined with greater skill, were laid upon these, which in turn supported others rudely rusticated in high relief, with the surface rough. I am inclined to think that the lower rows belong to the period of the Jebusites, the next to that of David, and the upper to a later date. Near the Pool of Siloam the vertical hewn rock is again plainly seen, and also inside the city, on the west side of the Tyropean valley. . . . I believe, therefore, that the wall of David can be traced on the south and west. A careful examination of the western brow of Zion, and the configuration of the ground, show that this wall must have followed its present course.”

The Tyropean valley, or Valley of the Cheesemongers, mentioned in the above quotation, is the north and south valley which separates the two mountains of Moriah and Zion. The western side was, of course, the slope of the mountain of Zion and of David’s city, which occupied this mountain only; it was fortified by him on the side facing Moriah, as well as on the other sides. The Pool of Siloam was outside the town at the end of this valley, and underneath the precipices of Zion and Moriah. Such, in as few words as we can describe it, was the city of David.

In the days of Solomon Mount Moriah was added. “David bought the threshing-floor of Araunah, a rich Jebusite, at which time it was evidently outside Jerusalem; but when Solomon built upon it, he joined it to the city of David.” (See 1 Kings ix, 15, xi, 27.) Solomon’s wall began on the north side of David’s, and was traced so as to include all Mount Moriah, which it encompassed on the north, east, and south, and then returning a little way up the valley so often spoken of, crossed it, and made a junction with David’s fortification of Mount Zion. The magnitude of the works executed by Solomon in this building of the Temple, and still more in preparing, levelling, and even extending the mountain-top to receive the Temple, is indeed astonishing. The summit of Moriah was hardly of sufficient area for the required purpose. The valley on the east was upward of six hundred feet below the level of the mountain platform. A vast wall was therefore built to the eastward, and the interval between it and the mountain-side was filled in with earth so as to give the requisite extension to the platform above. The details of the Temple buildings are familiar to our readers and need not detain us here; but there is one point on which M. Pierotti spends much care and space, and which ought not to be unnoticed in any account of his researches and opinions. Beneath the dome of the Mosque of Omar, and occupying nearly the whole space below it, there is a rough, unhewn prominence of native rock, which all Mohammedans treat with peculiar veneration. The Mohammedans regard the Mosque of Omar as the legitimate successor of the Temple of Solomon, and M. Pierotti considers their sites to correspond exactly. In this sacred rock—too sacred to be touched or fashioned by any workmanship of man—M. Pierotti considers that we have the actual threshing-floor of Araunah, and the unaltered actual altar of burnt-offering in Solomon’s Temple.

The steps of his argument are these: 1. He assumes that Solomon was extremely unlikely to have chosen any other spot for his altar than that originally indicated by the prophet Gad. Thus, then, if this prominence of rock be the threshing-floor of Araunah it must also be the site of the altar of burnt-offering, and vice versa. The highest portion is about six feet above the pavement. 2. Next, we know that the altar was to be of unhewn stone; so that the bronze altar of Solomon must only have been an ornamental casing for the rock, which must have remained unchanged, so as to form the actual altar. Again, the altar was to be reached by a slope, and not by steps. The shape of the present projection of rock coincides with this condition also, for it has a regular slope on the south side, leading up to the higher portion; and this agrees with the Rabbinical tradition, that the worshipers used to approach the altar from the south. On the remaining sides the rock is vertical, so that it is clear that when the remaining space was leveled for building purposes, there was some object in view in leaving this portion of the rock projecting, and with an approach on one side only. 3. The altar was a square of twenty cubits, which agrees with the size of the present projection of rock, exclusive of the space left for the inclined ascent. So far, well.

(To be continued.)

Historical Department.

THE JERUSALEM OF TO-DAY.*

THE JERUSALEM OF TO-DAY.