Jerusalem and the probable course of the ' second wall ' of the three mentioned by Josephus. The first wall, tliat of David and Solomon, encompassed
the Upper City (Zion), and its north line ran east- ward from the tower of Hippicus to the wall bounding the temple area. ' The second wall had
its beginning from the gate called Gennath, which belonged to the first wall, and, encircling only the northern quarter of the city, it extended as far as the Tower Antonia ' {BJ V. iv. 2). This wall, which was probably built by Hezekiah, running in a circle or curve, seems to have had no angles like the first and third, and therefore to have required no extended description. If this curve included the Pool of Hezekiah (which must surely have been within the walls), it would naturally have included also the traditional site of the Sepulchre. If, in spite of the statement of Josephus, the wall be drawn with a re-entering angle so as to exclude the traditional site, there still remain apparently insuperable difficulties in the nature of the ground, since in this case the wall must have been built in a deep valley (Tyiopoeon), and must have been dominated from without by the adjacent knoll on which the Church of the Holy Sepulchre now stands ( Acra). But ' fortresses stand on hills, not in deep ravines,' 'the wall must have stood on the high ground' (Conder). Immediately east of the Tower of David (at or near which Hippicus must have stood) a narrow ridge runs north and south, connecting the two hills Zion and Acra and sepa- rating the head of the Tyropuion Valley from the valley west of the Jafl'a gate. As this is the only place where the wall could have protected the valley on the east and commanded the valley on the west, the natural course for the engineers would have been to buUd the wall along this ridge. Exactly along this ridge the remains of an ancient wall were found in 1885 by Dr. Merrill. One hundred and twenty feet of it were exposed in a line running north-west and south-east, at a depth of 10 or 12 ft. below the present surface of the ground. At some points but one course of stone remained, at others two, at others three. The stones correspond in size and work to those in the base of the Tower of David, a few j'ards farther south. This is probably a portion of the second wall. Later, another section, 26 ft. long, of similar work, was found farther north, besides traces at several other points. In explanation of the fact that entire sections are found towards the south and only debris of walls towards the north, Dr. Merrill cites the statement of Josephus, that Titus 'threw down the entire northern portion,' but left the southern standing and placed garrisons in its towers. From the statement that Titus made his attack ' against the central tower of the north wall ' he argues further, that if the wall ran from near Hippicus to Antonia in such a way as to ex- clude the traditional site of the Sepulchre, the two parts of the wall after it was broken in the middle should have been designated the ' eastern ' and ' western ' ; but Josephus calls thciii the ' northern ' and 'southern,' a description wliich is obviously more appropriate to a wall wliicli ran well to the west and north of the traditional site (Ftxsb. and Ref. Rev. iii. p. 646).
Parts of an ancient ditch and remains of walls have been recently discovered east of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and Schick regards these as remains of the second wall and of the city moat. But, as Benzinger says (HUprecht's Explorations in Bible Lands in the 19th Cent.), his explanation ' is not convincing in itself, and there stand op- posed to it important considerations of a general nature,' such as have been cited above, crj. the military objection to locating a wall in a valley dominated from without by higher ground, and
i
Golgotha
GOOD
657
the fact that, had thi« been the course of the wall, Jerusalem could not have accommodated its great population at the time of Christ.
The existence of an undoubted Jewish tomb at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the one now called the Tomb of Joseph of Arimathtea, has been cited as evidence that the place was outside the old city wall, ' but we know from the Talmud that ancient half-forgotten tombs were allowed by the Jews to exist within Jerusalem, and any writer will admit that, in the time of Agrippa at least, this particular tomb was within the circuit of the town.' The third wall, which ran far to the north- west and north of the present city wall, was built by Agrippa only ten or eleven years after the Crucihxion, to enclose a large suburb that had gradually extended beyond the second wall. So that, even if it could be shown that the Sepulchre was outside the second wall, it certainly lay far within the line of the third, and in the midst of this new town which at the time of the Crucifixion must have been already growing north of the second wall. The words ' without the gate ' and ' nigh to the city ' could scarcely mean ' within the suburbs' (Schafl).