To the obscurity originating in these causes may be added that which arises from the many am biguities in the description left by Josephus, thc only one which we possess, and which must form the groundwork of most of our notices respect ing the ancient city. There are indeed some mani fest errors in his account, which the critical reader is able to detect without having the means to rectify.
In describing Jerusalem as it stood just before its destruction by the Romans, Josephus states that the city was built upon two hills, between which lay the valley Tyropceon (Cheesemonger's Valley), to which the buildings on both hills came down. This valley extended to the fountain of Siloam. The hill on which the upper town stood was much higher than the other, and straighter in its extent'. On account of its fortifications, David called it the Fortress or Castle; but in the time of Josephus it was known by the name of the Upper Market. The other hill, on which was situated the lower town, was called Akra. It was in the form of a horseshoe or crescent. Opposite to Akra was a third, and naturally lower hill (Aloriah), on which the temple was built ; and betWeen this and Akra was originally a broad valley, which the inhabitants of Jerusalem filled up itt the time of SimonMaccabxus for the purpose of connecting the town with the temple. At the same time they lowered the hill Akra, so as to make the temple rise above it. Both the hills on which the upper and lower towns stood were externally surrounded by deep valleys, and here there was no approach because of the precipices on every side.
(1) The Walls. The first, or most ancient wall. appears to have enclosed the whole of Mount Zion. The greater part of it, therefore, must have formed the exterior and sole wall on the south. overlooking the deep valleys below Mount Zion; and the northern part evidently passed from the tower of Hippicus on the west side, along the nurthern brow of Zion, and across the valley, to the western sidc of the temple area. It probably nearly coincided with the ancient wall which ex isted before the time of David, and which en abled the Jebusites to maintain themselves in pos session of the upper city, long after the lower city had been in the hands of the Israelites. Mount Zion is now unwalled, and is excluded from the modern city. The account given by Josephus, of
the second wall, is very short and unsatisfactory. But it would seem that it enclosed the whole of the lower city, or Akra, excepting that part of the eastern side of it which fronted the temple area on Mount Moriah, and the southern side, towards the valley which separated the lower from the up per city. In short, it: was a continuation of the external wall, so far as necessary, on the west and north, and on so much of the east as was not al ready protected by the strong wall of the temple area.
Although these were the only walls that ex isted in the time of our Savior. we are not to infcr that the habitable city was confined within their limits. On the contrary, it was because the city had extended northward far beyond the sec ond wall that a third was built to cover the de fenseless suburb: and there is no reason to doubt that this unprotected suburb, called Bezetha, ex isted in the time of Christ. This wall is described as having also begun at the tower of Hippicus: it ran northward as far as to the tower Psephinos, then passed down opposite the sepulcher of Helena (queen of Adiabene), and being carried along through the royal sepulchers. turned at the corner tower by the Fuller's monument, and ended by making a junction with the ancient wall at the valley of the Kidron. It was begun ten or twelve years after our Lord's crucifixion by the elder Herod Agrippa, who desisted from completing it for fear of offending the Emperor Claudius. But the design was afterwards taken up and com pleted by the Jews themselves, although on a scale of less strength and magnificence. Dr. Robinson thinks that he discovered some traces of this wall, which are described in his great work (Bibl. Re searches, i. 466)• The same writer thinks that the wall of the new city, the /Elia of Adrian, nearly coincided with that of the present Jerusalem.
We know from Josephus that the circumference of the ancient city was thirty-three stadia. equiv alent to nearly three and a half geographical miles. The circumference of the present walls does not exceed two and a half geographical miles; but the extent of Mount Zion. now without the walls, and thc tract on the north formerly enclosed, or partly so, by the third wall, sufficiently account for the difference.