-a-a-a-9-9-9- 
 
 PSQ BOB 
 
 
 S. iaaaaaa. 
 
 OF THE 
 
 



 
 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/templesofjewsothOOferg 
 
Frontispiece 
 
 l 
 
 PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF HEROD’S TEIY1PLE AS RESTORED. 
 
THE 
 
 TEMPLES OF THE JEWS 
 
 AND THE 
 
 OTHEB BUILDINGS IN THE HAEAM AEEA 
 
 AT 
 
 JERUSALEM. 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES FERGUSSON, ESQ., D.C.L., F.E.S., Y.P.E.A.S. 
 
 HON. MEM. R.S.L. ETC. 
 
 The Tabernacle of Moses. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 
 1878. 
 
 The right of Translation is reserved. 
 
'T' C it j 
 
 yf 78r A i 
 
 [ /ini l lA. 
 
 ) U - 
 
 // 
 
 ■ . 
 
 
 
 HARVARD 
 UNiVERSI i > 
 LIBRARY 
 
 WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 AN ESSAY ON THE ANCIENT TOPOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM ; with 
 
 Restored Plans of the Temple, and with Plans, Sections, and Details of the Church built by Constantine 
 the Great over the Holy Sepulchre, now known as the Mosque of Omar. 16s. Weale, 1847. 
 
 THE HOLY SEPULCHRE AND THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM. Being the 
 
 Substance of Two Lectures delivered in the Royal Institution, Albemarle Street, on the 21st February, 
 1862, and 3rd March, 1865. Woodcuts. 8vo. 7s. 6 d. London, Murray, 1865. 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ROCK-CUT TEMPLES OF INDIA. 18 Plates in 
 
 Tinted Lithography, folio ; with an 8vo. volume of Texts, Plans, &c. 21. 7 s. 6 d. London, Weale, 1845. 
 
 PICTURESQUE ILLUSTRATIONS OF ANCIENT ARCHITECTURE IN HIN- 
 
 DOSTAN. 24 Plates in Coloured Lithography, with Plans, Woodcuts, and Explanatory Text, & c. 41. 4s. 
 London, Hogarth, 1847. 
 
 AN HISTORICAL INQUIRY INTO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF BEAUTY IN 
 
 ART, more especially with reference to Architecture. Royal 8vo. 31s. 6 d. London, Longmans, 1849. 
 
 THE PALACES OF NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS RESTORED : An Essay on 
 
 Ancient Assyrian and Persian Architecture. 8vo. 16s. London, Murray, 1851. 
 
 THE ILLUSTRATED HANDBOOK OF ARCHITECTURE. Being a Concise 
 
 and Popular Account of the Different Styles prevailing in all Ages and all Countries. With 850 Illus- 
 trations. 8vo. 26s. London, Murray, 1859. 
 
 HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE IN ALL COUNTRIES FROM THE EARLIEST 
 
 TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY. In Four Volumes, 8vo., viz. : — 
 
 HISTORY OF ANCIENT AND MEDIAEVAL ARCHITECTURE. Two Vols. 63s. 
 
 Second Edition. Loudon, Murray, 1874. 
 
 HISTORY OF INDIAN AND EASTERN ARCHITECTURE. One Vol. New Edition. 
 
 42S. 1876. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE MODERN STYLES OF ARCHITECTURE. One Vol. 31s. 6d. 1874. 
 RUDE-STONE MONUMENTS IN ALL COUNTRIES, THEIR AGE AND 
 
 USES. With 234 Illustrations. 8vo. London, Murray, 1872. 
 
 TREE AND SERPENT WORSHIP, or ILLUSTRATIONS OF MYTHOLOGY 
 
 AND ART IN INDIA, in the 1st and 4th Centuries after Christ. 100 Plates and 31 Woodcuts. 4to. 
 London, India Office; and W. H. Allen & Co. 2nd Edition, 1873. 
 
 THE MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS RESTORED, IN CONFORMITY 
 
 WITH THE REMAINS RECENTLY DISCOVERED. Plates. 4to. 7s. 6d. London, Murray, 1862. 
 
 AN ESSAY ON A PROPOSED NEW SYSTEM OF FORTIFICATION, with 
 
 Hints for its Application to our National Defences. 12s. 6 d. London, Weale, 1849. 
 
 THE PERIL OF PORTSMOUTH. French Fleets and English Forts. Plan. 
 
 8vo. 3s. London, Murray, 1853. 
 
 OBSERVATIONS ON THE BRITISH MUSEUM, NATIONAL GALLERY, and 
 
 NATIONAL RECORD OFFICE ; with Suggestions for their Improvement. 8vo. London, Weale, 1859. 
 
 LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 More than thirty years have now elapsed since I obtained access to the plans and 
 drawing’s made in 1833 by Messrs. Catherwood and Arnndale, in the Haram 
 area at Jerusalem. The circumstances under which I first saw these drawing’s, 
 and afterwards became possessed of them, need not be repeated here, as they have 
 already been narrated at length in the preface to my work on the ‘Ancient 
 Topography of Jerusalem,’ 1 which was the result of their acquisition, and after- 
 wards, more briefly, in a little work on ‘ The Holy Sepulchre and the Temple 
 at Jerusalem,’ published in 1865. 
 
 Even at that time, it required only a very cursory inspection of these 
 drawings to enable me to see at once that the so-called Mosque of Omar bad not 
 been built by that Khalif, nor indeed by any Saracenic architect, but was 
 undoubtedly a building of the age of Constantine ; and the conclusion seemed 
 inevitable that, with the Golden Gateway, it formed a part of the group of 
 buildings erected by that Emperor, in the early part of the fourth century, around 
 the cave which he believed to have contained the Sepulchre of Christ. Since 
 that time I have had repeated occasions to go carefully over the architectural 
 history of that age, and have heard numerous criticisms on the views I then 
 expressed, but nothing that has, in the smallest degree, shaken my confidence in 
 the conclusions I then arrived at, or in the perfect trustworthiness of the data 
 from which these results were obtained. 
 
 At the time of making this discovery and announcing it to the world, I 
 had not the most remote idea that I was doing anything which required special 
 knowledge, or for which I deserved any particular credit. I saw, at a glance, of 
 what paramount importance to the Christian topography of Jerusalem it was, that 
 the real site of Constantine’s buildings should be discovered, and felt perhaps more 
 than most people the interest this knowledge possessed for the general history of 
 architecture. Beyond this, however, I could only consider myself as fortunate in 
 accidentally finding a treasure that had long been hidden, and in being the first 
 
 1 An Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem ; 
 with restored Plans of the Temple, and with Plans, 
 Sections, and Details of the Church built by Constantine 
 
 the Great over the Holy Sepulchre, now known as the 
 Mosque of Omar. Royal 8vo. John Weale, High 
 Holborn, 1847. 
 
IV 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 to publish it to the world. My idea then was, that it would have been known 
 ages ago, had it not been for the jealous exclusion of Christians from the 
 Haram area since the time of the Crusades, and because no intelligent foreigner 
 had seen the interior of the Dome of the Dock since the Middle Ages. Now, 
 however, that the veil had been drawn aside, and its form and details revealed 
 to the world, I felt convinced that nine educated men out of ten would see at 
 once what I had seen, and my only anxiety was, that no one should have access 
 to the drawings in the engraver’s hands, or hear the fact announced, before I 
 had the somewhat selfish gratification of publishing it to the world. 
 
 The result, it need hardly be added, differed most widely from these 
 anticipations. No one saw the facts in the same light in which I saw them, and 
 the conclusions which I had drawn from them were consequently looked upon 
 as idle dreams, and their author treated with very scant courtesy, I felt myself, 
 in fact, in the position of a man who had accidentally acquired a knowledge 
 of a dead language of which the rest of his countrymen were ignorant, and 
 who, being asked to interpret an important inscription written in that tongue, 
 had given a translation which was unexpected by all, and singularly distasteful 
 to a few, who unfortunately were deeply interested in discrediting both the inter- 
 pretation and its author. 
 
 I was of course well aware that, since the revival of Gothic art became a 
 mania, the study of classical art and architecture had been sadly neglected in this 
 country ; but I was not prepared for such complete ignorance as I found prevailing 
 on the subject. Even if its details were unknown, I expected that the principles of 
 architectural criticism had been so well established by the study of the mediaeval 
 styles that all would admit and understand their application to all other phases 
 of art. In this country, since the publication of Rickman's ‘ Attempt to 
 discriminate the Styles of Architecture in England,’ published in 1817, the 
 progress of the science has been so rapid that now any well educated school-girl, 
 on entering one of our cathedrals, at once points to the round arches of the nave 
 as fixing its date within the first century after the Conquest. She discriminates 
 between the early lancet style and the geometric or decorative tracery of the 
 Edwards, and makes no mistake in distinguishing between the early perpendicular 
 and the Tudor styles that succeeded these. All this is so well known and so 
 certainly fixed that, were all the books and records of the three kingdoms 
 destroyed, there are hundreds, probably thousands, in this country who could by 
 simple inspection fix the age of any part of any of our great churches within 
 twenty or at the outside within fifty years with absolute certainty, and no one 
 would dispute the conclusions so arrived at. 
 
 It was not so, however, in the last century, when the greater number of our 
 great county histories were compiled. Then the industrious compiler, when he 
 found in the chronicle of some lying monk, that the enemies of God had harried 
 the convent, and burnt and destroyed the church — “ usque ad solum diruta ” — 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 V 
 
 noted it down as a fact, and equally believed that it had been rebuilt in the next 
 few years by some abbot or prior without money or means of any sort. It never 
 occurred to him to go to the church itself, and see whether the walls and vaults 
 of the pious Norman founder might not yet be standing, and if he had gone, it is 
 very probable he would not have been much the wiser. The existence of the 
 certain gradation of styles was not then suspected, and is in fact the great discovery 
 of this century in that class of literature. Now, however, any man who would 
 state that Henry YII.’s Chapel was built by Edward the Confessor, though a 
 considerable amount of documentary evidence could be brought forward to prove 
 it, would be simply laughed at. Or if any one would assert that the chapel 
 in the White Tower of the Tower of London and Henry VII. ’s Chapel were 
 built by the same king — they are not dissimilar in plan — would not be laughed 
 at, simply because the idea would be thought to be too absurd and stupid. This 
 all will probably admit ; but the disappointing part of the matter is, that, while 
 acknowledging the conquests of this science as regards English art, even the best- 
 educated men fail to perceive its application to all other true styles. 
 
 The causes are, however, sufficiently obvious which prevent this mode of 
 reasoning from being generally appreciated in this country. Any one who looks 
 around him cannot fail to see buildings in the Grecian, Roman, and Italian styles 
 rising simultaneously, mixed up with others in all the one hundred and one 
 varieties of Mediaeval Architecture, and, unless he has seen and thought much 
 on the subject, will have no reason for doubting that what happens everywhere 
 at the present day may always have been the normal state of matters. He 
 consequently brushes aside all reasoning based on data which he considers 
 contradicted by his own daily experience, and smiles incredulously at the 
 simplicity of those who, he thinks, rely on something they consider more 
 important than the testimony of their own eyes ! Few, consequently, realise the 
 fact that these imitative — or, as I used to call them, monkey — styles are wholly 
 the invention of the centuries that have elapsed since the Reformation in Europe, 
 and that absolutely no trace of them is found before that event in the West, nor 
 to the present day in the East, wherever the example of Europe has not obliterated 
 the true styles of the land. In all other countries and ages, the progressive 
 evolution of forms in works of art is as certain as in the works of nature, and 
 may be reasoned upon in the same manner and with the same certainty. So far 
 as I know, there is absolutely no exception to this rule, and when once the dis- 
 tinction between the old and new systems is fairly grasped, a new domain is 
 added to the realms of science of the utmost value to our knowledge of the past, 
 and of especial importance towards obtaining a solution of problems such as 
 those treated of in this volume. 
 
 From all this it follows, as an inevitable corollary, that wherever sufficient 
 remains exist of the original architecture of any building to enable its affinities 
 with others of the same class to be ascertained with accuracy, its age can always 
 
VI 
 
 PEEFACE. 
 
 be determined with more ease and certainty from this than from any other class 
 of evidence, either written or traditional, that can be applied to any such 
 investigations. So, at least, I have found it in every part of the world where 
 I have been, or regarding which I have any accurate knowledge ; and so I 
 believe all will find who will follow up the study of architectural art, not only 
 in its technical forms but through all the various historical and more scientific 
 phases which form its real value for our present purpose. 
 
 So far, however, are these principles from being considered as applicable 
 to buildings in Palestine that no one hesitates in asserting, and others from 
 believing, that the Dome of the Rock and the mosque El Aksa are buildings of the 
 same age, and erected by the same Khalif, though in reality the difference of age 
 and style is about the same as that between the chapel in the White Tower and 
 the Westminster tomb. They look steadily at the two woodcuts Nos. 55 and 56, 
 and see no difference in styles ; nor do they detect any improbability in the two 
 capitals, Nos. 78 and 79, being made at the same time and for the same building. 
 They see nothing that is classical in the Dome of the Rock, and though they 
 do not quite say so, they see nothing improbable in the assumption, that it was 
 built by the Moslems in the seventh century, nor as a necessary consequence 
 that the Golden Gateway must also be a Saracenic building of the same age. 
 If Englishmen at the present day were as familiar with the architecture of the 
 Byzantine empire during the four centuries that elapsed between the time of 
 Constantine and that of Abd-el-Malek as they are with that of the four centuries 
 that counted between the Conquest and the Reformation, the questions regarding 
 the relative age of these two buildings would have been answered as soon as 
 asked, and whether in the negative or affirmative, the decision would never have 
 been questioned. Any doubts that still hang over the controversy are wholly 
 owing to the fact that those with whom the decision rests fail to appreciate 
 the evidence on which it must be based. 
 
 In like manner the historians of the holy places have benefited as little by 
 our recently acquired scientific processes as the archaeologists. They look 
 into their written histories, and find that the Persian king Cliosroes not only 
 plundered, but burnt and destroyed — levelled with the ground — the churches 
 of Constantine and Justinian, and that a monk, Modestus, without money or 
 means, in a time of the deepest depression of the Church of Jerusalem, rebuilt and 
 restored to their original splendour, in a very short time, what it had taken all 
 the power and all the wealth of these great Emperors to accomplish during many 
 years of continuous prosperity. It never seems to occur to any of them that 
 before giving credence to this apocryphal tale, resting only on the slightest 
 evidence, it is first necessary to ascertain whether the architecture of any of the 
 buildings so said to have been destroyed is of an age anterior to the Persian 
 conquest. If this indispensable examination were really made, it would be found 
 that the Dome of the Rock still retains much of the architecture of the age of 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Vll 
 
 Constantine still perfect and unaltered. There are mosaics there, some of which, 
 at least, are parts of the original decoration of a building of that age, which 
 would certainly have peeled off if ever exposed to fire. Numerous columns will 
 be found there of precious marbles which would have calcined to dust in the 
 heat of a conflagration, but which retain their original polish. What may have 
 happened to the Basilica of Constantine, we cannot tell, for a worse tyrant than 
 Chosroes, four centuries afterwards, did utterly destroy that noble building, and 
 the church of Justinian has also perished ; but we can confidently assert that he 
 left no trace of his violence on the structure of the Dome of the Rock, or on the 
 Golden Gateway, which remain to the present day, very nearly as Constantine 
 left them. In any other place than Jerusalem this would be considered final, 
 and, so far as I am capable of forming an opinion, is so, notwithstanding all 
 that has been urged against it during the last thirty years. 
 
 Had the Haram been situated in England, or in any part of Western 
 Europe, the age of its buildings would have been ascertained long ago, by the 
 same processes, and with the same certainty, as those of any mediaeval building 
 that exists, and no one would have disputed the determination so arrived at. 
 If indeed there had been even a dozen persons in this country who were 
 sufficiently familiar with the Romano-Byzantine style, to be capable of formulating 
 an opinion regarding it, and had leisure to look at the evidence, this controversy 
 never could have arisen. Either they would have agreed in the correctness of 
 my views, and the general public would have followed their lead, or, if they had 
 decided against them, and given their reasons for so doing, which they could 
 easily have done, the matter would have been settled long ago, and I would have 
 been too happy to withdraw from a controversy in which, even if right, neither 
 fame nor profit is to be obtained. 
 
 During the many years that have elapsed since the publication of my work, 
 I have known only one person in this country — the late Professor Willis, of 
 Cambridge — who was qualified both by his knowledge of architecture and of the 
 authorities to give a decided opinion on the subject. He, however, had committed 
 himself publicly to the authenticity of the Sepulchre in the town, before my 
 theory was published, and it would be demanding a little too much from human 
 nature to ask any one in his position to confess the error of his ways and to 
 admit the success of a rival. The late Mr. Lewin was another formidable opponent. 
 He, however, knew nothing of architecture, and was familiar only with the 
 classical branch of the literature of the subject; so that it is hardly to be wondered 
 at that he missed the point of the argument. On the other hand, Count de 
 Vogue knows both the art and the literature of the subject; and if it be not 
 that his opinions are biassed by sincere devotion to his infallible church, his 
 reasoning on the subject is to me a mystery I cannot pretend to fathom . 1 Besides 
 
 1 See Appendix V. 
 
Vlll 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 these three, I could name some four or five persons whose knowledge of art is 
 sufficient to enable them to judge if they would take the trouble of looking into 
 the special evidence bearing on the question. They have not, however, so far as 
 I know, done so, and, wisely perhaps, decline to mix themselves up with a 
 controversy where matters of faith are allowed at times to supersede the processes 
 of pure reason. In so far as my own personal experience goes, I have met no 
 one during these thirty years able or willing to discuss the matter, while if there 
 is any one in this country, who has taken the trouble to master the subject, in all 
 its bearings, I can only express my regret that I am not acquainted with his 
 name. Such controversies as have taken place in periodicals have generally 
 hinged on some collateral points. No one, so far as I know, has, in print at least 
 grasped the really vital points at issue and tried to argue either for or against 
 them. If the Dome of the Rock and the Golden Gateway were not built by 
 Constantine, they were built by some one else, and if it can be shown who that 
 person was, and at what age, it is no use going further ; no ingenuity, nor any 
 special pleading, can get over that fact. It is a mere waste of time to attempt to 
 carry the argument further. If, on the contrary, it is determined that Constantine 
 did erect these two buildings, it is of the least possible consequence what 
 Eusebius, or the Bordeaux Pilgrim, or any one, wrote or said about the matter. 
 If anything in their works seems to contradict this ascertained fact, all that need 
 be said is, that the author was ignorant, or the passage corrupt, or that he had 
 been misunderstood or mistranslated. So confident did I feel that this was the 
 case that, when I wrote my first work on the 4 Ancient Topography of Jerusalem,’ 
 I was perhaps too careless in meeting objections by anticipation. I knew that, 
 if I were correct in my architectural determinations, all difficulties in accepting 
 Constantine as the builder of the Dome of the Rock must disappear as a matter 
 of course when fairly grappled with. It was a mere question of time, and so 
 it has turned out. Professor Willis’ fatal objection, so fiercely endorsed by Dr. 
 Robinson, to the effect that it was impossible the Golden Gateway could be centred 
 on a broad agora, has been proved by Captain Warren’s discoveries to be a delu- 
 sion. Mr. Lewin’s fatal objection, that the Basilica was due east of the Sepulchre, 
 turns out to be a mistranslation, and the Count de Yoglie’s famous inscription, 
 which proved that the Dome of the Rock was erected by Abd-el-Malek, is now 
 shown to be a forgery. As I expected, one by one, all these objections have 
 disappeared ; and if there is any difficulty remaining unanswered, it must be very 
 insignificant, for it has escaped my attention, and, when brought forward, will, 
 I have no doubt, be as easily answered as the others. If the architectural 
 determination is right, it cannot long survive. 
 
 Even without the architecture, I believe that, if any one would carefully 
 go through the whole of the written evidence, he could almost settle the 
 controversy from that alone ; I do not, however, know any man in this country 
 who has attempted this, except Mr. Alexander M‘Grigor, of Glasgow. He has 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 IX 
 
 not only examined the whole, but has printed references to all the passages 
 bearing on the subject in an alphabetical form, in a quarto volume of ninety 
 closely printed pages, at present only for private circulation. If it were published 
 together with the work for which it was intended, this compilation should serve 
 as a substructure ; few, I believe, could resist arriving at the same conclusion as 
 the author, who, I believe, without any special knowledge of the architecture, 
 is quite convinced that the Dome of the Rock was erected by Constantine 
 the Great. 
 
 Just before my attention was first turned to the topography of Jerusalem, 
 the celebrated Dr. Robinson of New York had, in the second volume of his 
 ‘ Biblical Researches,’ carefully summed up the evidence regarding the 
 authenticity of the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and after a most 
 exhaustive enquiry decided that it could not be on or near the spot where the 
 scenes of the Passion were enacted. In stating this, he was only following up 
 conclusions that Korte had arrived at in the early part of the last century, and 
 what, in fact, all travellers who trust to reason, and reason only, must agree to, 
 for it has been found impossible to reconcile the position in the middle of the 
 town with the narratives of events as recorded by the Evangelists. Those who 
 oppose this view rely on tradition, and on that only. They assume, in the first 
 place, that Constantine must have known where the place of Crucifixion really 
 was, which he probably did, and to that no one will object ; but their second 
 assumption, that the church in the town must be the true one, because it is the 
 one which he built, rests on a totally different basis ; they plead, however, that, 
 at all events, it is a tradition with a respectable antiquity of fifteen centuries, and 
 is, in consequence, worth more than the negative void left by the logic of the 
 American doctor. Under these circumstances, I believed that he, at least, and 
 all those who doubted the authenticity of the present church, must hail with 
 enthusiasm the news that an alternative had been found, which, at all events, had 
 the merit of reconciling the narratives of the Bible with the localities of Jerusalem 
 in their minutest peculiarities. As in everything else connected with the reception 
 of my publication, I found myself entirely mistaken. Dr. Robinson was the first 
 to turn upon me, and so far was the Protestant feeling of my countrymen, 
 especially north of the Tweed, from sympathising with my vindication of the 
 Bible, that they remained silent in the midst of the clamour raised by the High 
 Church party in defence of the traditions invalidated by these new discoveries. 
 
