Zion. We find it in this special sense as late as the days of Nehemiah, and even of the Maccabees. Now we know that the name Zion, which belonged specifically to the same one hill, came afterwards by synecdoche to be very commonly applied to the whole city, including also Moriah; and the question arises, whether the term "city of David," which was synonymous with Zion, may not also have been sometimes applied in a like extended sense. Several passages, aside from the one now under consideration, go to support such a view. The prophet Isaiah writes in the time of Hezekiah: "Ye have seen the breaches of the city of David, that they are many.... and ye have numbered the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses ye have broken down to fortify the wall." Here the city of David and Jerusalem are used in a sort of parallelism; and, as it would appear, synonymously; just as elsewhere the same prophet exclaims: "Wo to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt !" meaning Jerusalem. Further, the writer of the first book of Maccabees uses the two names in apposition, and of course identically. And lastly, Josephus relates, that David having first driven the Jebusites out of Jerusalem, called the city after his own name. This would seem to show, that in the historian's time the special application of the term "city of David" had passed away, and that he understood by it the whole city. To apply this to the case before us. In the second book of Kings it is said: "And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written, etc." The son of Sirach says of the same king, that he "fortified his city, and brought in water into the midst thereof; he digged the hard rock with iron, and made wells (fountains) for waters." Thus far there is no limitation to Mount Zion; it was Jerusalem that Hezekiah fortified, and into which 12 Sam. v. 9. 1 Chron xi. 7.-2 Sam. v. 7. 1 Kings viii. 1. 1 Chron. xi. 5. 2 Chron. v. 2. 2 Neh. iii. 15. 1 Macc. i. 33. vii. 32. 3 Is. xxii. 9. 4 Is. xxix. 1. See Gesenius and other commentators ad h. 1. 5 1 Macc. ii. 31, ἐν Ιερουσαλήμ πόλει Δαυΐδ. Antiq. VII. 3. 2, пgūros ou Δαυίδης τοὺς Ιεβουσαίους ἐξ ̔Ιεροσολίμων ἐκβαλών, ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ προσηγό gevoe tyv módiv. It is remarkable that the name Zion nowhere occurs in the works of Josephus; nor does the term "city of David" appear, except indirectly as above. There is also an allusion to the citadel as bearing David's name, B. J. V. 4. 1. 7 If further authority be wanted, for which the essayist has so great a reverence, I may cite that of the learned Jesuit Villalpandus: Apparat. in Ezech. I. i. 7. he brought the water. Then comes the passage in the Chronicles: "Hezekiah also stopped the upper water-course of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David.” Now here nothing is said of a pool at all, nor of any water brought into the city; but, as we learn from Isaiah that the same king probably built the lower pool or great reservoir in the valley of Hinnom west of Zion, the language might be taken as referring to that. Still, as the stopping of Gihon and the bringing down of the water were for the purpose of military defence, to which the lower pool would not contribute; and as we further learn from Isaiah, that a reservoir was at the same time made" between [within] the two walls for the water of the old pool;"3 the inference is unavoidable, that a pool was formed within the city. We have here all the facts which bear at all upon the question. If now we take the name " city of David" in the more general sense as equivalent to Jerusalem,—as we have seen that we may, and as I have taken it in the Biblical Researches,-then all the historical facts concentrate themselves around the pool now known as that of Hezekiah. It is within the ancient city; between (within) the two walls, the first and second of Josephus; hewn in the rock; and fed by a conduit from the upper pool. It is also in the west part of the city, and not on the north, as represented by the essayist. But if this writer or others still insist that the " city of David" is Mount Zion alone, then I suggest, that the water is nowhere said to have been brought into it, but only to its western side. This language then applies only to the lower pool in the valley of Hinnom; while we still have the pool "between (within) the two walls," corresponding entirely to the present reservoir, and like it 12 Kings. xx. 20. Sirac. xlviii. 17. 2 Chron. xxxii. 30, 779 7733 7379 "and brought them straight down on the west of the city of David." ditch [ gathering-place, pool] -may well mean * with בֵּין הוֹמוֹתַיִם 2 Is. xxii. 9, "ye gathered together in the two walls;" just as it is said the waters of the lower pool." The in Job xxiv. 11, they make oil prophet is here speaking of the inva- within their walls; see too sion of Sennacherib. See 2 Chron. Prov. xxvi. 13.-The expression xxxii. 3-5, from which it appears "two walls" occurs also 2 K. xxv. that most of these preparations were 4. Jer. xxxix. 4; but it there refers to made against an expected siege. walls apparently near to the fountain of Siloam. Is. xxii. 11, "Ye made also a દ fed from the waters of the old or upper pool.-There is also this further consideration, that the idea of bringing water from the west by an aqueduct into the city of David, regarded simply as Mount Zion, involves a physical impossibility; unless by a lofty aqueduct on arches, of which there is no trace in history or elsewhere. The city of David," as restricted to Zion, was and is the highest part of Jerusalem; and there is no point where running water could be conducted to it from the west, without crossing the depression between Zion and Akra, where the Tyropoon had its commencement and where the gate of Yâfa is now situated. Here the water is still brought in to supply the present pool of Hezekiah. From the bed of this depression there is even now a gradual ascent to Zion, which anciently was far more considerable.' I may remark here, that it makes no very great difference in the argument, whether the pool in question be that of Hezekiah, or not; provided only that it be an ancient structure, as to which there can be no doubt. A reservoir of such extent, receiving its water from another pool higher