 Under these circumstances, I would willingly have waited till the completion 
 of Captain Warren’s great discovery of the rock-cut foundations of the Basilica, 
 or till some other tangible proof of the correctness or falsity of my views had 
 been brought forward in a manner that admitted of no dispute. In what I 
 am about to say in the following pages, I cannot but feel that I am appealing to 
 those who fail to understand the language in which they are addressed ; and I 
 
 b 
 
X 
 
 PKEFACE. 
 
 have, therefore, very little hope of carrying conviction to their minds ; and 
 if I were younger, and could afford to wait, I would do so, but at my time of 
 life, if anything is to be said, it were well it were done quickly, or it may be 
 that there may be no opportunity of saying it at all. 
 
 Feeling all this strongly, I have desired to put on record the fact 
 that, so far as I am capable of judging, every difficulty that met the reception 
 of my views when 1 first wrote on the subject has been cleared away by the 
 new facts acquired by subsequent researches, in the manner explained in the 
 following pages. The one point on which no new light has been thrown is that 
 of the transference of the Sepulchre from the eastern to the western hill, though 
 this, in fact, never was a difficulty that deserved a moment’s notice if the main 
 facts of the argument were correct. It was, moreover, a point regarding which 
 I scarcely expected any new discoveries to be made. It is hardly likely that any 
 of those who were concerned in it would have left a record of a transaction which, 
 according to the feelings of that age, was perfectly legitimate if successful, but 
 which would have thrown doubt and dismay into the bosoms of all the faithful 
 of Christendom if found out. It may be, however, that a more careful 
 examination of the diplomatic correspondence between the East and West, from 
 the time of Charlemagne to that of the Crusades, may reveal what is now 
 mysterious ; but this can only be done by those who have access to documents 
 not yet printed or in the hands of the public. 
 
 Be this as it may, for the present it must suffice to know that there is not a 
 shadow of architectural evidence in favour of the Sepulchre in the city being built 
 by Constantine, to set against the overwhelming mass of proofs that the Dome of 
 the Rock and the Golden Gateway were built by that Emperor. At the same 
 time, it may safely be asserted that there is not one word in any work that may 
 not be applied to a Sepulchre on the eastern hill as correctly as to one on the 
 western hill, and a great many, I believe, that can only apply to the former. 
 
 I myself have very little hope of any great success being attained in eluci- 
 dating the history of this transaction ; but, at the same time, it appears of the 
 least possible consequence whether it is obtained or not. If Constantine built the 
 Dome of the Rock, the fact of the transference is certain, and the motive is only 
 too clear. It was done because it had become absolutely necessary from the position 
 of the Christians in Jerusalem in the eleventh century. They were forcibly dis- 
 possessed of their own church on the eastern hill, and they of necessity erected one 
 on the only available site on the western hill, and there, in consequence, we now 
 find it. It may be unfortunate that this should be so, but I can see no reason 
 why the fact should not be acknowledged if it can be proved. 
 
 When, from the subjects bearing more or less directly on the authenticity of 
 the Holy Sepulchre of the Christians, we turn to the Temple of the Jews, we find 
 ourselves standing on safer and surer ground. No dogma or matters of faith are 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 XI 
 
 mixed lip with questions connected with the situation or dimensions of the Temple, 
 and, however divergent opinions may be on the subject, all reasoning is based 
 either on an examination of authorities or on local indications, viewed by the 
 light of the ordinary and accepted principles generally employed in such investi- 
 gations. Where this is the case, truth is sure to be arrived at when sufficient 
 industry has been applied, to make it certain that all the circumstances bearing 
 on the subject have been sufficiently examined. 
 
 When I wrote my ‘Ancient Topography of Jerusalem,’ I did not consider 
 it necessary for the design of that work to examine the internal arrangements of 
 the Temple with any great care. It was sufficient for all topographical purposes 
 to know, first, that the Temple was, practically, a square measuring 600 feet on 
 each side; secondly, that there was sufficient space for a building of these 
 dimensions in the south-west angle of the Haram area ; and, thirdly, that there 
 was ample room and to spare within the precincts of a Temple so circumscribed 
 for all the buildings described by Josephus and by the Rabbis. Being satisfied 
 on these three points, I plotted the Temple roughly on my plans to a very small 
 scale, and there left it for future elaboration. When, however, the Ordnance 
 Survey, made under the direction of Major Wilson, was published, I found 
 myself in a position to carry the process a step further, and, after spoiling a good 
 many copies of the sheets containing the plan of the Haram area, have at last 
 satisfied myself that very little more remains to be done in so far as the plan is 
 concerned. There are one or two minor details on which a little more study 
 might be profitably employed, but they are comparatively of so little importance 
 that they may very well be left for future consideration. 
 
 On turning, however, from the plan to the elevation, the case is some- 
 what different. The result is very unlike what I expected when I first took 
 the investigation in hand, and, to others, will no doubt appear even more 
 strange and improbable than it did to me when it gradually developed itself as 
 I became more familiar with the subject. I am consequently quite prepared to 
 hear it called “absurd,” “improbable,” “impossible,” and characterised by even 
 stronger terms than these. Adjectives, however, are of little importance in a 
 controversy of this sort. The only criticism I can accept will be when some 
 one goes through the whole evidence as carefully as I have done, and produces 
 an elevation more justified by the authorities, and more in accordance with the 
 style of architecture prevalent in Syria at the time when it was erected. When 
 this is done, I will most gladly withdraw my illustrations, and hail with delight 
 a better solution of the problem than I have been able to afford. 
 
 When I first undertook this renewed study of the form of the Temple, I 
 was anxious to obtain the assistance of some scholar who, by his knowledge of 
 Hebrew, might enable me to understand the architectural terms employed in the 
 Bible and the Talmud, and whose familiarity with Jewish literature might have 
 
Xll 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 added interest to my dry descriptions. In this I have not been successful, and, 
 after all, it would have been hardly fair to have asked anyone to bestow the 
 requisite time and labour on the work of another from which he could only at 
 best get a dim reflection of credit. As the investigation proceeded, I found less 
 and less cause to regret this disappointment. The points which my ignorance of 
 Hebrew forced me to pass over were much fewer than I anticipated, and I felt 
 it was much better I should put them aside than to attempt to explain at second 
 hand what I could not master myself. The work, too, is quite extensive enough 
 as it stands, and I now feel that it is far better that it should be considered only 
 as an Architect’s contribution to the elucidation of the subject, and that it should 
 be left to scholars at their leisure to rectify any errors my want of knowledge of 
 the language may have led me into, and that they should clothe in any form 
 of flesh they think best, the skeleton I have attempted to prepare for them. The 
 points regarding which a competent knowledge of Hebrew would have enabled 
 me to give a clearer or better definition are, I feel convinced, few and insignificant 
 when compared with those which are discussed in this work, and decided on totally 
 different grounds, and it is consequently with little regret that I leave them to 
 those who may come after me in this investigation. 
 
 The principal reason why this work has been confined exclusively to the 
 description of the buildings in the Haram area is that recent explorations have 
 thrown no new light on the position of the walls, or on the topography of the 
 city itself. What I had to say on that subject has already been said in my 
 previous publications, and I see no reason for altering the conclusions there 
 arrived at, to such an extent at least as to make it worth while reopening the 
 controversy. The one discovery, if it can be so-called, bearing on this subject, is 
 the fixation of the true site of Scopus by Lieutenant Conder on the northern road 
 leading from Jerusalem, at a distance of almost exactly 7 stadia from the “Tombs 
 of the Kings,” 1 proving, consequently, that I was quite correct in following 
 Josephus’ indication, and placing the third wall in immediate juxtaposition to these 
 sepulchres. If, indeed, Josephus is to be followed — and there is no other authority 
 — this position of this wall is certain, and never would have been questioned but 
 for the fatal confusion which the location of the Holy Sepulchre in the middle 
 of the town, by the Crusaders, has introduced into the topography of Jerusalem. 
 
 With regard to the second wall, I am happy to be able to avail myself of 
 this opportunity to correct a blunder I had made when previously writing on the 
 subject. In his description of the walls, Josephus states there were ninety towers 
 on the third wall, while its length, measured on the ground, is 4300 to 4400 
 yards, and consequently the towers were something less than 50 yards apart from 
 centre to centre. The old wall measured 3400 yards and had sixty towers, 
 
 Quarterly Reports, Palestine Exploration Fund, for 1874, p. 112. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Xlll 
 
 which, consequently, were 56 or 57 yards apart. But the second wall, whilst 
 scarcely exceeding 1000 yards, had, as I read it — trusting too carelessly, I fear, 
 to Whiston’s translation — forty towers, or with the impossible distance of only 
 25 yards apart. 1 It was one of the many difficulties that are sure to arise in an 
 investigation of this sort, which I thought might well be left to future 
 investigations, or to clearer heads, for a satisfactory solution ; and as it was not 
 very important, there I left it. It never occurred to me that so obvious a 
 blunder could have been made so long ago, and the work passed through so 
 man}" editions without being detected. But the fact was, when the original Greek 
 was consulted, the number was found to be fourteen, instead of forty , and the 
 consequent fifteen spaces gave the very probable spacing of a little more than 
 60 yards from the centre of one tower to that of the next. 
 
 Looked at from a controversial point of view, I do not now regret the 
 mistake, inasmuch as it shows that, though this fact looked fatal to my views, 
 still, Josephus’ description was so clear, and the nature of the ground so 
 marked, that it was possible, in spite of the supposed assertion of Josephus, 
 to fix the position and ascertain the length of the second wall with almost perfect 
 certainty. Personally, I rather rejoice in it, as it is charming to find that 
 there was at least one instance regarding which I cannot be accused of knowingly 
 and purposely perverting the evidence to suit my own preconceived theories. 
 
 The truth of the matter is there is no city in the ancient world where the 
 features of the ground on which it stood are so strongly and clearly marked out by 
 nature, none the topography of which has been so well and so clearly described as 
 that of Jerusalem has been by Josephus, or one where the historian’s descriptions 
 can be so easily checked and authenticated by the circumstantial details of an im- 
 portant siege. Under these circumstances, the topography of the city would have 
 been easily ascertained, and never would have been disputed, had not the trans- 
 ference of the Holy Sepulchre from the eastern to the western hill necessitated a 
 reconstruction of the whole topography, in order to accommodate it, as far as 
 possible, to the new state of things then introduced. The circumstances under 
 which this was done rendered it inevitable, and in the dark ages it was, to say 
 the least of it, most inexpedient, if not impossible, from a priestly point of view, 
 that they should be made public ; but, in the nineteenth century, these motives 
 ought no longer to exist, and every one would be benefited by the truth being 
 made known. As the case stands at present, the public have two systems before 
 them ; one of which, assuming the Sepulchre to have been on the eastern hill, 
 accords, in so far as I am capable of forming an opinion, with every word of the 
 Bible narrative without straining or difficulty, renders all the descriptions of 
 Josephus clear and intelligible, and agrees with every local indication so far as 
 they can be at present seen. The other, assuming the Sepulchre to have been 
 
 1 Bell. Jud. v. 4, 3. 
 
XIV 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 situated in the centre of the city, can only, it appears to me, be reconciled with 
 the Bible narrative, avowedly, by the total rejection of the descriptions of 
 Josephus, by ignoring all the details of the siege, and by overlooking many 
 local indications and facts connected with the population and defence of the city. 
 
 The public have hitherto emphatically declared for the latter system, while, 
 though confident, I am far from wishing it to be understood that I fancy I must 
 necessarily be right, in distinctly adhering to an opposite view. All I mean 
 to assert is, that, as the evidence at present stands, and is known to me, I can 
 draw no other conclusions than those I have done, and I believe enough has 
 been adduced in the various works I have published on the subject to convince 
 any impartial and properly qualified person that the Dome of the Rock was 
 built by Constantine, with all the consequences that inevitably follow from that 
 admission. Judging, however, from the experience gained during the long 
 years that I have been more or less connected with these questions, I see no 
 probability that anything now brought forward will induce people in general to 
 qualify themselves for giving an opinion on this controversy, though that is all 
 that is asked. Unless, therefore, some accidental discovery should throw new 
 light on the matter, I can hardly hope that I shall live to see any change in 
 the general opinion regarding some of the questions mooted in these pages. 
 But be this as it may, nothing can deprive me of the memory of the many 
 happy days I have spent on these investigations, nor, unless something very 
 unforeseen and unexpected turns up, of the satisfaction of feeling that I may 
 have solved several problems which have puzzled many men with whose talent 
 or learning I cannot pretend to compete. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 Page iii 
 
 PART I. 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 I.— Introductory .. 1 
 
 II. — Authorities 7 
 
 III. — Jewish Measures 15 
 
 IY. — The Tabernacle 18 
 
 V. — The Temple of Solomon .. .. 26 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 VI. — Solomon’s Palace 40 
 
 VII. — Sepulchres of the Kings of 
 
 Israel 52 
 
 VIII. — The Temple of Ezekiel .. .. 59 
 
 IX. — The Temple of Zerubbabel .. 66 
 
 PART II. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 I. — External Dimensions 71 
 
 II. — The Court of the Gentiles . . 77 
 
 ILL — The Inner Temple 95 
 
 IV. — Gates and Chambers 106 
 
 V. — The Court of the Women.. .. 117 
 
 VI. — The Altar and the Temple in 
 
 Plan 121 
 
 VII. — The Temple in Elevation.. .. 129 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 VIII. — Fajade 140 
 
 IX. — The Toran 151 
 
 X. — Architectural Illustrations — 
 
 Tombs — Synagogues — Palaces 161 
 
 XI. — The Tower Antonia 172 
 
 XII. — The History of the Temple 
 
 AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF 
 
 Jerusalem 182 
 
 PART III. 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE II ARAM AREA. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 I. — Introductory 193 
 
 II. — The Dome of the Rock .. .. 199 
 
 III. — The Dome of the Rock — Mosaics 218 
 
 IV. — The Dome of the Rock — His- 
 
 tory 225 
 
 CHAP. P.AGE 
 
 V. — The Golden Gateway and the 
 
 Basilica of Constantine .. 229 
 
 VI. — Justinian’s Church and the 
 
 Mosque el Aksa 245 
 
 Conclusion 255 
 
XVI 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 APP. PAGE 
 
 I.- — The Middoth — Measurements of 
 
 the Temple 261 
 
 II.— Translation of Kufic Inscrip- 
 tion in the Dome of the Rock. 
 
 By E. H. Palmer, M.A. .. 269 
 
 III. — Translation of Paragraph in 
 Procopius’ ‘ De Edificiis.’ By 
 Rev. George Williams .. .. 271 
 
 IV. — Itinerarium Burdigala Hieru- 
 salem usque. From ‘ Palestine 
 Descriptions,’ &c. By Titus 
 
 Tobler 
 
 Y. — Le Temple he Jerusalem : Mono- 
 graphie du Haram ech Cherif. 
 By Count Melchior he Vogue 
 
 PAGE 
 
 273 
 
 277 
 
 INDEX 
 
 295 
 
LIST OF PLATES. 
 
 FRONTISPIECE . — PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF THE TEMPLE OF HEROD, 
 AS RESTORED. 
 
 I.— PLAN OF SOLOMON’S TEMPLE AND PALACE 
 
 II.— PLAN OF TEMPLE AS REBUILT BY HEROD 
 
 III. — FRONT ELEVATION OF HEROD’S TEMPLE 
 
 IV. —SIDE ELEVATION AND SECTION OF HEROD'S TEMPLE 
 
 V— PLAN OF CONSTANTINE’S BUILDINGS IN II ARAM AREA 
 
 VI— SECTION OF THE DOME OF THE ROCK 
 
 VII— PLAN OF THE HARAM AREA, WITH THE JEWISH, CHRISTIAN, AND 
 
 MAHOMEDAN BUILDINGS THEREIN 
 
 VIII.— SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE HARAM AREA, SHOWING THE UNDER- 
 GROUND CISTERNS AND VAULTS 
 
 At the End. 
 
 LIST OF WOODCUTS. 
 
 NO. PAGE 
 
 1. — Plan of the Tabernacle 21 
 
 2. — Diagram Section of the Tabernacle .. 23 
 
 3. — View of the Tabernacle 24 
 
 4. — Plan of Solomon’s Temple 26 
 
 5. — Section of Solomon’s Temple, with and 
 
 without Upper Room 26 
 
 6. — Imaginary Contours of the Haram 
 
 Area 36 
 
 7. — Diagram representing Three Rows of 
 
 Hewn Stones and a Row of Cedar 
 Beams 39 
 
 8. — City Gateways, Khorsabad 62 
 
 9. — Diagram Plan of the Temple as de- 
 
 scribed by Ezekiel 62 
 
 19. Plan of the Temple and Sanctuary as 
 
 described by Ezekiel 63 
 
 11- Diagram of Three Rows of Hewn Stones, 
 with a Row of Cedar Beams, verti- 
 cally 67 
 
 12. — Longitudinal and Transverse Sections 
 of the Vaults in the South-eastern 
 Angle of the Haram Area .. .. 75 
 
 NO. PAGE 
 
 13. — Diagram Plan Section of the Stoa 
 
 Basilica and Enclosure of Inner 
 Temple, with Substructures .. .. 80 
 
 14. — Diagram representing the supposed 
 
 Plan and Elevation of the Cause- 
 way across the TYROPiEON Valley 84 
 
 15. — Section North and South through 
 
 Barclay’s Gateway 86 
 
 16. — Capital of Pillar in Vestibule of 
 
 Southern Entrance 89 
 
 17. — Capital of Order of the Tower of the 
 
 Winds, Athens 89 
 
 18. — One Quadrant of One of the Domes in 
 
 the Vestibule of the Gate Huldah 90 
 
 19. — One Quadrant of Dome of the Vesti- 
 
 bule UNDER THE AkSA 91 
 
 20. — Diagram explanatory of Betii Mokadh 113 
 
 21. — Plan and Elevation of the Altar .. 121 
 
 22. — Plan of Herod’s Temple 125 
 
 23. — Japanese Toran 126 
 
 24. — Section of Herod’s Temple 129 
 
 25. — Spikes on Ridge and Cornices of Temple 136 
 
 C 
 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 xviii 
 
 NO. PAGE 
 
 26. — Facade of Church at Tourmanim .. 139 
 
 27. — Plan of Temple of Baalzamin .. .. 140 
 
 28. — Details of Facade of Temple of Baal- 
 
 zamin 141 
 
 29. — Tomb of Zacharias, Valley of Jeho- 
 
 shaphat 142 
 
 30. — Tomb of St. James, Valley of Jeho- 
 
 shaphat 143 
 
 31. — Position of Tombs in Valley of Jeho- 
 
 shaphat 144 
 
 32. — Coin of Cyprus 152 
 
 33. — Northern Gateway of the Great Tope 
 
 at Sanchi 153 
 
 34. — Vine-bearing Tor an in Front of Herod's 
 
 Temple 155 
 
 35. — Rough Diagram explanatory of the 
 Screen supported by the Pillars 
 of Jachin and Boaz in Front of 
 
 Solomon’s Temple .. 157 
 
 36. — Portion of the Lid of Herod’s Sarco- 
 
 phagus 163 
 
 37. — Copper Coin of Judas Maccabeus .. 163 
 
 38. — Doorway of Tombs of Judges .. .. 164 
 
 39. — Entrance to Tomb near Jerusalem .. 164 
 
 40. — Synagogue at Tell Hum 165 
 
 41. — Doorway of Synagogue at Iyefr Beirim 167 
 
 42. — Ruined Niche in Synagogue at Chorazin 168 
 
 43. — Compartment of Western Octagon 
 Tower of the Persian Palace at 
 
 Masiiita 169 
 
 44. — Plan of the Antonia according to 
 
 Josephus 173 
 
 45. — Arch in South-western Tower of the 
 
 Antonia • 175 
 
 46. — Section, East and West, through 
 
 Wilson’s Arch and the Adjoining 
 Chambers 177 
 
 47. — Julian’s Affix to the Huldah Gate- 
 
 way 185 
 
 48. — Plan of the Dome of the Rock . .. 198 
 
 49. — Elevation and Section of the Flank 
 
 of the Dome of the Rock .. .. 200 
 
 50. — Upper Gallery, Dome of the Rock .. 201 
 
 51. — Gallery of Sant’ Ambrogio 203 
 
 52. — Capital from Cistern of Philoxenus at 
 
 Constantinople 204 
 
 NO. PAGE 
 
 53. — Plan of Cathedral at Boskai-i .. .. 205 
 
 54. — Section of Dome at Bosrah 206 
 
 55. — View in Aisle of the Dome of the 
 
 Rock 208 
 
 56. — View in the Interior of the Aksa .. 208 
 
 57. — Court in Diocletian’s Palace at 
 
 Spalatro 210 
 
 58. — Arcade from Church of St. Demetrius 
 
 at Thessalonica, a.d. 500-520 .. 211 
 
 59. — Capital, Santa Sophia, Constantinople 212 
 
 60. — Capital, Santa Sophia, Constantinople 212 
 
 61. — Bronze Plaque from Underside of Beam, 
 
 Dome of the Rock 212 
 
 62. — Capital and Entablature of Inter- 
 
 mediate Range of Pillars, Dome of 
 the Rock 213 
 
 63. — Capital and Cornice of the Inter- 
 
 mediate Range of Columns in the 
 Dome of the Rock 215 
 
 64. — Capital from Church of St. John Studios 
 
 at Constantinople 216 
 
 65. — Baptistery of Constantine 216 
 
 66. — Section of Lateran Baptistery .. .. 217 
 
 67. — West Face of Golden Gateway .. .. 230 
 
 68. — Interior of Golden Gateway .. .. 231 
 
 69. — Capital and Entablature of the In- 
 
 terior of Golden Gateway .. .. 232 
 
 70. — Section of Vaults discovered by Captain 
 
 Warren, North of Platform of 
 Dome of the Rock .. 235 
 
 71. — Plan of Vaults discovered by Captain 
 
 Warren 235 
 
 72. — Plan of the Four Churches in the 
 
 Haram Area 240 
 
 73. — Diagram explanatory of the Probable 
 
 Arrangement of Justinian’s Build- 
 ings in the South-east Angle of 
 the Haram 248 
 
 74. — Mosque El Aksa 252 
 
 75. — Plan of the Temple of Herod as Re- 
 
 stored by Count de VoGirfc .. .. 278 
 
 76. — Section of Masonry lining the Birket 
 
 Israel 282 
 
 77. — West Front of Golden Gateway .. .. 285 
 
 78. — Capital of Dome of the Rock .. .. 289 
 
 79. — Capital of Pillar in the Aksa .. .. 289 
 
E E K A T U M. 
 
 A foot-note lias been inadvertently omitted at page 155, which was intended to explain that 
 the golden leaves of the vine on the Toran had been purposely omitted, in Woodcut 34, in order 
 to exhibit the architectural framework more clearly, though in reality they were the principal 
 ornaments of the screen. They were shown in the drawing for the Frontispiece, but that has 
 been reduced by photography to so small a scale that they are not now sufficiently apparent 
 to remedy this omission. 
 
r r vr. 
 
 r - r r r r f 
 
 Part I. 
 
 EARLl r TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 It is, perhaps, no exaggeration to say that there is not, in the whole world, any 
 spot of the same limited area, in which so much interest of a religious or archaeo- 
 logical character has been so long centred, as in the Haram area at Jerusalem. It 
 may he that the tradition is unfounded which says that it was here that Abraham 
 offered to sacrifice his son Isaac, but it certainly was the spot where the threshing- 
 floor of Araunah was placed, on which David erected that altar which became the 
 centre of the faith of his people and the symbol of their aspirations. It was 
 within its boundaries that Solomon erected all those buildings which have made 
 his name so celebrated to all future generations. It was too within the precincts 
 of his famous temple, as rebuilt by Herod, that Christ taught, and where many of 
 the principal scenes of his ministry and passion were enacted, so that it became, 
 as it were, the cradle of Christianity as it had been of the Jewish dispensation. 
 It was from the site of this old Temple that Mahomet is fabled to have ascended 
 to heaven on his famous night journey, and but for the refusal of the Jews to 
 acknowledge him as a prophet, it might have become the Kaaba of that faith, 
 instead of the mean and comparatively modern structure at Mecca. 
 
 The consequence of all this is, that though now in the exclusive possession 
 of the Moslems, and considered by them as only slightly less sacred than the 
 Kaaba itself, the Jews still sorrowfully regard it as the emblem of their faith 
 and former greatness, torn from them by cruel injustice and oppression, while 
 Christians regard the spot with an interest only limited by their ignorance of 
 the true history of the place. 
 
 M hen looked at from an architectural or archeological point of view, the 
 Haram is almost as interesting as it is in its religious aspects. The temples of 
 Egypt were indeed larger and more magnificent, and those of Greece more beautiful 
 and artistic, but none obtained such world-wide celebrity, or were so essentially 
 the emblems of the greatness or the symbols of the national faith, as that which 
 Solomon erected on this spot; and as rebuilt by Herod, it probably rivalled most 
 
 B 
 
2 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 of the temples of antiquity in magnificence. If we could restore them in all their 
 pristine magnificence, it probably would be found that the group of buildings 
 which Constantine erected in the Haram, to commemorate the scenes of the 
 Passion, were at least as beautiful and as magnificent as anything of their age ; and 
 that the Mary Church, which Justinian erected in the south-east corner of the 
 Haram area, was only second in splendour to his own great creation at Constan- 
 tinople. The Aksa, too, was the greatest of all the mosques the Moslems attempted 
 to erect — as a wholly original design — in the first century of the Hejira, and, 
 like some of the buildings of Constantine, still retains enough of its pristine 
 arrangements to enable us to judge fairly what its original form may have been. 
 
 The case is, unfortunately, widely different with regard to the buildings of 
 Solomon. The prophecy regarding the Temple has long been fulfilled, literally 
 not one stone, above ground, remains standing on another ; and were it not for the 
 loving care with which the Jews, in all ages, have dwelt on its form and glories, 
 we should now know little or nothing about it. The Bible, however, delights to 
 dwell, with a minuteness of detail which has no parallel in ancient history, on the 
 forms and furniture of the original Temple, and of that erected after the Captivity. 
 Josephus, too, repeats the Biblical descriptions, it may be with less accuracy, but 
 with greater fulness, so as to enable us to realise its appearance, as rebuilt by 
 Herod, where the Bible deserts us. Still later, the Babbis, in the Talmud, 
 gathered together all the traditional measurements with a care that leaves little 
 to be desired in that respect, though they put them together with an ignorance of 
 their application which has hitherto prevented their value being appreciated as it 
 might otherwise have been. 
 
 After all, however, it was not for its architectural magnificence, as we 
 usually understand the term, that Solomon’s Temple was remarkable. It was, 
 in fact, hardly larger than an ordinary parish church of the present day, and 
 whether the stone work was elaborately carved or not, we have no means of 
 knowing. What made it remarkable was the beauty of the carvings in cedar 
 wood which lined its walls internally, the wealth of gold and silver that 
 were spread over them, and, above all, the vessels and ornaments of bronze, 
 fashioned by Hiram of Tyre, all which made up, in the eyes of the Jews at 
 least, a mobilier of unrivalled richness and beauty. Even this, however, would 
 hardly account for the enthusiasm and reverence with which it was regarded. 
 Its claim to veneration by the Jewish people arose from their belief that its 
 place and ordinance were divinely revealed by God to man, that it was the one 
 temple of the one God, the holy Zion, where their God delighted to dwell among 
 his chosen people, the symbol of his covenant with them, the centre of all their 
 national faiths and aspirations. Similar feelings acting upon a people of 
 cognate race have, among the Semitic Arabs, thrown around the Kaaba at Mecca, 
 the meanest of modern shrines, a halo of glory, which it is difficult for Western 
 people to understand. This peculiarity may, no doubt, have induced the Israelites 
 
Chap. I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 to attribute exaggerated importance and exceptional magnificence to their one 
 holy place in a manner that will not bear the test of modern criticism. Even 
 assuming this, however, to be the case, the Christian religion, like the Mahomedan, 
 is based on the Jewish. Tbeir Scriptures are our Bible, and they have imparted 
 to us a portion at least of the enthusiasm they feel, and have always felt, for this 
 far famed edifice. Whether rightly or wrongly, it is probable that for a long time 
 to come both Moslem and Christian will continue to look on the Temple at 
 Jerusalem as one of the most sacred and most interesting of all the shrines of 
 the ancient world, though it never can be to them what it always was, and still 
 is, to people of the Jewish race and persuasion. 
 
 With all these claims to attention, it is little to be wondered at that the 
 Temple at Jerusalem has excited the interest and exercised the ingenuity of a 
 countless number of antiquaries and restorers, especially when, with the revival of 
 literature some three or four centuries ago, such enquiries became a fashionable and 
 engrossing amusement with the best educated classes of the community. During 
 the middle ages the Temple of Solomon was simply a richly decorated Gothic 
 church in the style of the day. The simple faith and narrow view of archaeology 
 of those days did not admit of their dreaming of the existence of any other style 
 except that then in use, and certainly of none to be compared with it in beauty 
 and excellence. When, however, classical studies were revived, and men became 
 familiar with Roman art, as well as Roman literature, more serious attempts were 
 made to realise the appearance of this celebrated building. These, though more 
 successful than the earlier attempts, were still very unlike what we now believe 
 the true aspect of the Temple to have been. 
 
 One great cause of tbeir want of success was that they all failed to 
 discriminate between what belonged to Solomon and what to Herod. Their 
 one great idea was that the Temple must have resembled a great Renaissance 
 palace 1600 feet square, and in some instances, reading Josephus literally, they 
 placed it on a basement 300 cubits high! 1 
 
 The most artistic of these restorations is that published by the Brothers 
 Pradi or Yillalpandi, 2 the least satisfactory that which Herrera built as a 
 palace for Philip II. of Spain at the Escorial ; 3 but the two are so like one another 
 that there can be no doubt, they were meant for the same object; 4 and our only 
 regret is that the Pradi were not employed to build the palace and the architect, 
 to write the book. But whether this was so or not, it is quite evident that 
 neither they nor any of their contemporaries understood the conditions of the 
 
 1 B. J. v. 5, 1. 
 
 2 Explanations in Ezekielem, Rom®, 1596-1604, 
 
 3 vols. fol. 
 
 3 The dimensions of the Escorial, exclusive of the 
 projection behind, are 675 feet by 530 feet. 
 
 4 The absurd explanation of the plan of the Escorial 
 usually given, that it was meant to symbolise the grid- 
 
 iron on which St. Lawrence was roasted, is sufficiently 
 refuted by an examination of contemporary pictures, 
 representing this martyrdom. In them it is always an 
 iron bedstead, which may have been a usual implement 
 of torture in those days, while our ideas of a grid-iron 
 are borrowed from cook-shops where beefsteaks and 
 mutton chops are prepared. 
 
4 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 problem they bad undertaken to solve. Since their time most of the attempts at 
 restoration have been soberer and more critical, but still not one plan has been 
 published which meets with general acceptance, nor any restoration which can be 
 considered as fairly representing the appearance of the building. 
 
 It is easy to understand why all the earlier attempts at restoration should 
 - have proved unsuccessful. It was, in the first place, that those who undertook 
 them had no knowledge whatever of the localities, and almost as little of the 
 styles of architecture that prevailed in the East when the Temples were built. 
 Even now we have only the haziest idea possible of the styles of architecture 
 prevalent in Syria in the age of Solomon, say, a thousand years before Christ ; 
 and no one yet has been able to offer a reasonable representation of the 
 two pillars — Jachin and Boaz — that adorned the porch of his Temple. If the 
 text were retranslated by some thoroughly competent scholar, a solution might be 
 approximated, but even then some further discoveries of contemporary examples 
 must be made before anything like certainty with regard to these pillars can be 
 obtained. On the other hand, we can restore the Corinthian porticos with which 
 Herod surrounded the Court of the Gfentiles with almost absolute certainty, 
 but the Temple itself presents difficulties not so easily overcome. Still our 
 knowledge of the Roman architecture in Syria has been so greatly extended of 
 late years, and our present familiarity with the Christian and other styles that 
 grew out of it, affords so many hints, that its general appearance may probably 
 be reproduced within very narrow limits of uncertainty. 
 
 The first-named cause was, however, even more fatal to success than 
 ignorance of style, for although all were agreed that the Temple stood somewhere 
 within the enclosure called the Haram ash Sharif, till very recently no plans of 
 that area existed that could at all be depended upon. The first that had any 
 pretension to accuracy was made by Mr. Catherwood, who, in company with Messrs. 
 Arundale and Bonorni, spent six weeks in the Haram area in 1833, exploring, 
 drawing, and measuring everything with the most exemplary diligence. On 
 their return home, they published a small plan, octavo size, as the first result of 
 their survey, but they never received sufficient encouragement to enable them to 
 produce their more detailed and complete illustrations of the place. It was not, 
 therefore, till after Mr. Catherwood’s death in 1850, when his papers came into 
 my hands, that any attempt was made to produce a perfect plan. His survey 
 was made and protracted on a scale of 10 feet to 1 inch, but unfortunately not all 
 on one sheet, but on some thirty or forty bits of paper, some pasted, some pinned 
 together, but many loose and with the points of junction imperfectly marked. I 
 spent both time and money on these materials, but the result was never quite 
 satisfactory. 1 It was not therefore till 1868, when the Ordnance Survey of the 
 
 1 The plan was engraved at the Admiralty, and published in 1861, in a single sheet 25 by 38 inches, on a 
 scale of 54 feet to 1 inch. 
 
Chap. I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 5 
 
 Haram area, made under the superintendence of Captain (now Major) Wilson, 
 R.E., was published that any perfectly reliable data existed. As might be 
 expected, this document leaves very little to be desired, except that, being on so 
 small a scale, little more than 41 feet to 1 inch, or l-500th, and no dimensions 
 being figured, it is not always easy to be sure — as will be explained farther 
 on — of the correctness of any dimensions that may be taken from it. 
 
 In addition to the advantages afforded by these more correct surveys, the 
 Haram area itself is now easily accessible to all travellers on the payment of a 
 small fee. All can consequently verify or correct their impressions by actual 
 inspection of the place itself, and can familiarise themselves with the features of 
 the locality in a manner not easily done by those who have never visited the site. 
 
 Notwithstanding these advantages, it does not appear that any greater 
 degree of harmony has of late years been produced among those who have 
 devoted their attention to the subject. The Count de Vogue', for instance, spreads 
 out the Temple over the whole Haram area, making it, in direct defiance of every 
 written authority and every local indication — so far as I can judge — upwards of 
 1500 feet north and south, by an average breadth of about 1000 feet. 1 
 
 The Rev. G-eorge Williams, it is presumed with the approval of the late 
 Professor Willis, cuts off about 500 feet from the southern end of the Haram, and 
 places his Temple, about 1000 feet square, in the northern division. 2 Dr. Robinson, 
 the American, on the contrary, cuts off 600 feet from the northern end, and 
 leaves his Temple a little more than 900 feet square in the southern portion; 3 
 while Captain Warren’s last theory makes it a quadrangular figure, with only 
 two right angles, and the sides varying from 922 to 1138 feet. 4 
 
 In 1841 I published my views, 5 stating my conviction to be, that the Temple 
 was a rectangle 600 feet square, and situated in the south-western angle of the 
 Haram area. Since then, Messrs. Tobler and Rosen have published works in 
 German, in which they adopt the same dimensions, but place the Temple in the 
 south-east corner — while Messrs. Thrupp 6 and Lewin 7 adopt both the same 
 dimensions as I did before them, and place the Temple in the same locality. 
 Others adopt plans more or less in accordance or at variance with the above, 
 the views of their authors being mainly influenced by certain topographical and 
 religious questions, whose determination is supposed to depend on the position 
 assigned to the Temple itself. 
 
 I am not, of course, in the following pages going to attempt to refute the 
 
 1 Le Temple de Jerusalem, folio, Paris, 1864. Vide 
 Appendix. 
 
 2 1 he Holy City, vol. ii. pp. 360 et seqq. Neither his 
 text nor his map is quite distinct on this point. He 
 does not in fact appear to have been quite able to make 
 up his own mind regarding it. 
 
 3 Biblical Researches, vol. i. p. 430. 
 
 4 Underground Jerusalem, p. 80. 
 
 6 Topography of Jerusalem, pp. 5-30. 
 
 6 Antient Jerusalem, 8vo., 1855. In his introduction 
 to Jerusalem Recovered, p. 30, Captain Wilson mentions 
 Thrupp’s plan with approval, but makes no allusion to 
 my labours in publishing Catherwood’s plan, and does 
 not mention that, with the slightest variation, Thrupp’s 
 plan was copied from mine. 
 
 7 Archajologia, xliv. id. 1. 
 
6 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part 
 
 views of the authors just enumerated. If I am right, it follows as a matter of 
 course that all except the two last-named must be wrong, and it will be sufficient 
 to prove my own case to make it clear that they are so. 
 
 It may seem presumptuous — perhaps is so— on my part to venture to differ 
 not only from those above quoted, hut from many others with whose views I do 
 not agree ; but the fact, so far as I am able to judge, seems to be, that no one since 
 the recently acquired information became available, has taken the trouble and 
 pains necessary to master the whole subject. No one, so far as I know, has gone 
 through all the Temples from the Tabernacle, to the destruction of the last by 
 Titus, protracting each peculiarity as it arose, and superimposing each addition or 
 alteration on the same plan. No one, while doing this, has attempted, in modern 
 times, to co-ordinate the Bible, the historians, and the Talmud, so as to get a 
 consistent answer out of their frequently discordant testimonies. Lightfoot 1 and 
 the Rabbis 2 have attempted the latter task with great industry, but they failed for 
 want of the local knowledge, and of the architectural skill necessary to solve the 
 problem. Whether in this instance, long study, combined with local knowledge 
 and a certain amount of architectural skill, together with the new materials 
 now available, will suffice to settle the questions regarding the Temple, hitherto 
 in dispute, remains to be seen. So far as I am capable of forming an opinion, 
 the task now appears easy, and the result certain, within very narrow limits of 
 deviation in any direction. 
 
 1 Prospect of the Temple, first published in folio in 
 1649. In the following pages I have used the 8vo. 
 edition of 1823, vol. ix. 
 
 2 My information on the subject is principally derived 
 from the Codex Middoth, sive de Mensuris Templi — • 
 in Hebrew — cum versione latina opera et studio Con- 
 
 stantini l’Empereur, de Oppyck, Lugduni Batavorum, 
 1630. But, for convenience of reference, a translation of 
 the Middoth made by the Rev. Dr. Barclay, and pub- 
 lished at Jerusalem in 1867, is reprinted, with his 
 permission, in the Appendix. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 AUTHORITIES. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 AUTHORITIES. 
 
 As in almost all similar cases, the data available for the elucidation of the subject 
 are twofold in their nature. First, there are the written authorities, and, next, 
 the topographical or local indications. If these cannot be reconciled, cadit quce.stio, 
 a satisfactory solution is impracticable. If they are found to be in accordance 
 with one another, like the testimony of two perfectly independent witnesses, they 
 may, in most cases, be considered as settling the points in dispute. 
 
 In the present instance, the Bible, of course, is the first and most important 
 witness, and would also be the last it would be necessary to call, if it contained 
 all we want to know. It is, however, in no sense a topographical work, and what 
 we gather from it, in that respect, is generally obtained more from incidental 
 allusions than from any purposelike indications. Still, in so far as the Tabernacle 
 is concerned, it is, with Josephus’ paraphrase, the only witness, and fortunately, 
 in this instance, is sufficient and complete. So too it is with the dimensions and 
 most of the details of Solomon’s Temple, but the books which describe it, are 
 provokingly silent as to the size and disposition of its courts. The descriptions 
 of the Temple contained in the 40th to 43rd chapters of Ezekiel in a great 
 measure supply this deficiency, and with some allusions in Esdras, and one invaluable 
 passage in Hecataeus, enable us, as will be explained in the sequel, to feel very 
 great confidence that we can ascertain what the dimensions and disposition of the 
 Temple were before it was rebuilt and reformed by Herod. 
 
 Unfortunately, the New Testament affords few indications that are of much 
 importance from a topographical point of view. But this deficiency is in a great 
 measure supplied by the works of Josephus, who was not only personally familiar 
 with the localities, but who, in writing his ‘Antiquities’ and ‘History of the Wars 
 of the Jews,’ had ocassion to investigate carefully all the authorities bearing on 
 the subject. Yet Josephus can seldom be implicitly relied upon, or his statements 
 accepted as final, without careful examination. One of his great objects in writing 
 his works was to exalt his people in the eyes of their conquerors, because he thereby 
 flattered his patrons, the Romans, by exaggerating the greatness of the resistance 
 they had overcome. At the same time, by so doing, he gratified his own pride 
 as a Jew by magnifying the importance of his people, and so perhaps sought to 
 make some amends for the unpatriotic and not very dignified part he had taken 
 in their last struggle for independence. Still, he is generally so correct in his 
 
8 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 topographical details, in so far at least as the plan of the Temple is concerned, 
 that I cannot help feeling — as was first suggested to me by George Finlay, 
 the historian of Greece under the Romans 1 - — that he wrote, with a plan of the 
 city and its buildings before him. That the Romans were first-rate surveyors is 
 certain, and nothing is more probable than that they should make careful plans 
 of the important fortresses they conquered ; but, be that as it may, at the time 
 Josephus wrote, Jerusalem was in the hands of the Romans, and the ruins 
 of the Temple were still sufficiently distinct to be easily recognisable. He no 
 more dared to exaggerate them in plan than he would have dared to falsify the 
 dimensions of any building in Rome itself. Detection would have been sure 
 to follow. But when it came to height, the case was different. Once knocked 
 down or destroyed, no one could say what the height of any building may 
 have been, nor of what parts its elevation was made up ; and it is curious 
 to observe into what strange contradictions the absence of all memoranda 
 regarding heights frequently betrayed him. The tendency to exaggeration also 
 led him sometimes to employ expressions which nothing can justify, as, for 
 instance, when he says 2 that, “ when you looked down from the roof of the Stoa 
 Basilica, you could not see the bottom of the valley, it was so far off,” or when 
 he asserts 3 that “ the height of the north-east angle of the Temple over the 
 ‘ so-called valley of Kedron ’ was so great as to be terrific ” ; which it could not 
 have been on any theory of the Temple yet proposed. These, in any other 
 author, would be regarded as mere rhetorical flourishes, but, in so controverted 
 a matter as the site of the Temple, have led to half the misunderstandings that 
 exist regarding it, and have prevented the statements of Josephus from being 
 received with the confidence they generally so well deserve. 
 
 There is still another point of view from which Josephus’ statements must be 
 received with considerable caution. Though so excellent a tojiographer, he was 
 no antiquary — no one indeed was in his days — and he was consequently careless 
 as to who the actual builders of the Temple were, and often contradicts himself 
 in his attempts to assign his portion to each. Thus there is no doubt that in the 
 8tli book of the ‘ Antiquities’ (3, 91) he ascribes the building of the whole of 
 the outer courts, to the extent of 400 cubits square, to Solomon. Nor can it 
 be denied that the description in the 15th book (11, 3) of the same work may be 
 construed as bearing the same interpretation, though this view is contradicted by 
 the context in the same passage. It is besides directly at variance with his own 
 statements in other parts of his work ; as, for instance, where he says, 4 “ King 
 Solomon first built one cloister on the bank cast up for it to the eastward of the 
 Temple, but all the other parts of the house stood naked,” and then describes 
 how future generations, and especially Herod, had enlarged the area to its present 
 
 1 On the Site of the Holy Sepulchre (Smith, Elder, & Co., London, 1847), pp. 35 et seqq. 
 
 2 Ant. xv. 11, 5. 3 B. J. vi. 3, 2. 4 B. J. v. 5, 1. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 AUTHORITIES. 
 
 9 
 
 extent ; which, as he says, 1 “ was twice the extent of the former Temple, which, 
 np to Herod’s time, had sufficed for the Jewish people of the old dispensation.” 
 