up, would not be likely to be formed close to the wall of the city on the outside, where of course it would benefit only besiegers and not the besieged. The whole appearance is, that it had a military purpose, and was intended to treasure up within the city the waters from the upper pool in case of a siege. Such too is the representation as to Hezekiah's pool. After this discussion I may leave it for the reader to decide, whe ther I have indeed, as charged, founded my argument against the truth of the alleged site of the Holy Sepulchre "on a disregard of the sacred text which it is the special object of my work to consult." The reader may judge for himself, whether the essayist, in the course of his remarks on this topic, has or has not exhibited, not only the suppressio veri, but also the suggestio falsi. In the Bibl. Res. I. p. 513, I have by an oversight represented Josephus as speaking of an aqueduct which conveyed water to the tower of Hippicus, and of one connected with Herod's palace on Zion; and have assumed that they would naturally come from Gihon. Jos. B. J. V. 7. 3. II. 17. 9. The remark in the text shows the contrary. Be sides, the tower of Hippicus was solid to the height of thirty cubits; and above this was a cistern for rain-water, Jos. B. J. 4. 4. 3. And in the other passage (II. 17. 9) the high-priest Ananias is said to have been lurking περὶ τὸν τῆς βασιλικῆς αὐλῆς εὔριπον, where εύριπον implies nothing more than a channel, trench, sewer. The amount of his whole argument as to the topography is this. His only positive ground in behalf of the alleged site is the strong presumption that those who selected it were right; but this presumption, we have seen, was still stronger in other instances, where we now know it to be false. Of the four chief points adduced by me against the authenticity of the alleged site, he passes over the language of Josephus, except just so far as to mislead his readers; he does not even let them know that the "large hewn stones" near the Damascus gate are the towers of an ancient gateway on that spot; he evades the difficulty arising from narrowing down the limits of the lower city, by a discussion on the contracted limits of the whole city; and lastly, he exalts the pool of Hezekiah to a pre-eminence which I had never thought of, and then perverts my language and reasoning to make out a representation, such as he can appear to combat with effect.' 'One note is so remarkably dis ingenuous, not to say Jesuitical, that I cannot forbear to insert it here: "Professor Robinson, after "speaking of Hippicus, Antonia, "and Hezekiah's pool, says; 'We "have then three points for deter"mining the probable course of "this wall' (the second); 'We re"paired personally to each of these ። three points, etc.' Vol. II. p. 67. "Now of the first he does but say “himself, ‘it early occurred to us "that [the tower of David] was ve"ry probably a remnant of the tow"er of Hippicus,' Vol. I. p. 455; "this impression was strength"ened,' etc. Of the second Lami 'says, 'I have set down several "places in the map, whose true "situation is not known; as for instance the castle Antonia; App. "Bibl. p. 76, ed. 1723, Lond. though "Dr. Robinson considers he has "ascertained it. And what reliance "is to be placed on the site of the แ pool, we have seen in the text. In "like manner Dr. Robinson can but "say of Gennath, apparently near "Hippicus,' p. 411: doubtless near "Hippicus,' p. 461. And of the sec"ond wall, Josephus's description 66 "of the second wall is very short "and unsatisfactory,' p. 461. And "he locates the Tyropcon different"ly from other writers. Yet on these "private inferences from doubt"ful conjectures on probable as"sumptions from unsatisfactory tes"timony, the Catholic church is to "be convicted of fraud and folly." P. clxvi.-Now had it been the object of this writer to state the whole truth, he would not have omitted what I further say of Hippicus in the very same connexion, viz. that "from a careful inspection and measurements we found our former impressions confirmed," Vol. I. p. 456; and that "the position of the tower and the apparent solidity of the antique part leave little room to doubt of its identity;" p. 457. Besides, the essayist himself, in all his own reasoning, assumes the fact that the site of Hippicus has been rightly fixed. Again, as to Antonia, why does he cite Lamy to induce the impression that its position is not known; when we have the express testimony of Josephus, and the assent of almost every scholar of the last three centuries, that it was situated on the north of On the whole, I am not ungrateful to the writer for the opportunity he has thus afforded me of examining the whole subject anew. My only object, I hope, is the truth. I am bound to no party and committed to no "movement." I have also, as I trust, no personal feeling; and if in any case I have spoken pointedly, I have at the same time placed before the reader the grounds for so doing. In this respect, whoever examines for himself will find that I have not proceeded without caution, and have in every instance stated the points thus commented upon less strongly than they lie spread out upon the pages of the essay. Indeed, I can hardly expect to find my own views subjected to a severer scrutiny by any future antagonist more able, nor probably by one more disingenuous. In conclusion, I can here only repeat what I have formerly said in closing the discussion: "In every view which I have been able "to take of the question, both topographical and historical, whe"ther on the spot or in the closet, and in spite of all my previous prepossessions, I am led irresistibly to the conclusion, that the Golgotha and the tomb now shown in the Church of the Holy Sepul"chre, are not upon the real places of the crucifixion and resurrec"tion of our Lord.” 66 66 the temple and adjacent to it? I certainly never thought of having ascertained the site of Antonia, any more than that of Jerusalem itself. As to the pool, we too have seen in the preceding discussion, what reliance is to be placed upon it. As to Gennath, as it is said by Josephus to have been in the first wall, the only question that can arise is as to its proximity to Hippicus; and the nearer it is assumed to be, the better for the essayist's own ar |