 In all this we clearly perceive the tendency of the historian’s mind to 
 exaggerate the greatness of everything belonging to his people ; and as Solomon 
 was the greatest of their kings, his works must he extolled and made as great as 
 it was possible ; but with all this the inevitable limit of 400 cubits was always 
 before him. The Romans were not likely to enquire, or to care whether it was 
 built bv Solomon or Zerubbabel, or by Herod ; but they did know its extreme 
 limits were one stadium each way, and to his credit, be it said, in no instance 
 does Josephus swerve from this limitation. Whether, as we shall presently see, 
 he speaks of it as measuring 1 stadium 2 or of 400 cubits 3 — and he never either 
 exceeds or deducts from these dimensions — with him the Temple of Jerusalem was 
 a square building measuring 600 feet each way ; and whether he was right or 
 wrong in this, it is at least his principal contribution to our knowledge of the 
 limits of the structure, and governs all the rest, internally at least. 
 
 The Talmud, which is our next authority on the subject, is of a totally 
 different character from the two just described ; and though its testimony is 
 frequently most valuable, and, in fact, indispensable, it must be taken at all times 
 with caution, and its sources examined with critical care. According to the best 
 modern authorities, the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled in the second or third 
 century after Christ ; the Babylonian in the fourth or fifth. 4 Hone, therefore, of 
 the Rabbis, to whom it owes its present form, could have seen the Temple in its 
 peiffect state ; and it is very doubtful how many — if, indeed, any — of them had 
 been allowed to visit Jerusalem or inspect its ruins. Certain it is, at all events, 
 that, for the greater part of these early centuries, the Jews were forbidden to 
 approach the Holy City ; and if they did so, it was in secret, and without daring 
 to show themselves openly. It can hardly be wondered at if, under these 
 circumstances, their descriptions of the Temple want the completeness that might 
 have been obtained from eye-witnesses. Still, they seem to have had measure- 
 ments and details handed down from father to son, the accuracy of which there is 
 no reason for doubting ; and there were measurements recorded in earlier works 
 which may have been obtained from personal inspection, and which they quote 
 apparently with perfect fidelity, but too frequently without understanding their 
 application. One thing, however, may be said of the Rabbis which cannot 
 always be said of Josephus. They never exaggerate, and never knowing] y 
 misrepresent the facts in their possession. Their errors arise from ignorance, 
 never from bad faith. Their materials did not suffice to enable them to grasp 
 the whole subject ; and it is also probable that they were incapable of making a 
 plan or protracting their measurements in a formal manner, so that their use of 
 
 1 B. J. 1, 21, 1. s Ant. xv. 11,3 and 9. 3 Ant. xx. 10, 7, and viii. 3, 9. 
 
 4 Munk, Description de la Palestine, Paris, 1863, p. 608. 
 
 C 
 
10 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 them is deficient in completeness, and the connexion between them is not always 
 clear. In addition to this, the Rabbis were always haunted with the idea — 
 laudable in itself — that they must make their dimensions accord with those of 
 Ezekiel, in which they were not only justified, but correct. But before 
 attempting this, they ought to have been perfectly sure that they knew what 
 Ezekiel did say or meant. This was not, and is not in all instances, easy ; and 
 the Rabbis do not certainly seem to have been equal to the task, and con- 
 sequently make some mistakes which have tended to confuse their descriptions 
 to a considerable extent. Another source of error and uncertainty is that the 
 Talmudists generally entirely ignore the additions and alterations made by 
 Herod. Their descriptions and measurements are principally confined to the 
 inner courts, into which Herod never was allowed to enter ; 1 and consequently, 
 when we attempt to combine their measurements of the “ Mountain of the House” 
 with those of the “ Temple,” as they understood it, we find that they fall into 
 mistakes the presence of which is easily detected, though their source is not 
 always so easily explained. 
 
 From the time of the Talmudists w T e have no direct testimony as to the form 
 or dimensions of the Temple, but a good deal of collateral evidence which is 
 satisfactory, even if not decisive. Procopius, 2 for instance, describes in great 
 detail the church Justinian built at Jerusalem, and in greater detail the difficulty 
 he had in making a platform for it, on the very uneven piece of ground he had 
 chosen for its site. So distinct are the indications thus afforded that few have 
 doubted but that the southern portion of the Haram area is the locality indicated ; 
 and notwithstanding the various ingenious hypotheses that have been invented 
 to escape the inevitable conclusion, it seems quite clear that the vaults to the 
 eastward of the Triple Gateway are the substructions which Justinian erected to 
 support his buildings. It seems also evident that he was forced to undertake all 
 this labour and expense in order to avoid the area of the accursed Temple of the 
 Jews, where his predecessor Julian had been so signally defeated in his attempts 
 to restore it. 
 
 The Mahomedans and their historians bear equally distinct testimony to what 
 they knew in the seventh century to be the site of the Temple. They knew 
 perfectly well where the Jewish Altar formerly stood, and they knew also that the 
 Temple stood to the westward of it ; but the necessities of their liturgy forced them 
 to turn to Mecca when they prayed, and they could not consequently re-erect 
 it on its original site. They therefore pivoted their mosque E] Aksa, which 
 they intended to be a reproduction of the Temple, on the same Altar, but turned 
 its axis towards the south instead of the west, as the Jews had done in former 
 times, and thus, as they thought, combined the merits of the sanctuary at 
 Jerusalem with those of that at Mecca. 
 
 1 Ant. xv. 11, 5. 
 
 2 De Edificiis, b. v. c. vi. See Appendix. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 AUTHORITIES. 
 
 11 
 
 There are numerous other indications spread through the writers from 
 the fourth to the fourteenth centuries of no great value individually, but 
 which, when taken with those above enumerated, make up a ball so complete, 
 “ totus teres atque rotundus,” that it rolls pleasantly along the path of truth, 
 and is not stopped by any inequalities or unnecessary friction. 
 
 We shall have frequent opportunities of referring to these written authorities 
 in the sequel, and of estimating their value or defects. Had they sufficed, the 
 problem would have long ago been solved by such men as Lightfoot and others 
 who were perfectly familiar with all that had been written on the subject. 
 But in themselves they have not been found sufficient, and the advantage we have 
 now over these earlier restorers, is the possession of correct topographical know- 
 ledge, which has only recently become available. In this respect the Ordnance 
 Survey of the Haram area, executed by a party of British sappers, under the direc- 
 tion of Captain (now Major) Wilson, in 1864-5, leaves little to be desired. There 
 seems to be no doubt that it is as absolutely correct as anything of the sort can be, 
 but it has two defects which detract considerably from its utility for our present 
 purpose. In the first place, it is, as already pointed out, engraved on too small a 
 scale — l-500th of the real size, or 4T66 feet to 1 inch ; and on such a scale 
 it is extremely difficult to obtain any dimension you are looking for with the 
 accuracy that might be desirable. Another defect, for architectural purposes, 
 which it has in common with all ordnance surveys, is that no dimensions are 
 figured upon it. Every measurement must be obtained from the scale, and that 
 is more difficult than can well be understood by anyone who has not tried it. In 
 the first place, the scale is not one ordinarily in use in this country, and when 
 you do get a foot or any other measure divided into 500 parts, you find that it 
 does not agree with the paper scale. In copper-plate printing the paper is 
 damped, and, when it dries, shrinks 2 or 3 per cent, more or less ; and even when 
 you get an ivory scale engraved from the paper scale, it does not give correct 
 measurements for different sheets of the same survey, nor in different hygrometric 
 states of the atmosphere. The answer the surveyors make to these complaints is to 
 refer you to the paper scale on each sheet. There, however, the smallest division 
 of the scale is 10 feet; smaller subdivisions are hardly possible, and are soon worn 
 out if an attempt is made to use them. All this tends to make the task difficult, 
 and may lead to slight inaccuracies ; but as the plan of the Temple adopted in this 
 work has been drawn on the Ordnance Survey, and not from dimensions taken 
 from it, the errors cannot be of any such extent as to invalidate the conclusions 
 arrived at. 1 
 
 1 The praise of accuracy must be understood as 
 applying only to the work of Major Wilson, which was 
 engraved at the Ordnance Office at Southampton. The 
 surveys of Captain W arren, though equally executed by 
 
 sappers, have only been published in rough lithographs 
 executed from tentative drawings sent home by him 
 during the progress of the survey, or in a popular manner, 
 and on a small scale, in a work entitled The Recovery of 
 
12 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Pakt I. 
 
 In addition to the assistance obtained from the written descriptions of the 
 Temple, and the local indications of the surveyors, there is still a third class of 
 evidence which is almost as important as either of these two, for obtaining a 
 correct idea of the form or appearance of the building. This is derived from con- 
 siderations of architectural propriety and commonsense. The experience of the 
 last 300 years has shown that the “ litera scripta ” alone is not sufficient to enable 
 even the most learned men to arrive at correct conclusions on the subject; while 
 the experience of the last half-century, during the greater part of which 
 Oatherwood’s surveys have been available, and access has been allowed to the 
 localities, seems to indicate that local knowledge rather tends to aggravate the 
 differences between the restorers. Neither alone, nor even together, do these 
 seem to suffice, and in order to obtain any satisfactory results, it seems 
 indispensable that the architect should intervene to supply what is inevitably 
 omitted from all mere verbal descriptions, and to utilise those local indications 
 which, in the present instance, are unfortunately scant and not always easily 
 recognisable. More than this. Just as the historian is obliged to select, out of 
 a number of conflicting narratives, those incidents wffiich appear to him either 
 those most probable or most in accord with the known circumstances of the 
 case, the architect must take upon himself the responsibility of deciding, where 
 conflicting statements are made, either by the same authors or by different 
 authorities, which shall be accepted ; and when anything manifestly absurd is put 
 forward, he must be allowed to reject, if he cannot explain it. When, for instance, 
 the text of Ezekiel as it now stands represents the cells surrounding the Temple 
 as constructed so that neither light nor air could ever reach them, it may safely 
 be concluded that this was not so, and that the text is either corrupt or, at present 
 at least, unintelligible. In the same manner, when Josephus says, these same cells 
 were only 5 cubits square on plan, but 20 cubits in height, we may reject the 
 statement as certainly erroneous ; and the more so that in this instance we can 
 detect the motive of the misstatement. Again, when the Talmud states that there 
 was an upper room over the Temple 20 cubits broad, 40 high, and 60 in length, and 
 that it was approachable only by a ladder of wood, we may, even if we admit the 
 credibility of the first part of the statement, reject the latter as wholly improbable. 
 Such instances are, unfortunately, only too common, as we shall see in the sequel ; 
 and it is only by the exercise of architectural criticism that they can be eliminated, 
 and what remains co-ordinated into a harmonious whole. We must be allowed to 
 assume that the architects who built the successive Temples at Jerusalem, especially 
 those in Herod’s time, were not incompetent blunderers, but that they knew 
 
 Jerusalem, in 1860. As neither of these make any pre- 
 tension to scientific accuracy, Major Wilson has under- 
 taken to republish his Notes, incorporating Captain 
 Warren’s work with his own. The difficulty, however, of 
 reconciling the two has been so great that the task has been 
 
 indefinitely delayed, and may not improbably have to be 
 abandoned. We know roughly the result of Captain 
 Warren’s three years’ exploration, but in a form which, 
 to say the least of it, is extremely unsatisfactory, and 
 which can, in no instance, be implicitly relied upon. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 AUTHORITIES. 
 
 13 
 
 something of their business, and were capable of arranging the various parts of 
 their buildings so as to be convenient for the purposes for which they were 
 designed, and also of putting them together so as to form a harmonious and 
 dignified design. 
 
 Where, it appears to me, most of the restorations hitherto proposed have 
 broken down is because these principles have not been kept steadily in view. In 
 some instances the statements of Josephus, or of the Talmud, have been rejected 
 bodily without due consideration, or adopted literally without discrimination, and 
 no one, so far as I know, has put himself in the position of an architect designing a 
 building, and tried, with the aid of the facts and hints that are available, to design 
 such a building as the Temple of the Jews really must have been in the days of its 
 magnificence. When, however, all the three classes of evidence just enumerated 
 are duly tested and co-ordinated, they will, I believe, be found quite sufficient to 
 enable us to restore not only the plan but the elevation of the Temple with very 
 considerable accuracy. When the details gathered from surrounding buildings 
 of the same age are added, we may, I believe, realise its appearance as nearly as 
 we can, that of almost any other now ruined building of antiquity. 
 
 In so far as the plan is concerned, there are not any essential points that 
 appear to me open to dispute. It may be that the central point of the altar north 
 and south is 66^ or even 67 cubits distant from the inner face of the Avail of the 
 court instead of 66, as I have placed it, for reasons given farther on. East and 
 west its position is fixed within inches by the central line of the Huldah Gateway. 
 It may be also that I have not quite understood the arrangements of the Chel, in 
 front of the Court of the Women ; but nothing hangs on these, and beyond them 
 every dimension, in plan, seems capable of almost mathematical proof. The 
 elevation admits of considerably greater latitude of interpretation, but even here 
 the possible A'ariations are not so great as might at first sight appear. The 
 design represents a building 120 cubits in height, made up of parts, for every one 
 of which an authority can be quoted, or a logical reason given ; while it furnishes 
 an answer to every question raised tending towards the solution of the problem. 
 I am far from suggesting that it is tlce answer, or the only one that can be given, 
 but as it is an answer, and in accordance with all we know of the utilitarian or 
 artistic exigencies of the building, it may, perhaps, be allowed to stand till a 
 better is suggested. 
 
 Whether such an amelioration is likely to be soon suggested or not, will 
 depend on circumstances ; first, whether any new discoveries are likely to be 
 made on the spot, which may tend to modify the views now put forward ; and, 
 secondly, whether any one with more skill is likely soon to take the amount of 
 pains requisite to investigate the problem more thoroughly. The latter con- 
 tingency may arise any day, but my impression is that we really know all that is 
 essential of the character of the Haram area. The doubtful features have less 
 hearing on the Jewish antiquities than on those of the Christian epoch, which 
 
14 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Paet I. 
 
 form the third and concluding part of this work, and are not consequently 
 referred to in this one. Such as they are, they can have very little influence on 
 our reasoning, in so far as the Temple itself at least is concerned. 
 
 On the whole, it appears to me that the problem is ripe for decision. The 
 literary materials have been sufficiently discussed, the local features examined with 
 sufficient care, and the architectural style of the age known as nearly as we shall 
 ever probably know it now. It seems, therefore, that the time has arrived when 
 the whole may be put together in a manner to challenge a decision, and if this is 
 so, it would be a cause for regret if the task were any longer delayed. With all 
 our additional knowledge, it certainly seems expedient that an attempt at least 
 should he made, to replace the wild dreams that have hitherto been prevalent 
 regarding the buildings in the Haram area, by something more substantial and 
 more in accordance with the results of recent researches. 
 
Chap. III. 
 
 JEWISH MEASURES. 
 
 15 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 JEWISH MEASURES. 
 
 Before proceeding to describe tbe plans and elevations of the various Temples of 
 the Jews, it is indispensable that we should try at least to obtain a clear under- 
 standing with regard to the length of the cubits or other measures employed by 
 the various authors on whose writings we depend for our knowledge of their 
 dimensions. Fortunately this is by no means difficult; and if restorers had only 
 taken the pains to ascertain this beforehand, most of the confusion that exists 
 on the subject might long ago have been avoided. 
 
 It is, I believe, admitted by all that the Jews employed two kinds of cubits — 
 one equal to about 15 English inches; the other, called a cubit and a hand- 
 breadth, to about 18 of our inches ; and, generally, it is understood that the smaller 
 cubit was used for measuring the vessels or metal work of the Temple, the larger 
 for the stone work or generally for the building. There was also the Babylonian 
 cubit of 21 inches, which has been supposed to have been brought back after the 
 Captivity, and to have been then employed in the erection of the Temple. 
 
 This variety of measures has unfortunately allowed a wide margin for enabling 
 restorers to adapt the statements of authors to their theories, and for reconciling 
 those that appear conflicting. The Rabbis, for instance, try to make it appear 
 that the measures of the Temple given by Josephus and those in the Talmud are 
 practically the same ; 400 Greek cubits of 18 inches, they say, are equal to 600 feet, 
 while 500 Jewish cubits of 15 inches are only 625, a difference so small that it 
 may safely be overlooked ; 1 while those who want to extend the area of the 
 Temple use the larger cubit in support of their conclusions. 2 All these discussions 
 may, however, be fairly set aside, and need not be entered on here, for the 
 simple reason that, whatever cubit may be adopted, it must be applied to all 
 buildings and all parts of the building, and not, as the Rabbis propose, only to 
 the principal measurements and not to the details. This will become quite 
 clear as we proceed, inasmuch as all our authorities — the Bible, the Talmud, 
 and Josephus — when speaking of the same place, always use the same measure- 
 ments where it is a place or thing tbe dimensions of which were sacred 
 and known. The only exception to this is where Josephus, with his tendency 
 
 1 Constantine l’Empereur, Middoth, p. 36. 
 
 1 Captain Warren not only uses the large cubit, but 
 assumes that, when Josephus said feet — which, by the 
 way, he never did in so far as the plans are concerned — 
 
 he meant cubits ! and on these two assumptions he bases 
 his restoration of the Temple. Athenaeum, February 
 1875 ; Quarterly Reports, Palestine Exploration Fund, 
 1875, pp. 97 et seqq. 
 
16 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 to exaggerate, uses cubits when the real dimension is only the same number 
 of feet; as, for instance, in describing the altar, he says it was 50 cubits square 
 and 15 cubits high, 1 whereas, as we shall see in the sequel, it was 33 cubits or 
 49^ feet across and 10 cubits or 15 feet in height ; and he indulges in the same 
 mode of exaggeration in describing the gates and various parts of the Temple. 
 When, however, any of the authorities speak of the general dimensions of the Holy 
 House, of the Holy of Holies, the Holy Place, and, generally, of the sacred 
 measurements of the Temple, there is no variation that would lead us to suspect 
 that any other measure was employed than the cubit of 18 inches. 
 
 This will be made so clear from the annexed table of the principal dimensions 
 of all the Temples, from the Tabernacle in the Wilderness to the Temple of Herod, 
 that it hardly appears necessary to argue the question further, at present at least, 
 or till some argument is brought forward to invalidate the conclusion it inevitably 
 leads to, which has not hitherto been done. It will of course be understood that, 
 where they can be identified as describing the same parts, the figures in the first 
 column, which give the dimensions of the Tabernacle, are exactly one-half of 
 those of Solomon’s or of any other subsequent Temple. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Temple of 
 
 Temple of 
 
 Temple of 
 
 Dimensions of the Temples of the Jews. 
 
 Tabernacle 
 of Moses. 
 
 Temple of 
 Solomon. 
 
 Temple of 
 Ezekiel. 
 
 Zerubbabel 
 
 according 
 
 Herod ac- 
 cording to 
 
 Herod ac- 
 cording to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 to Bible. 
 
 Josephus. 
 
 Talmud. 
 
 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 f 
 
 Length 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 Holy of Holies . < 
 
 Width 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 Height 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 
 Length 
 
 20 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 40 
 
 Holy place . < 
 
 Width 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 Height 
 
 15 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 60 
 
 40 
 
 Porch < 
 
 Depth 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 11 
 
 Width 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 50 
 
 
 Verandah .... 
 
 Width 
 
 5 
 
 . , 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chambers .... 
 
 Width 
 
 5(?) 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 5 2 
 
 Chamber and gallery 
 
 Width 
 
 124 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 25 
 
 f Length 
 
 40 
 
 90 
 
 90 
 
 90 
 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 Total of Temple . 
 
 Width 
 
 20 
 
 45 
 
 60 
 
 60 
 
 60 
 
 70 
 
 Height 
 
 15 
 
 60 
 
 60 
 
 60 
 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 Inner courts .... 
 
 [ Length 
 Breadth 
 
 100 
 
 50 
 
 200 
 
 100 
 
 200 
 
 100 
 
 200 
 
 100 
 
 200 
 
 150 
 
 187 
 
 135 
 
 Outer courts .... 
 
 Length 
 
 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 333 
 
 400 
 
 500 
 
 | Breadth 
 
 . , 
 
 100 
 
 too 
 
 100 
 
 400 
 
 500 
 
 Sanctuary .... 
 
 | Length 
 
 
 
 3000 
 
 
 
 
 j Breadth 
 
 
 
 3000 
 
 
 
 
 Note — The figures printed in italics are obtained by calculation or from other authorities. 
 
 Though this table is sufficient to show that all the authorities, when speaking 
 of the same thing, used the same cubit, it does not tell us what the exact length of 
 that cubit was. This, however, we are fortunately able to obtain by a reference 
 to the Ordnance Survey, and though the answer may not be so absolutely correct 
 
 1 B. J. v. 6. 
 
 2 This refers only to the lower storey. 
 
Chap. III. 
 
 JEWISH MEASURES. 
 
 17 
 
 as that obtained from the measurement of the Parthenon, for instance, it is quite 
 sufficiently near for all the purposes of our present investigation. In order, 
 however, to explain how this result is to be obtained, it is necessary to anticipate 
 a little what is to follow, and to point out that one of the most prominent 
 characteristics of Jewish architecture was their love of even numbers, as indeed 
 the table just quoted is sufficient to prove, and their employment of one definite 
 integer in every part of their buildings. In the Tabernacle, for instance, 5 cubits 
 was the dimension chosen, and every measurement was a multiple of this. In the 
 Temple it was 10 cubits, and every measurement, consequently, results in some 
 multiple of this number. So much is this the case that, when any calculation or 
 protraction leads to any less terminal number than ten, we may feel sure we are 
 on a wrong path, and must try back till we obtain an even result, unless indeed 
 it happens, as we can see in some rare instances, that there is some good reason 
 why it should be otherwise. 
 
 When we come to apply to the Ordnance Survey the measurements derived 
 from the authorities, as well as those obtained by calculation from this doctrine 
 of equal integers, we arrive at some very unexpected results. When, for instance, 
 Josephus tells us that the Temple was an exact square, measuring a stadium or 
 600 G-reek feet each way, we should expect its southern face to measure 607 
 feet 6 inches English, as the difference between the English and Greek foot is 
 ascertained to be lj per cent. 1 On the Survey, however, the distance measures 
 only 585 feet English, or 390 cubits ; ten less than we were led to expect, even 
 on the assumption that the cubit was composed of 18 English instead of 18 Greek 
 inches. The distance north and south, however, measures exactly 600 English 
 feet, or 400 cubits. So, too, when we obtain from the authorities, or from 
 calculation, that the inner court of the Temple measured 200 cubits by 150, and 
 the outer courts or porticos 100, 90, 70, 60, 30, and so on, and come to protract 
 these on the Ordnance Survey, we find that a cubit of 18 inches English meets all 
 the difficulties of the case with as much accuracy as can be obtained from a plan 
 without figured dimensions. 
 
 It may, of course, be only an accidental coincidence, and if anyone likes to 
 assume that it is, he is at liberty to do so, as the mathematical proof of the fact 
 is difficult, if not impossible. I can only say that the result of my researches 
 has been to leave, on my mind, the conviction that, as in the Tabernacle every 
 dimension was set out with a reed of 5 cubits, so in the Temple every important 
 dimension w r as set out with a reed of 10 cubits, and that the reed used for the 
 latter building measured 180 English inches within so small a fraction that its 
 presence cannot be detected on the Ordnance Survey. 2 
 
 1 Penrose, Principles of Athenian Architecture, folio, 
 Murray, 1851. 
 
 2 I am afraid my friend Piazzi Smyth may seize on 
 this as a confirmation of his theory that his Pyramid 
 
 inches are identical with English inches. My impression, 
 however, is that it is, in this instance at least, a coin- 
 cidence, and nothing more. 
 
 t 
 
 D 
 
18 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE TABERNACLE. 
 
 It would be difficult in the whole range of architectural history to find a more 
 curious or complete example of Darwinian development than that exemplified in 
 the various changes the Temple of the Jews underwent when restored or rebuilt 
 at various intervals during the long period of its existence. Originally a tent, 
 possibly evolved out of a sacred tent of the Midianites, it was rebuilt by Solomon 
 with only such differences as were indispensable in changing a portable structure 
 of wood and cloth into a permanent stone building, with increased dimensions. It 
 is described by Ezekiel as practically the same building, with such additions as in 
 his vision seemed necessary to render it the perfect ideal of a Jewish temple ; and it 
 was rebuilt, by Herod, practically the same in plan, but with such further additions 
 as were indispensable to make it worthy of its more magnificent surroundings, 
 and to provide for the accommodation of the Gentiles, who had become an impor- 
 tant element in this quasi-Roman city. Yet in all these changes, the building 
 remained essentially the same. The Jews never forgot or overlooked their belief 
 that the dimensions of the Tabernacle were divinely revealed to Moses, and were 
 as essential a part of their ritual as any other of the ceremonial observances 
 ordained in the Pentateuch. It would have been sacrilege to alter what was 
 originally ordered, but it was permitted to add what would render the structure 
 more worthy of its sacred purposes, provided the sacred elements in the design 
 remained unchanged. 
 
 It is this curious unchangeableness in all essentials, combined with such 
 apparent differences in external forms, which not only makes up the great interest 
 of the building, but which alone enables us to understand its design and arrange- 
 ments. Except the descriptions of the Tabernacle, none of those of the succeeding 
 Temples are sufficiently complete to be intelligible by themselves, but when taken 
 as parts of a series, in conjunction with what preceded or followed, there is very 
 little difficulty in understanding them, and in many instances of proving the case 
 with almost mathematical precision. What, in fact, has rendered the restorations 
 of the Temple hitherto attempted so unsatisfactory is that the question has not 
 been looked at from this point of view. Restorers have taken up the Bible, 
 or the Talmud, or Josephus, and tried out of their descriptions to restore the 
 Temples of Solomon or of Herod, without much reference to what these authors 
 said about the other buildings of the series, and it is consequently not to be 
 
Chap. IV. 
 
 THE TABERNACLE. 
 
 19 
 
 wondered at if many points still remain in doubt. In like manner, it has been 
 too much the habit to consider Ezekiel’s Temple as a dream, nearly unintelli- 
 gible, and as having very little bearing on the question of the form of the other 
 Temples. It is, it must be confessed, more difficult to understand it, than the 
 description of the others, because the Temple he saw in a vision never had any 
 existence in reality, and is only a record from memory of what had existed 
 before the Captivity, embellished with such additions and improvements as he hoped 
 might be introduced, if it ever was re-erected. Notwithstanding this, a really 
 profound Hebrew scholar might, by a retranslation of the text, make more of it 
 than has hitherto been done, but to do it well, he must also be an architect. The 
 Rabbis, we may assume, were at least scholars, and were bent most anxiously not 
 only on understanding, but on utilising Ezekiel’s description ; yet, as we shall 
 see in the sequel, almost all the great mistakes they fell into arose from their 
 inability to realise the exact meaning of the prophet’s words. 
 
 If any one wishes to realise how little skill or commonsense has hitherto 
 been applied to this subject, he has only to refer to the restoration of the 
 Tabernacle which has been usually accepted for the last two centuries. It is hardly 
 worth while to enquire who first suggested it, but certainly since Augustin Calmet’s 
 time (1722) it has been seriously put forward as a scientific solution of the 
 question, and every pictorial Bible and every treatise on Jewish antiquities has 
 adopted it without question — nor does it seem to have occurred to any one to find 
 fault with it. According to this scheme, the Tabernacle was a wooden box, 30 cubits 
 long by 10 cubits wide, and 10 cubits in height, open at one end, and roofed by 
 curtains thrown across it like a pall over an open coffin. Yet such a restoration 
 seems impossible. In the first place, it does not accord with the description in 
 the Book of Exodus, but more so because it is absolutely opposed to common- 
 sense ; and, as said above, we are not justified in assuming that those who designed 
 it were fools, but it is quite evident that, if it were so constructed, it would have 
 been better without any roof at all. If any one will only try, or even think, 
 he will find that it is impossible to stretch a linen curtain across such an open 
 space of 15 feet, without it sagging in the centre, so that every drop of rain that 
 fell upon it, must fall through, and heaping rams’ skins and badger skins upon it 1 
 would only make it worse. Their weight, especially when wet, would only make 
 it sag more, and they would act as sponges to retain any drops that might other- 
 wise in a tempest be blown away or escape. 
 
 Many who have accepted this theory without thinking have probably done 
 so on the idea that no rain falls in the Desert. This, however, seems far 
 trom being the case, for though we have no observations extending through 
 the whole year, Major AVilson records, 2 during his short stay there, that rain 
 
 1 Exodus xx. 14. s Meteorological Notes in Wilson’s Account of the Survey, pp. 237 et seqq. 
 
 t 
 
20 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Pakt I. 
 
 fell at Ed Deir on four days in December, and on three days in January and two 
 days in February at Feiran. The amount was small, but one-third of an inch 
 fell in one day at Feiran. The peninsula is, however, occasionally visited by 
 violent storms called seils by the Arabs, which are accompanied by torrents 
 of rain . 1 Snow also is recorded as falling there in December, which indeed 
 we might expect from Josephus’ statement that the Tabernacle was provided 
 with a curtain in front to protect it from snow , 2 which at least shows that its 
 designers were not indifferent to the effect of weather on the structure. It is 
 difficult, of course, even to guess whether the climate was the same in the time 
 of the Exodus as now. But from the apparent greater fertility of the spot 
 then, it may be that the rainfall was greater than at present. Even now, however, 
 the rainfall is sufficient to require protection against its effects, and if the 
 Tabernacle had a roof at all, it must have been one capable of sheltering the 
 interior against its effects. 
 
 It must, however, be borne in mind that the Tabernacle was not intended 
 for use in the Desert only, but was to accompany the Israelites in all their 
 wanderings towards the Promised Land. It did so, and rested during the whole 
 period of the Judges at Shiloh, sheltering the Ark, and containing the Urim and 
 Thummim , 3 and all the sacred things of the Jews till the time of Saul ; 4 and though 
 then deprived of the Ark, it still remained the movable temple of the nation, till 
 a permanent abode was provided by Solomon . 5 In Judea the rainfall is at least 
 equal to that of the central counties in England, and, as it all falls during the 
 winter months, is far more concentrated and violent than anything known in 
 this country. Consequently, any structure that was not thoroughly water-proof 
 would have been in Judea quite unsuited for the purposes for which the 
 Tabernacle was designed, and to which it was applied for at least three hundred 
 years. 
 
 While, therefore, the flat-roofed form may at once be rejected as impossible, 
 it seems by no means difficult to suggest what was the form that was actually 
 adopted. The Tabernacle was a tent (cr/a^ij), and, like all tents, must have had 
 a ridge and sloping sides. That this was the case with the Jewish Tabernacle 
 seems evident, because, whenever this idea is fairly grasped, all difficulty disappears 
 not only in reconciling all its parts with the text of the Bible, but also with all 
 the conditions of the problem in so far as construction and the exigencies of the 
 climate are concerned . 6 
 
 1 One is most graphically described by the Rev. 
 
 F. W. Holland, in the Journal of the Royal Geographical 
 Society, vol. xxxviii. 1868. 
 
 3 Antiquities, iii. 6, 4. 
 
 3 Joshua ix. 27 ; xviii. 1. 
 
 4 1 Samuel iv. 22. 
 
 5 1 Kings iii. 15 ; 2 Chron. i. 3. 
 
 6 I believe I was the first to propose this solution, in 
 
 the article “ Temple,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, 
 in 1863 ; and as this seems to be generally admitted, 1 
 may some day get credit for it. At all events, it has now- 
 been fourteen years before the public, and no one has 
 pointed out any error in it; and it has been introduced 
 into several treatises, sometimes with acknowledgment, 
 sometimes without, but in no instance that I am aware 
 of has any attempt been made to refute it. 
 
Chap. IT. 
 
 THE TABERNACLE. 
 
 21 
 
 The descriptions of the Tabernacle in the Book of Exodus 1 and in the para- 
 phrase of it in Josephus, are so full and so clear that there never has been 
 anv difficulty in restoring the walls of the building, nor of ascertaining its 
 dimensions. It was a rectangle, 30 by 10 cubits, which was again subdivided into 
 two parts. An inner — the Holy of Holies — a cube of 10 cubits. The Holy Place 
 measured 20 by 10 cubits on plan, and with the same height of 10 cubits to the 
 top of the boards. This inner rectangle was surrounded by a verandah or 
 
 6 10 20 30 40 50 Cubits. 
 
 | ' ^ 1 I — f T""'— I T T 1 
 
 io so 3o 40 50 Go 70 75 Feet. 
 
 1.— Plan of the Tabernacle. 
 
 porch 5 cubits wide, making the whole plan 20 by 40 cubits, or 30 by 60 feet. 
 It is not easy to ascertain whether any and, if any, what parts of this verandah 
 were enclosed. Judging from the analogy of Solomon’s Temple, which was 
 surrounded by small chambers, apparently for the accommodation of the priests 
 employed in the Temple service, it may have been that this verandah was — at 
 night at least — enclosed on all three sides, and probably permanently so at the 
 west end, where two walls are mentioned in the Bible as existing in the structure. 2 
 
 Exodus xxv., xxvi. and xxxvi. 
 
 2 Exodus xxvi. 27. 
 
22 
 
 EAKLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 There is some little difficulty regarding the bars which connected the boards 
 together. 1 According to Josephus, there was only one row of bars upon the 
 sides, six bars, of 5 cubits each, screwed together at their ends, and one bar of 
 10 cubits at the west end. 2 These were placed, probably, at half the height, or 
 5 cubits from the ground. This is a singularly appropriate and easily intelligible 
 arrangement, and may have been that which was adopted, though it can only 
 be reconciled with that described in the Bible by assuming some errors or imper- 
 fection in the text as it now stands. Literally, it seems to be said there, that there 
 were four rows of jointed bars on either side, each 6 cubits long, and one row 
 in the middle, running the whole length. Considering how carefully each board 
 was provided with sockets and tenons, live rows of bars, one above another, are 
 so extremely improbable that I feel inclined to suggest that the five bars of 
 the Bible are the same as the six of Josephus — their length would be the same, 
 or 30 cubits — and that the middle bar is the ridge pole, which may be said to 
 be “the middle bar in the midst of the boards” (verse 28). I admit that this 
 theory cannot be maintained without doing considerable violence to the text as 
 it stands, especially as regards the place in which the middle bar is mentioned ; 
 but I know no other way of reconciling the two authorities ; and as nothing 
 really depends upon it, it is hardly worth while pursuing the question farther. 
 It does not in any way affect the form and arrangements of the Tabernacle 
 itself, and nothing at all analogous to these bars occurs in any of the subsequent 
 Temples. 
 
 The question, however, of the ridge pole is one of the greatest difficulties — 
 though it is only a negative one — of this restoration. If the Tabernacle was a 
 tent, it must have had a ridge pole, for it would be nearly impossible to stretch 
 a rope east and west for 40 or even for 30 cubits without its sagging in 
 the centre so as to produce a disagreeable effect; not indeed so absurd or so 
 inconvenient as if the roof were flat, as is generally assumed, but still sufficiently 
 so as to be very undesirable. There were, we are told (verse 37) five pillars in 
 front, and it is easy to conceive the centre one of these being raised to the full 
 height of 15 cubits, and even a second of the same height at the distance of 
 5 cubits behind that. In like manner, it is easy to understand that the two 
 central boards in the rear may each have been carried up to a height of 15 cubits. 
 Even supposing this done, however, we have still a ridge 30 cubits long to 
 support, and this would require at least one post, more probably two posts 
 of 15 cubits each, while of all this there is no mention either in the Bible 
 or in Josephus. 
 
 As we shall presently see, precisely the same difficulty occurs with reference 
 to the Temple. If there were pillars on its floor, they are so indistinctly 
 
 1 As all the arguments for the reconstruction of the 
 
 Tabernacle have been carefully gone into by me in 
 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii. pp. 1450, etseqq. 
 
 sub voce “ Temple,” those wanting further information 
 on the subject are referred to the article in question. 
 
 2 Ant. iii. 6, 3. 
 
Chap. IV. 
 
 THE TABERNACLE. 
 
 23 
 
 mentioned in the Bible that no one has — so far as I know — ventured to introduce 
 them. Their existence is, nevertheless, nearly, if not quite, certain. The roof 
 could not have been supported without them, any more than the ridge of the 
 Tabernacle could have been. It seems, in fact, just one of those cases where the 
 constructive necessities of the building must be considered as supplying what the 
 written authorities have omitted to mention. The writers seem to have taken for 
 granted that every one knew these supports were, and must have been, there, 
 and, as mere mechanical pieces of construction, they did not deem it necessary 
 to include them in their description of the glories of the buildings. 
 
 With that curious love of numerical similarities which characterised the 
 Jewish Temple builders in all ages, every dimension of the Tabernacle, either 
 in plan or height, was either 5 cubits or a multiple of that measure, with only 
 two exceptions. The curtain was 28, the half-curtain 14 cubits, and for a 
 very evident reason, when it is pointed out. The half-width of the Tabernacle 
 
 2. — Diagram Section of Tabernacle. 
 
 was 10 cubits; the height of its roof, as shown in the annexed diagram, was also 
 10 cubits, and the hypothenuse of the right-angled triangle formed by these two 
 dimensions was 14 cubits, nearly; thus 10 2 + 10 2 = 200, while 1 4 2 = 196 is practically 
 the same, in tent building at least. This was for the inner curtain. The outer was 
 30 cubits long, so that 1 cubit hung down as a fringe on either side; and in the 
 same manner, when all the inner curtains, which were 4 cubits wide, were joined 
 together, they made two curtains of 20 cubits each, which fitted the length of 
 the Tabernacle as exactly as the 28 cubits did the width ; but the outer curtains 
 were eleven in number, or 44 cubits together, and, when joined, were six and 
 five, or 24 and 20 cubits each, so as to break joint with the lower curtains at the 
 central junction, and to hang down 2 cubits at either end. The lengths of the 
 curtains of rams’ and badgers’ skins are not mentioned, but my impression is that 
 they only covered the two inner apartments, and measured consequently 20 cubits 
 by 14 or, it may be, 15 cubits, as the place where leakages might most be expected 
 was where the curtains rested on the top of the board. Over the verandah the 
 two curtains were amply sufficient. Besides these external curtains, there was 
 “a vail of blue, and purple and scarlet, and fine twined linen, of cunning work,” 
 
24 
 
 EAKLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 suspended on four pillars, probably 5 cubits in height, dividing the Holy Place 
 from the Holy of Holies, 1 and another of the same character hung in front, 
 forming practically the door of the tent, while it probably was protected from 
 the weather by curtains similar to those used for the roof, as shown in the 
 woodcut (No. 3), which, with what has been said above, are probably quite 
 sufficient to explain the general appearance and arrangement of this celebrated 
 portable Temple of the Jews. 
 
 The dimensions of the court in which the Tabernacle stood are fortunately 
 given in the Bible with perfect precision. It was 100 cubits east and west, by 
 50 wide in the contrary direction, and it was surrounded by a screen of fine 
 twined linen, 5 cubits high, supported on pillars 5 cubits apart. Practically it 
 was formed of two square blocks or courts in the front ; in one of which stood the 
 
 3. — View of tijf. Tabernacle. 
 
 altar of burnt-offerings, 5 cubits square, and the laver. In the inner court stood 
 the Tabernacle ; unfortunately, we are not told at what distance from the inner 
 wall. Judging by the analogy of the subsequent Temples, it may have been slightly 
 nearer the western enclosure than shown in the woodcut (No. 1). I should have 
 been inclined to place it 5 cubits farther back, but for the difficulty of obtaining 
 sufficient space for the tent ropes in the rear of the building. It seems unlikely 
 that their pins should have been outside the enclosure ; but if this were not the 
 case, the Tabernacle could not well be placed farther back than 10 cubits from 
 the wall of fine linen that enclosed the court. The front of Solomon’s Temple was 
 practically identical with the line dividing the two courts — 90 + 11 = 101 cubits. 
 
 1 There is a slight discrepancy here. If the “ taches ” 
 mentioned in the 33rd verse are those which joined the 
 curtains of the roof, they divided the whole into two 
 twenties, while this screen was 25 cubits from the 
 front and 15 cubits from the rear. Those of the upper 
 curtains might reduce the discrepancy to 17 and 23, 
 
 but the allusion to them in the form in which it now 
 stands seems to be a mistake, but one of no great 
 importance. My impression is that the taches here 
 mentioned are those which suspended the vail from the 
 cord or bar that joined the four pillars which separated 
 the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. 
 
Chap. IY. 
 
 THE TABEENACLE. 
 
 25 
 
 It may have been exactly so, as the last dimension, 11 cubits, is obtained from 
 Herod’s Temple, and may have been 10 cubits in Solomon’s ; indeed, most 
 probably was so, though we have no authority for it. In Ezekiel’s Temple the 
 whole of the Holy House was situated within the inner court of 100 cubits 
 square ; but, in neither of these instances, bad the difficulties of the tent ropes to 
 be encountered, and in this, as in most instances, aesthetic considerations may 
 have been forced to succumb to constructive necessities. 
 
 It might be an interesting, though it is to be feared an unprofitable, task to 
 attempt a complete restoration of the Tabernacle in all its details. It, however, 
 is one that can scarcely be undertaken here ; in the first place, because the 
 Tabernacle can hardly be ranked as an architectural object in itself, and, 
 secondly, because it never was erected within the Haram area, to which the 
 objects to be described in this volume are strictly limited. 
 
 The great difficulty of a restoration is that we do not know where to look for 
 any contemporary suggestion. Naturally we turn first to Egypt, from which the 
 Israelites bad so recently returned. There is nothing, however, in the architecture 
 of that country that would lead us to suppose that, in historic times, the Egyptians 
 ever erected wooden temples ; and nothing in the thousand and one pictures they 
 have left us suggests tents of any sort being employed for state or festival pur- 
 poses. In Assyria there is much that is wooden in the style of building, and 
 from the bassi rilievi found there it might he possible to design a structure some- 
 what resembling the Tabernacle of Moses. But, after all, we could never feel 
 sure that we were not following out a false analogy, as the Tabernacle may have 
 had its origin from some sacred tent of the Arabs of Midian or some neigh- 
 bouring tribe ; and, till some discovery is made that will put us in the right track, 
 it would only be perpetuating error to attempt restoration at least in elevation. 
 It is essential, however, for the purposes of this work that we should obtain 
 correct dimensions of the Tabernacle both in plan and in elevation, which it is 
 fortunately not difficult to do. Their paramount importance arises from the fact 
 that, throughout all ages, the Jews considered the dimensions of the Tabernacle as 
 divinely revealed to Moses. No such revelation was vouchsafed to Solomon. All 
 he was commanded to do was to adopt, literally, the Tabernacle as his model ; and 
 this he did, merely doubling all its dimensions in order to suit them to a permanent 
 stone building, and neither Zerubbabel nor Herod ever dared to swerve from this 
 preordained design. As a consequence from this, the chapters in the Book of 
 Exodus, describing the Tabernacle, are more important for our present purpose 
 than anything recorded in the Book of Kings or of Ezra or Ezekiel. Our 
 knowledge of the dimensions of the Tabernacle is the foundation of all we know 
 of those of subsequent Temples, and must govern all attempts to restore them, in 
 so far at least as their plans are concerned, though the difference of material 
 renders the design of the Tabernacle less important for their elevations. 
 
 • E 
 
26 
 
 EAIILY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON. 
 
 One of the most satisfactory consequences that result from the law of develop- 
 ment above alluded to is that, when we once have mastered the plan and 
 dimensions of the Tabernacle, we know those of the Temple with only two 
 necessary modifications. In order, as just mentioned, to suit it for the purpose 
 
 4. — Plan op Solomon’s Temple. 5. — Section of Solomon’s Temple, with and without Upper Room. 
 
 (Scale, 50 feet to 1 inch.) (Scale, 50 feet to 1 inch.) 
 
 of a permanent building, instead of a portable one, it was deemed necessary to 
 double all its dimensions ; and to these must he added the necessary thickness 
 of the stone walls as compared with those of canvas, which in the Tabernacle 
 are treated as of no breadth. With these necessary alterations, the Temple 
 was identical with the Tabernacle in all essential respects. Solomon himself, 
 indeed, tells us as much when he says, “ Thou hast commanded me to build a 
 temple in thy holy mount, and an altar in the city wherein thou dwellest, 
 
Chap. V. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON. 
 
 27 
 
 in remembrance of tlie holy tabernacle which thou hadst prepared from the 
 beginning.” 1 
 
 The consequence of this is that, whereas we have in the Tabernacle a Holy 
 of Holies, a cube of 10 cubits, 2 the same apartment in the Temple was a cube of 
 20 cubits. The Holy Place in the Tabernacle was 10 cubits broad by 20 cubits 
 in length. In the Temple these figures were 20 by 40 cubits, and its height 
 
 o 0 cubits, 3 which is also exactly double the whole height of the Tabernacle. 
 The porch in the Tabernacle was 5 cubits, in the Temple 10 cubits, 4 * * * and so on 
 throughout, in so far as the internal measurements are concerned ; but the totals 
 are not 40 by 80 cubits, as might at first sight be expected from this system, 
 but, in consequence of the necessary thickness of the walls in stone construction, 
 45 by 90 cubits. 
 
 The section across consequently becomes — • 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Central chambers 20 
 
 Two walls of 5 cubits each 10 
 
 Two chambers, on the lowest storey 10 
 
 Outer walls, 2b cubits each . 5 
 
 The section west and east, in like manner, is — 
 
 Outer wall on the west 
 
 Chambers 
 
 Wall of inner Temple 
 
 Holy of Holies 
 
 Wall of separation 
 
 Holy Place 
 
 Wall of Temple 
 
 Porch 
 
 Outer wall of porch 
 
 45 cubits. 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 24 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 20 
 
 1 
 
 40 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 2J 8 
 
 90 cubits. 
 
 5Ykat was the verandah in the Tabernacle became a series of small chambers 
 in three storeys in the Temple. The lowest was 5 cubits wide ; the next was 
 increased by an offset in the wall to 6 and the upper chambers to 7 cubits. ti 
 Their height is not given in the Bible, but it hardly admits of dispute that, with 
 the requisite thickness of their roofs, they make up the 20 or 21 cubits which 
 
 1 Wisdom of Solomon ix. 8. 
 
 2 1 Kings vi. 20. 
 
 3 1 Kings vi. 2. 
 
 4 1 Kings vi. 3. 
 
 The projection of 2 cubits I have given to the 
 
 towers is given wholly on architectural grounds, for 
 
 hich there is no written or direct authority, and which, if 
 
 it existed, would not be taken into account by the Jews, 
 as a sacred measurement. If any one, however, objects 
 to it as spoiling the numerical symmetry, they can be 
 retrenched. They are of no importance whatever except 
 from an architectural point of view. 
 
 6 1 Kings vi. 6. 
 
 i 
 
28 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 are necessary 1o bring up their roofs to the level of that of the Holy of Holies. 
 They could not have exceeded this, because otherwise they would have obscured 
 the “ narrow lights ” 1 that gave light to the Holy Place, and were the cause of 
 the wall of the Temple being raised there 10 cubits higher than that farther west. 
 There was, in fact, in this part of the Temple what we would call a clerestory, 
 which, it is easy to see, was indispensable, as light could not be introduced from 
 the front, as in the Tabernacle, in consequence of the existence of the enclosed 
 porch ; and the precious objects placed in this chamber could not have been seen 
 unless light was introduced in this manner. 
 
 None of those who have hitherto attempted to restore the Temple have 
 ventured to place pillars on its floor to support the roof. It is true they are not 
 directly mentioned in any of the descriptions we generally refer to, but, as just 
 pointed out, neither are the central pillars in the Tabernacle, which must have 
 been employed to support the ridge pole of that structure. No notice whatever 
 of these constructive details of the Tabernacle is to be found anywhere, and 
 it, consequently, is hardly to be wondered at, if we do not find any mention 
 of these pillars in the much less detailed account of the Temple. Their existence, 
 however, appears indispensable, in the first instance, because no cedar beams 
 that were available could be laid across an opening 20 cubits or 30 feet free 
 without sagging to an unpleasant extent, and it is most improbable that the Jews 
 could construct a truss that would get over the difficulty. Besides this, it is men- 
 tioned that Solomon made pillars of “ almug trees ” for the House of the Lord, 2 
 and further that Hezehiah cut the gold from off the pillars in the House of the 
 Lord 3 to give to the Assyrians. In addition to these arguments, it may be added 
 that it would add very materially to the architectural effect and beauty of the 
 interior if pillars were introduced, especially if of richly carved cedar wood, 
 enriched with gold and heightened with colour. If they were introduced, 
 it probably would be to divide the interior into three aisles, the centre being 
 8 cubits, the side aisles G cubits in width from centre to centre of the columns, 
 which would be a more pleasing proportion than 5 to 10, as all the aisles were 
 of the same height, and the distance between the columns, longitudinally, would 
 be the same as that in a transverse direction. 
 
 The existence of these pillars rises almost to a certainty when we come to 
 consider the furniture of the Temple as ordered by Solomon and prepared by 
 Hiram. There were ten bases and ten lavers, ten tables and ten candlesticks, five 
 for the one side of the house and five for the other, 4 plainly, as it appears, indicating 
 five double spaces, each of which was supplied by one of these articles ; otherwise 
 the arrangement seems unmeaning. The great golden candlestick, the table of 
 shewbread, with the altar of incense, probable stood in the central aisle. The 
 
 1 1 Kings vi. 4. 2 1 Kings x. 12. 3 2 Kings xviii. 6. 
 
 4 1 Kings vii. 23 et seqq. ; 2 Cliron. iv. 2 and 8. 
 
Chap. Y. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON. 
 
 29 
 
 great molten sea, supported by twelve oxen, certainly stood outside in the open 
 court of the Temple. 1 The existence, consequently, of the pillars in the interior 
 supplies exactly the division that was wanted for the arrangement of the 
 furniture, and gives not only meaning, but adds beauty, to the interior to such an 
 extent that their existence hardly seems doubtful, though it may be difficult to 
 adduce any direct authority for placing them there. 
 
 Whatever may be determined as regards the eight pillars consequently 
 introduced into the Holy Place, and the four that are shown in the Holy of Holies, 
 it is quite clear that the constructive necessities of the building imperatively 
 demand the existence of two pillars in the division between these two places. 
 More than this, if there was no upper chamber in Solomon’s Temple, these must 
 have been in stone, as they had to support a stone wall 30 feet in length by 
 15 feet in height, for which no wooden pillars would have sufficient strength. If 
 there was an upper chamber, this attic may have been in w r ood, as it probably 
 was in Herod’s Temple, but even then such a mass without any apparent 
 support would have been an architectural solecism altogether intolerable. Their 
 existence consequently appears to me as certain a fact as that of the two tall 
 pillars in the Tabernacle to support the ridge, though there is not a hint of this 
 in any work we have access to. 
 
 In the section, pillars are introduced, adapted from the order found at 
 Persepolis, not only because it seems that best suited to the purpose so far as we 
 know, but also because I believe these Persepolitan pillars are merely copies of 
 those employed at Nineveh in nearly contemporary examples, 2 and therefore 
 probably more closely resembled these than any we can find elsewhere. A trans- 
 verse beam has also been introduced at two-thirds of their height, in the first place, 
 because such tall wooden pillars 45 feet in height could hardly stand without 
 some such lateral tie, but also because it repeats in a pleasing manner, archi- 
 tecturally, the beam or entablature which supported the attic at the separation 
 between the two apartments. Both constructively and artistically, it appears 
 indispensable, though, like many of the minor details of the building, its 
 existence is hardly capable of proof. 
 
 So far, therefore, as the body of the house is concerned, there seems very little 
 margin for doubt or for discrepancy of opinion ; but when we turn to the porch, its 
 peculiarities are not so easily disposed of. Its width was internally 10 cubits east 
 and west, by 20 cubits, “ according to the breadth of the house ” 3 and the thickness 
 of the walls, whether divided as I have done or in any other manner, were certainly 
 such as, when taken together, made up the 90 cubits required for the whole length. 
 
 Neither the height nor the external width is given in the Book of Kings, 
 and in the Chronicles the latter dimension is given as 120 cubits, 4 which seems 
 
 1 2 Chron. iv. 10. 2 Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Ptestored, pp. 271 et neqq. 
 
 3 1 Kings vi. 3. 1 2 Chron. iii. 4. 
 
 I 
 
30 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 undoubtedly to be an exaggeration by duplication, though it is also that given by 
 Josephus. 1 But Josephus so evidently exaggerates all the dimensions of Solomon’s 
 Temple — like the Book of Chronicles, by doubling them — and so frequently 
 confounds what he knew of Herod’s Temple with what he believed of Solomon’s, 
 that no reliance can be placed on his statements in this respect. In fact, the only 
 trustworthy evidence we have on this subject is to be found in the Books of Ezra 
 and Esdras, where it is stated — inferentially only, it must be confessed — that its 
 dimensions were 60 cubits wide by 60 in height. These certainly were the 
 dimensions inscribed in a rescript by Cyrus, which the Jews seem to have 
 brought with them on their return from the Captivity ; and it is most improbable, 
 when permission was given them to rebuild their Temple, and its measurements 
 were detailed in the edict, that these should be any other than those which 
 the Assyrians had noted when they took Jerusalem, and which were found in 
 the record chamber at Babjdon or Ecbatana, under the circumstances detailed 
 in the narrative. 2 It may be impossible to prove it mathematically, but every- 
 thing tends to show that the edict of Cyrus was based on documents he found 
 in the record office, and that these did describe the Temple which had existed 
 in Jerusalem down to the Captivity. It is, besides, an extremely probable 
 dimension. In Herod’s time the Jews accomplished what to them was the 
 triumph of architectural skill when they constructed a Temple which was 100 
 cubits long, 100 cubits high, and 100 cubits broad, and still was not a cube. 
 Here they attempted the same feat with the dimension of 60 cubits, and accom- 
 plished it, except that one of these dimensions was internal in the older Temple, 
 while they were all external in the more modern one. 
 
 At the same time, if we turn back to the section of the Temple as represented 
 in woodcut No. 5, it is evident that, if there was an upper room to Solomon’s 
 temple — the existence of which I dare not doubt — it is evident that the height of 
 the body of the house could not have been much less than 60 cubits. By making 
 the roof quite flat, or the upper room a little lower, a cubit or two might have 
 been cut off, but practically 60 cubits were so nearly needed that there seems 
 little doubt this was the dimension attained for the body of the house. But even 
 if we admit this, and I cannot see how it could be otherwise, it may still be asked 
 what was the use of this lateral extension of the fa9ade. The first answer is, for 
 architectural effect. A facade 45 cubits wide, and 120 cubits high, would in 
 ancient times have been considered an impossible monstrosity. One 60 cubits 
 high, with that width, would be better, but still unbearable, while a square 
 of 60 cubits each way might be managed easily with good effect. Another 
 answer is that it was wanted to provide staircases to the upper apartments. 
 If the stairs were only to accommodate the occupants of the three rows of 
 little chambers, a much less magnificent arrangement would have sufficed, but 
 
 1 Ant. viii, 3, 1. 
 
 2 Ezra vi. 1 et seqq. ; 1 Esdras vi. 22 et seqq. 
 
Chap. V. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON. 
 
 31 
 
 if there were “ upper rooms ” over the main body of the Temple, the case is 
 different. It certainly is said in the Bible that Solomon overlaid the upper 
 chambers with gold, 1 and this cannot be considered as applying to the little 
 cells round the house, but must have reference to chambers either in the pro- 
 pylon or over the house itself; perhaps in both. As we shall see in the sequel, 
 there were almost certainly upper chambers extending over the length and 
 breadth of Herod’s Temple, and therefore most probably over this one. Josephus 
 is quite distinct on this subject, and if we could trust implicitly anything he says 
 regarding Solomon’s Temple, we should not need to argue the question any further. 
 “ The king,” he says, “ had contrived an ascent to the upper room ” (vnepatov oTkov,) 
 “ of the Temple constructed in the thickness of the wall, for it had no large door at 
 the east end, as the lower house, but was entered on each side by small doors.” 2 
 If this was so, and I can hardly see how it can be disputed, the whole becomes 
 easily intelligible. As, however, the walls in the upper part of the Temple were 
 certainly not more than 2 or 3 cubits thick, the idea of a stair in them is, of 
 course, absurd, though it is thus that the Talmud also understands it. 3 The 
 extended faqade was wanted for these stairs, and also to stop the building in the 
 rear, which, if it had a triangular roof, may have reached a height of 60 cubits, 
 as shown in the section ; even without that, this could have been effected by 
 raising the height of the upper room internally by a very few cubits. To all 
 these points we shall have to return when describing Herod’s Temple, which was 
 only an enlarged copy of Solomon’s ; when all this will become clearer. It is 
 only necessary to allude to it here, and judgment may for the present be left in 
 suspense, but, according to the law of development, anything that existed in 
 one stone temple ought to be found in all the others, and as the upper room 
 almost certainly existed in the last, it ought also to be found in the first. 
 
 Before leaving this branch of the subject, it may be as well to point out 
 that, if the dimensions of Solomon’s Temple were as just described, they were 
 much more pleasing architecturally than those adopted when it was rebuilt 
 by Herod. A building 100 cubits wide, 100 cubits high, and only 100 cubits 
 long, is necessarily stumpy, and deficient in poetry of proportion. One 60 by 
 60 cubits, and 90 cubits in length, is far more pleasing in proportion, and 
 may have been a more beautiful, though a less magnificent, building ; so much 
 so, indeed, that this proportion would probably have been adopted in Herod's 
 time, were it not that there was no room for extension westward, from the 
 nature of the cliff on which it stood, and also that there was no excuse for 
 extending the internal sacred dimensions, which were adhered to throughout. 
 
 The little chambers that surrounded the Temple, on three sides at least, 
 have long been a stumbling-block to restorers. Nothing like them is known 
 to have existed anywhere except in the Birs Nimroud, 4 and there the analogy 
 
 1 2 Ckron. iii. 9. 2 Aut. viii. 3, 2. 3 Middoth iv. .5. 
 
 See my History of Architecture, last edition, vol. i. p. 153, woodcut 48. 
 
 i 
 
32 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 is far from perfect ; and neither their use nor their number is anywhere specified 
 with sufficient exactness to obviate difficulties. G-enerally it is assumed 
 they were ninety in number, ranged in three storeys of thirty each, but on 
 very insufficient authority, as it appears to me. Their number is not given 
 either in the Books of Kings or Chronicles ; and in Ezekiel it is merely said 
 that they were in three storeys and thirty in order 1 (query altogether), and 
 they are called side chambers, as if they did not exist at either end. They 
 certainly did not on the east. In fact,, the only really distinct description we 
 have of them is in the Talmud, which specifies, in apparent accordance with 
 Ezekiel, fifteen only on each side, and eight at the west end, making thirty- 
 eight in all. 2 
 
 Josephus’ account, which is that which has been generally followed, is far from 
 being distinct. He first states that the chambers were thirty in number, 3 and then 
 gives their measurements — 5 cubits in breadth, as many in length, but 20 cubits 
 in height. 4 The last dimension is undoubtedly that of the three storeys together ; 
 and if erroneous, so may the second one be, which is that which involves the 
 necessity for the ninety. In the description of the Temple in the ‘ Wars of the 
 Jews ’ he merely says there were a great many of them, and repeats his error that 
 they were each 20 cubits high, making altogether GO cubits. 5 Everything, 
 however, that Josephus says about Solomon’s Temple is so unsatisfactory that we 
 must fall back on the account in the Talmud, which is the only one that is 
 consistent with commonsense. A series of ninety little rooms, 5 or 6 cubits square 
 — 7^ or 9 feet — and about the same in height, and each having a thoroughfare, 
 is an arrangement that would not be tolerated in our meanest prisons, and as 
 residences for priests it would be impossible. If, however, they were 12 or 15 
 cubits in length, the case would be different ; and this seems to be the least 
 dimension that is admissible. Even then the gallery or verandah that was 
 introduced in subsequent Temples would have been required to render them 
 fit for their purposes. In Solomon’s time the architects seem to have been 
 more bent on copying literally the forms of the Tabernacle than on adapting 
 the new building to the uses to which, under the altered circumstances of the 
 case, it was to be applied. On the whole, my impression is that it is much 
 more probable that there were only thirty chambers — three storeys of five each 
 on each side of the Temple, and eight behind — than that there were ninety 
 little cells, which were utterly unfit for human habitations, or for any other 
 purpose to which we can fancy they may have been appropriated. 
 
 To all these points we shall have occasion to recur again in describing 
 Herod’s Temple, and will then be in a position to understand their bearing better 
 than we can at the present stage of the enquiry. It may consequently be 
 expedient not to dwell longer on them at present, but to pass on to other more 
 immediate considerations. 
 
 1 Ezekiel xli. 6. 
 
 2 Middoth iv. 3, 
 
 3 Ant. viii. 3, 2. 
 
 4 Ant. viii. 3, 2. 
 
 5 B. J. v. 5, 5. 
 
Chap. Y. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON. 
 
 33 
 
 It would be extremely interesting if, in addition to these facts regarding the 
 dimensions and outline of this celebrated building, anything could be adduced that 
 would convey an idea of the external appearance of the building or of the style 
 of ornamentation adopted in carrying it out. I am afraid, however, that no 
 materials exist for this at present. Looking at the plan and general arrangements, 
 the first impulse is of course to turn to Egypt. Its plan with a great propylon at 
 first sight does resemble the usual form of Egyptian temples ; and as Solomon had 
 married one of the daughters of the Pharaoh of that day, any apparent improba- 
 bility that it was so is removed. It appears, however, that the architects of the 
 Temple were thinking very much more of the Tabernacle, which was certainly 
 not of Egyptian origin, than of anything on the banks of the Nile when they 
 made their design ; and the propylon may really have been only a utilitarian 
 development, which was necessary if things were as above represented. If 
 affinities really governed the design, I should be inclined to look for them more 
 in the valley of the Euphrates, or among the neighbouring Semitic peoples 
 who inhabited Tyre and Sidon, and probably some parts of Arabia. But of the 
 architecture of these nations, we know absolutely nothing, while no Assyrian 
 temple has yet been brought to light so nearly of Solomon’s age as to afford us 
 any hint for our guidance. When we have completed what we have to say 
 with regard to Herod’s Temple, it may be worth while to revert to the subject. 
 At present there is nothing known that bears directly on the design, and 
 whatever, consequently, is said must mainly be based on conjectures which can 
 hardly be verified. 
 
 In like manner, it may be as well to postpone any attempt to unravel the 
 mysteries connected with the pillars Jachin and Boaz till we have described the 
 toran or screen, which occupied the same place in Herod’s Temple which they 
 did in Solomon’s. It may suffice to state here, that my conviction is, that 
 they were not two bronze obelisks, as is generally supposed, but two pillars 
 supporting a screen such as exists in many temples in the East at the present 
 day, and which, so far as we know, may have been in use in Solomon’s 
 time. 
 
 No such obelisks in metal are known to have existed in front of any temple, 
 at any time, or in any part of the world ; and unless some hints can be obtained 
 from cognate examples, it seems hopeless to attempt to restore such objects from 
 mere verbal descriptions, especially if these descriptions are in a language of the 
 architectural nomenclature of which we know so little as we do of Hebrew. If 
 some very learned scholar would take the trouble of tracing back all the terms to 
 their roots, and comparing them with one another, something might be done. 
 The authors of the Septuagint, however, could not do it, and, instead of giving 
 us the corresponding words in Greek, left many of the Hebrew architectural 
 terms untranslated, and in the original language ; and what they could not do 
 when both were living languages would certainly be very difficult now, though 
 
34 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 probably not beyond the reach of the acumen of modern scholarship. It has 
 not, however, so far as I know, been yet attempted. 1 
 
 It need hardly be added that no analogies drawn from granite or stone 
 objects of the same age are of any use in attempting to solve the problem. 
 Solomon’s pillars were in metal, and their forms must have been such as were 
 appropriate to that material, and to that only, and consequently something very 
 unlike either Egyptian obelisks or Grecian or even Persepolitan pillars ; something, 
 in fact, quite of a different class, and of which no examples remain to our day. 
 
 One of the great advantages, however, of the system we are pursuing is that 
 it can be worked backwards as well as forwards. Whatever we find in Solomon’s 
 Temple, we are sure to find both in Ezekiel’s and in Herod’s, modified probably to 
 some extent, but still essentially the same. In like manner, when we find any 
 features in Herod’s Temple which we can understand, but which may have been 
 unintelligible in the earlier Temples, we may feel sure that its form and use will 
 throw light on all that preceded it, and may possibly clear up what was otherwise 
 inexplicable. When, consequently, we have described the vine-bearing screen in 
 Herod’s Temple, we hope to be able to throw a reflex light on even this most 
 puzzling problem, but must, for the causes just assigned, leave the consideration 
 of it for the present. 
 
 Courts of Solomons Temple. 
 
 Plate I. 
 
 From what has been said above, it seems nearly certain that the secret of 
 the dimensions of the Temple is to be obtained quite as much from those of the 
 Tabernacle by a system of duplication as from direct assertion ; and that this was 
 known to be so in ancient times seems evident from the fact that the writers of the 
 Book of Chronicles carried the system a step farther, by duplicating the heights 
 of the building and of the pillars, and making the one 120 instead of 60 cubits, 
 and the other 35 2 instead of 18 cubits. Be this as it may, by following out the 
 same system, we arrive at the conviction — abundantly confirmed by subsequent 
 experience — that the court in which the Temple and altar stood measured 
 200 cubits east and west, by 100 cubits north and south, or just double those of 
 the Tabernacle. At the same time, as the positions of the centre of the altar and 
 that of the Holy of Holies were never probably altered one inch, we have no 
 difficulty in allocating these two cardinal points in Solomon’s Temple from our 
 knowledge of their positions in Herod’s, which, as will be hereafter shown, can 
 
 1 Mr. Aldis Wright, of Trinity College, Cambridge, 
 is, 1 believe, engaged in compiling a vocabulary of the 
 Hebrew architectural terms fouud in the Old Testa- 
 ment. From his literary acumen and scholarship his 
 work may be expected to throw considerable light on 
 the subject. I am afraid, however, that it will not 
 appear in time to be of any use for this work. 
 
 2 2 Chron. iii. 15. I do not myself believe that this 
 35 cubits is a duplication, or applies only to the pillars, 
 though it certainly seems to be so stated in the Book 
 of Chronicles ; in the first place, because it is not 
 exactly twice 18 or 36 cubits. Besides, I hope to be 
 able to show, farther on, that 35 cubits really was the 
 true height of the whole screen. 
 
Chap. V. 
 
 COURTS OF SOLOMON’S TEMPLE. 
 
 be fixed with almost absolute certainty. Their centres were apparently 116 
 or 117 cubits apart, so that, whenever we can fix the position of one of these, 
 that of the other follows as a matter of course. 
 
 As will be explained more fully hereafter, there seems no reason for 
 doubting that the Double Grateway, usually called that of Huldah, was 
 identical with the Water Grate of the Temple, which led direct to the Altar. 1 
 Its centre line, consequently, fixed the centre of the Altar east and west ; 
 and as we have data for determining its position north and south with 
 almost equal precision, we have a fixed point from which to start in our 
 survey of the Temple as it was, either in Solomon’s or in Herod’s time. 
 Even without this, however, it might be possible to ascertain this, at least 
 approximately, from local indications if we knew the form of the ground 
 in David’s time, before he purchased the threshing-floor of Araunah. This, 
 however, it is difficult to do at the present day, owiug to the whole surface 
 of the Haram area being levelled and paved, so that, without excavation, the 
 form of the rock or of the original surface cannot be ascertained. The 
 contour plan on next page, by Captain Warren, will, however, give an idea of the 
 situation. 2 About halfway between the city of Jerusalem and the Mount of 
 Olives, a tongue of land stretches towards the south. Its ridge slopes gradually 
 to the east and west, as well as to the south, and on the north it rises at 
 the rate of about 1 foot in 10 feet to the Sakhra, or sacred rock, which 
 partially shelters it on the north. This being so, there is not in the neighbour- 
 hood of Jerusalem any spot so singularly appropriate for a threshing-floor as 
 that I have marked by a shaded circle in the southern bend of the contour 2410 
 (woodcut No. 6). North of the sacred rock, it would have been in a hollow, and 
 on the rock itself — where some have placed it — it was impossible. No one who 
 has been in the East, and knows what a threshing-floor is, would dream of placing 
 it on a rugged peak, where oxen could not tread out the corn, and where there is 
 no flat surface for winnowing or sorting the grain. On the other hand, every 
 requisite of a threshing-floor is found in perfection in the situation just pointed 
 out. More than this, assuming a threshing-floor to have been there, it is the one 
 spot about all Jerusalem most suited for the conception of an angel standing with 
 a drawn sword to stay the plague, and where, if an altar was placed, it could be 
 better seen than it could be in any other locality. It was looked down upon 
 from the city on the one hand, and from the Mount of Olives on the other, and 
 looked up to from the valleys of Kidron and the Tyropseon, and from beyond 
 their junction at En Rogel. If there is another site, either in the neighbourhood 
 of Jerusalem or elsewhere, commanding such advantages, I do not know it, and 
 all that is poetic in the topography of Jerusalem has resulted from the prophetic 
 glance with which David saw its unrivalled advantages and used them. 
 
 Prospect of the Temple, by Dr. Lightfoot, p. 350. 2 Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 298. 
 
 i 
 
3G 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 If, therefore, we knew exactly where the ridge of the hill was, we might 
 almost with certainty say where the Altar stood. But it certainly was not where 
 Captain Warren puts it. In his own woodcut plan, 1 which is a reduction of the 
 Ordnance Survey, the rock rises to the surface between the contours 2419, 2429, 
 while his 2410 in the annexed plan passes at least 10 feet below it, and the 
 same mistake occurs where the rock rises to the surface near the Golden Gateway. 
 
 6.— Imaginary Contours op the Haram Area. (By Captain Warren.) 
 
 The fact seems to be — and Major Wilson agrees with me in this — that the brow is 
 very much broader than Captain Warren makes it, and the contours towards 
 the west are very much steeper than those shown in the last woodcut. Major 
 Wilson’s idea is that the plateau terminated in something like a cliff towards 
 the west, and consequently that the boundary wall of the Temple originally stood 
 nearly on the edge of a precipice. 2 Till the ground is examined by excavation, 
 
 1 Recovery of Jerusalem, facing page 8. 
 
 2 In his usual facetious manner, Captain Warren 
 represents me as placing the Temple and Altar in a hole 
 (Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 315); the fact being, how- 
 ever, that, according to his own contours, it is on a ridge, 
 and at so high a level that, according to my restoration, 
 
 the floor of the Temple would be several cubits above 
 the summit of the Sakhra. Where he places it, the 
 Sakhra would be buried so deep in a mass of masonry 
 that it would be utterly obliterated and be neither 
 ornamental nor useful to anybody. 
 
Chap. Y. 
 
 COURTS OF SOLOMON’S TEMPLE. 
 
 37 
 
 this must of course be, in a great measure, speculative ; but from all we now 
 know, the centre of the southern bend of Warren’s contour 4310 (4320 it 
 ought to be) is much more likely to be on the spot marked with a square 
 in woodcut No. 6 than in the centre of the circle. The square is about 100 feet 
 farther west, though at the same distance from the southern wall, in the 
 exact centre of the Huldah Gateway, which is the spot where, from the remains 
 of Herod’s Temple, we know with certainty that the Altar stood. When the 
 contours are adjusted as just pointed out, it is beyond all dispute the one spot 
 in the vicinity of Jerusalem that seems most likely to have been selected by 
 David, bearing in mind that it was intended subsequently to erect the Temple to 
 the westward of the spot first chosen for the Altar. 
 
 The arrangement of the buildings and other objects in the courts of 
 the Temple will be easily understood from the plan, Plate I. The Temple 
 itself practically occupied the whole of the western half of the great or inner 
 court; its front, exclusive of the projections, being probably exactly 100 cubits 
 from the face of the western wall. In the centre of the eastern half of this 
 court stood the Altar, which in Solomon’s time was 20 cubits square. 1 Between 
 the Altar and the steps leading up to the porch of the Temple was a space 
 of 30 cubits, in the centre of which stood the laver, or, as it is now called, 
 the “brazen sea,” which was 10 cubits in diameter, and supported on twelve 
 oxen. A similar space existed to the eastward of the Altar, in the centre of 
 which stood the dukan, or place of blessing — a brazen stage 5 cubits square and 
 3 cubits high. 2 It was from this stage that Solomon pronounced the blessing 
 on his people, 3 and by which Joash was placed when Athaliah interfered. 4 
 There were not, apparently, any sacred objects in the outer court ; and the 
 disposition of its chambers and porticos will be better understood when we 
 come to investigate the Temple as described by Ezekiel. 
 
 The only point that remains doubtful in the plan of these two courts 
 arises from the difficulty of ascertaining whether there was a wall of separation 
 between them, and, if so, what was its thickness. As will be seen more clearly 
 when we come to examine the plan of Herod’s Temple, the position of the 
 Altar can be fixed with almost absolute certainty in the centre of the Huldah 
 Gateway ; so can the outer face of the eastern wall of the Temple. The 
 distance between these two points on the Ordnance Survey is 155 or 156 cubits. 
 The internal distance, according to our authorities, was 150 cubits ; we have, 
 consequently, 5 or 6 cubits to spare, which we may appropriate to one outer 
 wall, or divide it into two, f 2 or 3 cubits each, or, in fact, deal with this 
 dimension as we please. The matter is not very important; but the result 
 I have arrived at is, that, as the level of the inner court was 10 or 12 feet 
 
 1 2 Chron. iv. 1. 2 2 Chron. vi. 13. 3 2 Chron. vi. 13. 4 2 Kings xi. 14. 
 
38 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 (14 steps) above that of the outer, that this was a sufficient separation, and, with 
 a parapet of 2 or 3 feet high, a more than sufficient protection, for the Temple 
 was not then a fortress, 1 as it became afterwards. There probably was also an 
 open screen of columns with an ornamental gateway at the head of the flight 
 of steps, but on the whole, most probably, not a solid wall of separation. 
 
 If these views are correct, it follows inevitably, from the data afforded by 
 the Ordnance Survey, that this outer court was exactly 100 cubits square 
 internally. In the Book of Kings it is called the “ new court,” not apparently 
 because it was of a different age from the other, but because it was a novelty, 
 an innovation, in fact, in the ordinance of the Tabernacle. It was, how- 
 ever, almost certainly built by Solomon, and on its eastern side there was a 
 portico or porch, which bore his name down to the time of the destruction 
 of the Temple itself by Titus. 2 In Solomon’s time this court certainly was the 
 principal entrance to the Temple, from the palace at least. It must consequently 
 have been on this side that there was the ascent to the Temple that so astonished 
 the Queen of Sheba, and at the top of the flight of stairs there may have 
 been an outer gateway of proportionate magnificence. 
 
 We are nowhere told whether this outer court was more or less sacred than 
 the inner one, but, judging from the arrangements of the subsequent Temples, 
 it may have been that women and strangers were not admitted to the inner 
 court, but only to this one. On the whole, however, my impression is that 
 this exclusiveness belongs to a later date than Solomon’s time, and that the 
 men of Israel had at least access to that part of the inner court in which the 
 Altar stood, but that a division was made across the inner court parallel to 
 the fa£ade of the Temple, and that all the space beyond that was the “ separate 
 place ” 3 reserved for the priesthood only. 
 
 Unfortunately we have very little to guide us in trying to form an idea of 
 the architectural arrangements of these courts. Josephus tells us nothing ; and 
 all that the Book of Kings says on the subject is that he (Solomon) built the 
 inner court with “ three rows of hewn stones and a row of cedar beams,” 4 and in 
 the following chapter the same expression is used and applied to the great court 
 of the palace, which is there coupled with the inner court of the Temple. This is 
 no doubt interesting, as proving that, as there was an inner, there must have been 
 an outer court, and leading also to the inference, as they are mentioned in the 
 same breath, that the court of the palace was not only similar to that of the 
 Temple, but also in all probability in juxtaposition to it. The difficulty, however, 
 remains how to translate the expression. It certainly was not, as some have 
 suggested, three courses of hewn stones and a course of timber laid like a wall- 
 
 1 Josephus, B. J. v. 5, 1. 
 
 3 Ezekiel xli. 12-14 ; xlii. 1, 10, 13. 
 
 2 Josephus, Ant. xx. 9, 7. 
 4 1 Kings vi. 36. 
 
Chap. Y. 
 
 COUETS OF SOLOMON’S TEMPLE. 
 
 39 
 
 plate. Such a mode of building a wall is not known anywhere or at any time, 
 and in a plain wall the number of courses is hardly of sufficient importance, 
 unless their height was mentioned, to be recorded with such minuteness. The 
 same expression occurs in Ezra 1 and Esdras , 2 as one of the important peculiarities 
 of the Temple which were recorded in the archives of the treasure chamber 
 at Ecbatana. The only explanation that occurs to me is that in this instance 
 it means a porch supported by three rows of pillars, thus : — 
 
 This is the more probable as we know that three sides of the outer court of 
 Herod’s Temple were surrounded by double-aisled cloisters arranged in this 
 manner, though on a larger scale, and with pillars of the Corinthian order of 
 his day. If this were so, it is probable that between the two courts the 
 colonnade was open, as represented on the plan. On the other sides the inner 
 row probably was interwoven with the outer wall like that of the great Stoa 
 Basilica of Herod's Temple. 
 
 1 1 Ezra vi. 4. 
 
 2 1 Esdras vi. 25. 
 
40 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 SOLOMON’S PALACE. 
 
 Plate I. 
 
 It may at first sight appear to be interrupting unnecessarily what we have to 
 say of the successive Temples at Jerusalem to interpolate here a description 
 of a palace. If, indeed, Solomon’s palace had been situated where that of the 
 Asamonean kings stood, in which Herod, and after him, King Agrippa, resided, 
 this would be true, as that was placed above the Xystus in the city to the westward 
 of the Temple, and wholly disconnected with it . 1 Recent researches, however, 
 have gone so far to prove that the palace was situated in the south-east angle of 
 the Haram area that this fact seems no longer doubtful. If this is so, it is 
 evident that the Temple and the palace formed so essentially parts of one group 
 of buildings that it will be much more convenient to treat them together than 
 separately ; and if we can acquire a correct idea of their forms, it will make what 
 follows much clearer than it could be without first investigating them together . 2 
 
 The fact that the Temple and palace were in immediate proximity to 
 one another might have been inferred from a passage in Ezekiel, had attention 
 been directed towards it : “ And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my 
 throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the 
 children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more 
 defile, neither they nor their kings. ... In their setting of their threshold by my 
 thresholds, and their post by my posts, and the wall between me and them, they 
 have even defiled my holy name.” 3 A passage which seems to contain not only a 
 distinct intimation of the contiguity of the two buildings, but a prohibition to 
 rebuild the palace on the same site ; an injunction which seems at a future period 
 to have been literally attended to. Besides this, however, there are some passages 
 in the Book of Nehemiah 4 which are quite unintelligible except on the assump- 
 tion that the two buildings were literally parts of one design. 
 
 1 Jos. Ant. xv. 11, 5 ; xvii. 10, 2 ; xx. 8, 11 ; &c. 
 
 2 When I wrote the article “ Palace,” in Smith’s 
 
 Dictionary of the Bible, I was under the impression that 
 
 Solomon’s palace was in the city, and arranged the 
 diagram that accompanied that article to suit that 
 locality. The dimensions, in so far as they are not 
 given in the Bible, were estimated from our knowledge 
 of the nearly contemporary palaces of Nineveh and 
 
 Khorsabad ; it is consequently satisfactory to find that, 
 though the locality was wrong, the dimensions re- 
 arranged exactly fit the new site that has since been 
 discovered to be the true one in the south-east angle 
 of the Haram area. 
 
 3 Ezekiel xliii. 7, 8. 
 
 4 Nehemiah iii. 21-28. 
 
Chap. VI. 
 
 SOLOMON’S PALACE. 
 
 41 
 
 The material proof that this was so, and that the south-east angle of the 
 Haram area was one of the angles of Solomon’s palace, rests mainly on the result 
 of the excavations carried on with so much skill and energy by Captain Warren 
 on its exterior face in 1868-9. Before these were undertaken, this angle was, it 
 is true, one of the grandest architectural objects about Jerusalem ; standing, as it 
 does, on the edge of a steep slope, with a rise of between 50 and 60 feet above 
 the surface, and composed of stones of the largest kind, put together with a grand 
 and striking disregard of regularity. Still, there was nothing in its appearance 
 that was not more than justified by the expressions used by Procopius in 
 describing the buildings of Justinian, which certainly stood in this angle, 1 or 
 those which Josephus used in reference to the fortifications of Agrippa, which, 
 as certainly, enclosed, on the east, some parts of the Haram area that before lay 
 bare. 2 But when it was discovered that the foundation stood on the rock at 80 
 feet below the surface of the ground, neither of these theories could be sustained. 
 Justinian would have found some means ot contracting the dimensions of his 
 Mary Church, or of placing it farther north, rather than incur the expense 
 involved in such a gigantic foundation, and Agrippa would, naturally, have 
 followed the rock contour from the Triple Gateway to the Golden Gate, and 
 could have had no object in projecting this angle to where we now find it. 
 
 Herod certainly built nothing in this angle, and we are thus reduced by a 
 process of exhaustion to Solomon as the only historical person we know of who was 
 at all likely to undertake such a work as this. When once it is suggested that this 
 angle really is the “ great tower that lieth out, even unto the wall of Opliel,” 3 the 
 whole thing becomes so clear, and everything fits so exactly into its place, that we 
 feel at once that we have a new and fixed starting-point for the topography of 
 Jerusalem. 4 It is not easy to determine how far the masons’ marks found on the 
 lower courses of the wall and the so-called Phoenician pottery found in front of it 
 may be used for fixing the date of these foundations. Their age seems to have 
 been arrived at from very slender data, and if the date of the masonry depended 
 on them alone, it might still be open to dispute. Fortunately, their evidence 
 may almost be dispensed with. The historical and local evidence, combined with 
 the character of the masonry, seems quite sufficient to settle the j3oint. At the 
 same time it is satisfactory to find that there is nothing either in the inscriptions 
 or the pottery that at all tends to invalidate this conclusion. On the contrary, 
 
 1 De Eaificiis Just. v. 6. 
 
 2 B. J. v. 4, 2. 
 
 3 Xehemiah iii. 27. 
 
 * To Captain W arren belongs not only the credit of 
 making the discovery, but also that of suggesting that 
 this angle of the Haram was an angle of Solomon’s 
 palace ; so that, if he had only adopted a reasonable 
 view of the site of Herod’s Temple, he might have 
 had he credit of settling one of the most important 
 
 points in the ancient topography of Jerusalem. The 
 perversity with which, however, he adopted erroneous 
 views on the subject of the Temple, and the vehe- 
 mence with which he adheres to them, has prevented 
 his seeing the true value of his own discoveries, and he 
 has there lost such an opportunity as is not likely soon 
 to recur agaiu of acquiring a distinguished position, 
 among the writers on Jerusalem topography. 
 
42 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part 1. 
 
 their evidence, in so far as it goes, is a contribution towards the proof that the 
 lower part of the masonry of this wall really is the work of Solomon. If it is 
 so, it is all the more interesting, as it is the only fragment of his workmanship 
 that has yet been discovered in an unaltered state in or about Jerusalem. Some 
 parts of the western wall of the passage leading upwards from the Triple Grate- 
 way may be of his age, but if so, it has been altered and disfigured since his 
 time to a great extent, and, even then, never was a part of the Temple, or ot 
 any building of his, we can recognise with certainty. The passage, as far as it 
 has been explored, terminates just before it reaches the south-east angle of his 
 Temple. South of this the foundations may be of Solomon’s time, but the super- 
 structure, as we now see it, is more probably that erected by Herod or Justinian. 
 
 If, therefore, we may assume that the south-east angle of the Haram area 
 represents the “ great tower that lietli out by the wall of Ophel,” we have next 
 to look for the tower that “ lietli out from the king’s high house, that was by the 
 court of the prison.” 1 This, from the context, was evidently farther north, but 
 how far, there is nothing to indicate with certainty. The first presumption is that 
 the north wall of the Temple was continued eastward till it met the eastern 
 boundary of the Haram area, and that the tower stood at that angle. Curiously 
 enough, on the outer face of the wall at that spot, M. Ganneau found an Arabic 
 inscription, stating that, “ by digging there (133 metres from the south-east angle) 
 a great quantity of stones will be found to serve for repairs and reconstructions.” 2 
 Evidently, some important building had existed there which had been exploits on 
 some former occasion. An excavation was attempted by a Turkish officer, but it 
 seems to have been of a very superficial character, and led to no satisfactory 
 result. 3 All, therefore, that can be said is that the locality about halfway 
 between the Golden Gateway and the south-east angle of the Haram meets the 
 position where, from other indications, we should expect to find this tower 
 or some important building in connexion with it, and, as such, it may be allowed 
 to stand till a better is pointed out. 
 
 Assuming these two points as approximately fixed, it is easy to arrange the 
 various parts of the palace, if not with certainty, at least in such a manner as to 
 render them intelligible, and to enable us to follow all the events that took place 
 within its walls without difficulty ; though, of course, till the ground is excavated 
 and explored, there must be a good deal that is hypothetical in any such 
 restoration. 
 
 When looked at from this point of view, the first inference, both from what 
 is said in the Bible and in the paraphrase of it in Josephus, 4 is that the Temple 
 and the palace formed parts of one great and probably tolerably regular design. 
 Solomon was seven years in building the first, but took thirteen to execute the 
 
 1 Nehemiah iii. 25. 
 
 2 Quarterly Reports, P. E. F. 1874, p. 136. 
 
 3 Page 165. 
 
 4 The description of the house is found in 1 Kings 
 vii. 1-12; Jos. Ant. viii. 5, 1, 2 ; to which it will not 
 be necessary to refer again. 
 
Chap. VI. 
 
 SOLOMON’S PALACE. 
 
 43 
 
 second, the whole group of buildings most probably occupying twenty 
 consecutive years of bis reign ; 1 and as these were j^ears of great and growing 
 prosperity, the Palace may have been as magnificent as the Temple, or even 
 more so. Be this as it may, if they were parts of one design, the first 
 presumption is that, if we continue the axis of the Temple eastward till it 
 meets the Harare wall, it would be the axis of the great court, on the inner 
 side of which was situated the bouse of the cedars of Lebanon, 100 cubits 
 in length — corresponding exactly with the courts of the Temple — 50 cubits 
 in width and 30 cubits in height. This great hall was divided into three 
 aisles by four rows of pillars, the outer one of which was interwoven with the 
 eastern wall, as was the case with the fourth row, in the Stoa Basilica of Herod, 
 which practically seems, mutatis mutandis , to have been a copy, or at least a 
 reminiscence, of this celebrated building. The words of the text would, no doubt, 
 bear out the interpretation that all the four rows stood free ; but in that case 
 there would have been a row in the centre, and the throne must have stood 
 against the eastern wall. But this again is unlikely, because, had this been so, 
 there would probably have been not fifteen, but sixteen, or some even number 
 of columns, so as to have a central division. Besides this, their spacing is too 
 close, only about 6 cubits, which is not sufficient for a dignified transverse vista. 
 Altogether, I fancy the arrangement shown in the plan (Plate I.) is that which 
 best meets the exigencies of the case, the throne being placed in the centre at 
 the north end. 2 
 
 Besides the house of the cedars of Lebanon, we learn from the Bible and 
 Josephus that there were two other edifices in this court, the details and positions 
 of which it is not very easy to make out. One of these was a porch 50 by 30 
 cubits, which I have placed before the entrance to the private apartments, as 
 these are described as “ within the porch,” 3 such a use being common in Eastern 
 palaces, and seems to meet the exigencies of the description. It would be the 
 deicani hhas, or private audience hall, of an Indian palace. In addition to these, 
 the Bible mentions “ a porch for the throne where he might judge,” and Josephus 
 describes this as a temple {va os), in which there was a large and glorious room 
 in which the king sat in judgment. He describes it apparently as centred in the 
 great hall, and as 30 cubits square, probably in the interior. Taking his text 
 literally, this dimension applies to another building, opposite to which this mos 
 stood. My impression is that he has misunderstood the passage in the Bible 
 
 1 1 Kings vi. 38 ; vii. 1. 
 
 In laying out the plan of these buildings of the 
 
 great court on Plate I., I have neglected the line of 
 the present -wall of the Haram area. All of it that can 
 be seen above ground is modern, beyond the first 
 hundred feet or so from the southern angle. The old 
 wall may have followed the same line farther north, 
 but I think it much more likely that, beyond the 
 
 limits of the dwelling courts of the palace, the buildings 
 of the upper court should have been set out at right 
 angles to the area of the Temple. This is, however, 
 one of those questions that can only be settled by 
 examination, and meanwhile is of very little im- 
 portance. 
 
 3 1 Kings vii. 8. 
 
44 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 which he was copying, and confounded this with the porch. In order, con- 
 sequently, to meet all the difficulties, I have inserted three buildings on the 
 plan, instead of two, though my own opinion is that Josephus has made a mistake 
 in this respect. The central one — where I originally placed a fountain — may be 
 omitted if any one thinks it superfluous. To me it seems just such a chabutra , 
 or elevated covered platform, as one might expect to find in an Eastern palace : 
 and the whole arrangement is so like what we find at Nineveh and Persepolis 
 that I would allow it to stand. It seems to complete the arrangement of the 
 upper or great public court of the palace in a manner perfectly consonant with 
 what we know of similar buildings in the East. 
 
 In attempting to arrange the inner apartments ot the palace, properly so 
 called, I have been to a great extent guided by the remains existing on the spot ; 
 not that I believe that anything now found there above ground is of Solomon’s 
 age, but because I think it extremely likely that Justinian, when he built the 
 arches which now occupy that angle, may have utilised the foundations of older 
 buildings he found there. It is difficult otherwise to account for the irregularity 
 in the spacing of his piers. Be this as it may, it results in a central court about 70 
 feet square, surrounded by arcades or cloisters. On the west side of this is a range 
 of apartments perfectly suited from their situation for the reception of guests ; on 
 the east side for the liareem , or private apartments of the palace, and on the south 
 a great banqueting-hall, such as that mentioned by Josephus ; 1 and beyond these 
 again is a range of apartments overlooking the country to the southward, which 
 may well have been selected for the private residence of the sovereign himself. 
 
 The arrangements and dimensions of the palaces at Nineveh and Khorsabad 
 confirm and justify such a disposition to the fullest extent ; only that, in so far 
 as dimensions are concerned, it must be borne in mind that in the Assyrian 
 palaces nearly one-half of the area was occupied by the walls, in consequence 
 of their being composed of sun-burnt brick. 2 At Jerusalem, where stone 
 was employed, not one-tenth of the area need have been so occupied, 
 and consequently a palace 300 feet square at Jerusalem — which is about the 
 dimension Solomon’s palace works out to — would be nearly equal in floor space 
 to one 400 feet square in Assyria. These dimensions are therefore quite as 
 large as I conceive we are justified in allotting to the private apartments of 
 Solomon’s palace, even allowing for its exceptional magnificence. 
 
 Besides the house built by Solomon for himself, there was another erected by 
 him for Pharaoh’s daughter, whom he had married. 3 The only hint we have to 
 enable us to fix its situation is in Josephus, who says it was adjoining (Trapei^evKTo) 
 “ the judgment seat,” 4 and if so, can hardly have been anywhere but where I 
 have placed it. At one time I was inclined to place it farther south, near the 
 
 2 Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored, p. 275. 
 
 3 1 KiDgs vii. 8 ; 2 Chron. viii. 11. 4 Ant. viii. 5, 2. 
 
 Ant. viii. 5, 2. 
 
Chap. YI. 
 
 SOLOMON’S PALACE. 
 
 45 
 
 Horse Gate, and on the west side of the inclined plane leading from the City of 
 David to the palace ; but the expression that Solomon brought her up from the 
 house of David 1 implies that her dwelling must have been on the higher 
 level of the upper court. We are not told anywhere what the dimensions 
 of this apartment were ; but there are three queens’ houses at Khorsabad, 2 and 
 they, making allowance for the extra thickness of the walls there, are about the 
 size I have allotted to the plan of this residence. There are also three residences 
 which the great Akbar built for his three favourite queens at Futtehpore Sicri, 
 near Agra ; these, however, are all very much smaller. Unfortunately, we have 
 no hint as to its internal arrangements. I have consequently tried to adapt those 
 of the Khorsabad palace to stone architecture, but, it may be, without much 
 success. It is difficult to form any distinct idea what they may have been. 
 
 When from these indications, which are principally taken from the Books 
 of Kings and Chronicles, combined with the description of Josephus, we turn 
 to the third chapter of the Book of Nehemiah, we find much to confirm 
 what has just been advanced. It will not be necessary to go into the discussion 
 regarding the walls of the city, as that does not belong to the present 
 subject ; 3 but we may begin with the armoury, which was almost certainly 
 situated on the north-western angle of the Temple. This we learn, as we 
 shall presently see, from the description of Ezekiel, who places in this angle 
 the chambers where the priests’ garments and other sacred things were kept ; 4 
 and it was at this augle that Baris and Antonia were situated, where these things 
 were afterwards deposited. It seems, in fact, to have been a re-building of a part at 
 least of the citadel built by David, 5 whose residence was somewhere not far from 
 this, 6 apparently in the same relative position on the south that this occupied on 
 the north of the Temple court. Its situation, too, described as at the “ turning 
 of the wall,” 7 is too distinct to be easily mistaken. Then follows the house 
 of the high-priest Eliashib, which was certainly attached to the Temple, and on 
 its north side. Next to this come other priests’ houses, in front of which was the 
 wall which was to be repaired (verses 22, 23). Then follows (verse 24) another 
 turning of the wall, which, I take it, can only mean the north-eastern, as the other 
 meant the north-western angle of the Temple. Next is mentioned (verse 25) “ the 
 tower which lieth out from the king’s high house, that was by the court of the 
 prison.” This completes, as I understand it, what is said regarding the north side 
 of the Temple and palace. If it could be considered as intended for a complete 
 description of the buildings situated there, it would be unsatisfactory ; not, 
 
 1 1 Kings ix. 24. 
 
 2 Victor Place, Ninive et Assyrie, pi. 3. See also 
 my History of Architecture, vol. i. woodcut 62. 
 
 3 If I were re-writing the article in Smith’s Dictionary 
 
 of the Bible on the topography of Jerusalem, based 
 
 on Nehemiah’s description, I could now improve it in 
 
 some parts, but not to such an extent as to justify the 
 introduction of its discussion here. 
 
 4 Ezekiel xlii. 1-14. 
 
 8 Canticles iv. 4. 
 
 6 Nehemiah xii. 37. 
 
 7 Nehemiah iii. 19. 
 
46 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 however, for anything it states, but for what it omits to mention. The fact seems 
 to be, however, that it is only a specification of certain repairs required to be done 
 to certain parts, and all that did not require repairing are consequently omitted. 
 It can, however, I fancy, be found from other sources that there was a gate to the 
 Temple on the north called the Prison Gate ; 1 but why so called is by no means 
 clear. The prison, as we have just seen, was further on, “ in the king of 
 Judah’s house.” 2 Even supposing the building called “ the guard ” can also be 
 considered part of the prison, it is not easy to see why a gate so far from even 
 that should bear that name. From the account of the dedication of the walls in 
 the twelfth chapter, it seems almost inevitable that it should be exactly opposite 
 the Water Gate, the position of which, as we shall presently see, is one of the 
 best known localities connected with the Temple. The two parties got on the wall 
 near the Tower of the Furnaces, which is almost certainly that now known as the 
 Tower of David, in the citadel, exactly opposite the Temple, on the other side of 
 the city ; and on one perambulating the northern walls passed the towers of 
 Meah and Hananeel on to the Sheep Gate, and stood still in the Prison Gate. The 
 other party, after traversing in like manner the southern walls, went up by the 
 stairs of the city of David, and past his house, “ unto the water gate eastward.” 
 “ So stood the two companies of them that gave thanks in the house of God,” 3 
 evidently, it appears, facing each other on the north and south sides of the 
 altar. No mention is made of the “ high gate behind the guard,” 4 which, I 
 think, from the context, could only be situated where I have placed it. 
 
 The east side of the palace is not alluded to. It apparently required no 
 repairs, but on the south side are a number of places, some of which we easily 
 recognise. The first is (verse 26) the Water Gate, which, as just mentioned, 
 is one of the localities of the Temple the position of which can be fixed with 
 the utmost certainty. It was due south of the Altar, 5 and in the immediate 
 proximity of a series of rock-cut tanks, now known as the Well of the Leaf, in 
 the position shown in the plan, Plate I. 
 
 I have drawn the Water Gate with a courtyard 100 cubits square in front 
 of it, though it must be confessed the authority for this is neither very clear nor 
 conclusive. I cannot, however, believe that Ezekiel would have imagined a south 
 court 6 if some such feature had not existed in Solomon’s Temple. This, however, 
 can hardly be called a court of the Temple, as it certainly was on a lower level, 
 and no part, apparently, of the Temple itself. Another reason for its existence 
 is that, when Ezra called the people together to read the Law to them, in front 
 of the Water Gate, 7 it certainly was not in the “ street,” or thoroughfare, but in 
 some piazza, or open space, in front of the gate. The Hebrew word rahab , like 
 the 7r\aTeia of the Septuagint, means width, and a “wide open space” would seem 
 
 1 Nehemiah xii. 39. 2 Jeremiah xxxii. 2. 3 Nehemiah xii. 37, 40. 4 2 Kings xi. 5, 6, 19. 
 
 6 Lightfoot’s Prospect of the Temple, xxiv. p. 350. 0 Ezekiel xl. 24 et seqq. 7 Nehemiah viii. 1, 3, 1G. 
 
Chap. VI. 
 
 SOLOMON’S PALACE. 
 
 47 
 
 a more correct translation than the “ street” of our version, which rather implies 
 length and narrowness. I fancy, too, that the stairs which led from the lower 
 level to the higher would hardly be left exposed, unless, like those leading from 
 the Palace, they were placed parallel to the wall, which is unlikely in this situation. 
 
 Another reason that induces me to believe in the existence of this southern 
 enclosure or court is that the distance between it and the southern wall of the 
 Haram, as rebuilt by Herod, is, as nearly as may be, 70 cubits or exactly the 
 width assigned by him to the great Stoa Basilica. Nothing appears to me more 
 probable than that, when Herod determined to erect that quasi-secular building- 
 on the south face of the Temple, he should have refrained from encroaching on 
 any ground that had been considered sacred or part of the old Temple, and have 
 enclosed just as much ground beyond it as was required for his new buildings. 
 The existence or non-existence of this court is not, however, of any very great 
 importance, and if the above evidence is not thought sufficient to establish it, it 
 may be rejected without detriment to the general argument. I can trace no 
 hint, except in Ezekiel, of the existence of a similar court on the north of the 
 Temple, though there is ample room for it. It is just 110 cubits from the northern 
 face of the Temple court, as erected in Solomon’s time, to the southern face of 
 the sustaining wall of the central platform, which was apparently the northern 
 boundary of the Temple as rebuilt by Herod. 
 
 The Horse Gate is another locality the position of which is nearly as certain 
 as that of the Water Gate. It may be a few yards farther north than I have 
 placed it, but practically it is that known in the present day as the Triple Gateway, 
 and was that by which horses came in to the king’s high house, 1 from what 
 Josephus calls the Hippodrome, 2 but which really was the royal stables. 3 Above 
 the Horse Gate, the priests repaired every one “over against his own house” 
 (verse 28), which clearly shows that there were priests’ houses attached to the 
 south side of the Temple, as well as to the north ; but there is nothing to show 
 whether their number or arrangement was exactly that shown in the plan or not. 
 The other localities mentioned in these three verses (26-28) are clear enough. 
 Ophel is well known, and is that part of the ridge leading from the Temple 
 towards Siloam that was enclosed with walls. The position of the great tower 
 by the wall of Ophel has already been pointed out, but there seems to have been 
 a third tower (verse 26), which may be one situated at the south-western angle 
 of the palace, to correspond with those at the south-eastern and north-eastern 
 angles. Its position, however, is not very clearly indicated. From verse 29 to 
 the end of the chapter, all the repairs mentioned are those of the wall of 
 Ophel, and do not therefore belong to the present enquiry. 
 
 1 2 Kings xi. 16. 
 
 2 B. J. ii. 3, 1. 
 
 3 A precisely similar, inclined plane existed in the 
 palace at Khorsabad, by which horses and chariots 
 
 gained access to the upper courts of the palace, while 
 persons on foot ascended the flights of stairs parallel to 
 the wall, as shown in the plan to the east of the Temple. 
 See Victor Place, loc. sup. cit. 
 
48 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 There is still one locality in this neighbourhood the position of which it 
 would be very interesting to fix if the materials existed for doing so. It is that of 
 the house or palace of David. It was to the westward of the Water Gate, appa- 
 rently outside or under the wall of the Temple or city. 1 That it was southward 
 from the Temple, we learn, first, from the fact that Solomon brought up the Ark 
 from the house of David ; and, secondly, because, as before mentioned, Pharaoh’s 
 daughter came up out of the city of David ; 2 “ for he said, My wife shall not 
 dwell in the house of David king of Israel, because the places are holy, whereunto 
 the ark of the Lord hath come ” ; 3 4 all this showing clearly enough whereabouts 
 it was ; but whether this was where I have written the name on the plan, 
 Plate I., though without attempting to draw the plan, is by no means clear. 
 
 Mr. Lewin was, I believe, the first to point out that, wherever the Temple 
 and the palace are spoken of at the same time, people are always said to go up 
 from the palace to the Temple, and vice versa? In so far as the two instances just 
 quoted are concerned, that of course is the case, but they refer to the house of David, 
 not to the palace of Solomon, and it by no means follows that these were identical 
 or situated on the same spot. From the passages in Nehemiali just quoted, it would 
 seem they were in two distinct localities. The difference of level, however, is 
 equally well marked in the south-east angle of the Haram area, where I have 
 placed the palace of Solomon. The floor of the vaults there, which I believe to 
 be on the level of the inner court of the Temple, is, as nearly as may be, 40 feet 
 below the level of the inner court of the Temple. 5 This I have apportioned, 
 rightly or wrongly — one-fourth, or 10 feet, to the difference between the levels 
 of the inner and the great courts of the palace ; one-half, or 20 feet, to the 
 difference between the great court of the Temple and that of the court of the 
 palace ; and the remaining fourth, or 10 feet, to the difference between the level 
 of the two courts of the Temple. This last, as we shall presently see, was the 
 difference (7^ cubits) in Herod’s Temple, and I see no reason for believing 
 that it was altered in the interval. This, however, is assuming that the level 
 of the inner court of Solomon’s Temple was that of the present Haram area, 
 which is doubtful. Herod’s was certainly 10 or, it may be, 12 feet higher, and 
 we have no means of knowing whether in the earlier times it may not also have 
 been raised slightly. Whatever difference this may make should, I fancy, be 
 
 1 Nehemiali xii. 37. 
 
 2 1 Kings ix. 24. 
 
 s 2 Chron. viii. 11. 
 
 4 Sketch of Jerusalem, p. 23 ; quoting Jeremiah 
 xxii. 1 ; xxvi. 10 ; xxxvi. 12 ; 2 Chron. viii. 11 ; ix. 4 ; 
 
 1 Kings viii. 1, 4. In his map at the end of his 
 volume, Mr. Lewin places the Temple much too far 
 south, even on his own showing ; for he overlooks the 
 fact that, though Herod’s Temple was 600 feet square, 
 and the south wall of the Haram was the south wall of 
 
 his Temple, this was not the case in Solomon’s time. 
 The courts of his Temple cannot by any ingenuity be 
 extended so far south as the Haram boundary. 
 
 5 Major Wilson, in his Notes, p. 37, makes the 
 difference from the floor of the vaults to the level of the 
 area immediately above them 38 feet 3 inches; but as 
 the ground rises slightly towards the north and west, to 
 admit of drainage, we may take in round numbers 40 feet 
 for the difference between them and the site of the 
 Altar. 
 
Chap. VI. 
 
 SOLOMON’S PALACE. 
 
 49 
 
 distributed between the lower and upper courts of the palace, 1 for less than 
 20 feet will hardly do for the difference of level between the palace and the 
 Temple, though it does not appear that more is required. It was the ascent 
 by which Solomon went up to the house of the Lord 2 that so astonished the 
 Queen of Sheba “ that there was no more spirit in her.” It is true the 
 corresponding flight at Persepolis, which is probably the finest example of 
 its class in the world, is only about half this in height, but its extent and 
 the richness of its sculptures, which are the real source of its splendour, 
 could find no place in Jerusalem, and height, therefore, in this instance is more 
 essential for magnificence. 
 
 Assuming the palace to be arranged, in its main features at least, as 
 indicated, we are now in a position to understand the tragedy in which Athaliah 
 performed so important a part. The account of the disposition of the forces, 
 which Jehoida divided into three parts, differs in the Books of Kings and 
 Chronicles, and these differ from Josephus, but it seems evident that one-third 
 was in the Temple, one-third at or behind the high gate or Grate of Sur, where the 
 guard chamber was, and the remaining third in the palace. 3 When the queen, 
 who was in the palace, heard the shouts, she rushed into the Temple, and seeing 
 Joash on the royal stand in his robes of state, she shouted, “ Treason,” but they 
 “ laid hands on her ; and she went by the way by the which the horses came into 
 the king’s house : and there was she slain,” “ by the king’s house,” 4 consequently 
 just outside the Horse Gate, on a spot that could now almost be fixed within a few 
 yards. As for Joash, they brought him down from the house of the Lord, by the 
 way of the “ gate of the guard to the king’s house,” and they sat him “ on the 
 throne of the kings.” 5 No doubt, at the upper end of the house of the cedars 
 of Lebanon. All this can be easily followed on the plan, as, indeed, can all the 
 narratives the scene of which is laid either in the palace or in the adjoining 
 Temple. 
 
 It is, of course, hardly to be expected that anything like complete success 
 should be attained in a first attempt to utilise recent discoveries, in forming a plan 
 of Solomon’s buildings at Jerusalem, and in protracting them on the Ordnance 
 Survey. Still, if I am not much mistaken, the plan of them drawn on Plate I. 
 is a considerable step in advance of anything that has been hitherto possible, 
 and, if still far from perfect, yet enables us to understand their arrangement, and 
 to follow the historical events narrated in the Old Testament to an extent not 
 previously attainable. 
 
 1 The ramp mside the Triple Gateway ascends at the 
 rate of about 1 foot in 1 5 feet, as far as it can he traced. 
 
 It is blocked, however, at about 200 feet from the southern 
 
 wall, and its level there is 24 feet below the present 
 
 area, and probably within a foot or two of the level of 
 
 the great court of the palace. 
 
 2 1 Kings x. 5 ; 2 Ohron. ix. 4. 
 
 3 The parallel passages are given by Lewin’s Sketch 
 of Jerusalem, p. 25. 
 
 4 2 Kings xi. 16; 2 Chron. xxiii. 15. 
 
 5 2 Kings xi. 19. 
 
 H 
 
50 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 The points which may be considered as absolutely fixed in this plan are, first, 
 the position in the Temple of the Altar and of the holy house itself, though the 
 full proof of this will be better understood when we come to protract the 
 measurements of Herod’s Temple, as these are topographically much more 
 complete than those for that of Solomon. Secondly, the size and position of the 
 courts of the Temple are as nearly certain as anything of the sort can well be, 
 and consequently the position of Solomon’s Porch becomes a fixed point in the 
 topography. The position of the Water Gate is another fixed point, the proof 
 of which, however, also depends on the evidence of Herod’s Temple. That of the 
 Prison Gate is only inferred from the probability that it was opposite the Water 
 Gate. The position of the priests’ houses is also very probable, and also the 
 existence of a southern enclosure 100 cubits square ; but there seems no evidence 
 of one on the north. In the palace, the position of the house of the cedars of 
 Lebanon seems hardly doubtful, nor the position and general arrangements of the 
 great court, 110 cubits square. The position of the palace properly so called, 
 and its general dimensions, say, 200 cubits by 180, I look upon as very nearly 
 ascertained, but what its internal arrangements may have been is quite another 
 matter. If we may disregard all local indications, it may be anything any one 
 pleases ; but following them, as I have done, the result conforms so closely with 
 the descriptions of Josephus, and with our general knowledge of Eastern palaces 
 of nearly the same age, that it may he allowed to stand, till at least a better is 
 suggested. I consider it also as almost certain that the south-eastern angle of 
 the Haram area is an angle of “ the great tower, that lies out from the king’s 
 high house to the wall of Ophel,” and that the other “ tower, by the court of the 
 prison,” 1 is not far from where it is placed on the plan. The position and plans 
 of the house of Pharaoh’s daughter are matters of more uncertainty, but are 
 not of great importance in the topography. 
 
 I am far, however, from fancying that I may not have overlooked some 
 important passages bearing on the subject, or that I may have failed to apprehend 
 the bearing of some indications likely to alter materially the conclusions arrived 
 at. I feel, indeed, confident that if I could devote another month or two to the 
 investigation, it might he improved in various minor details. But after all, the 
 evidence is so sparse, and of so unsatisfactory a nature, that even after taking the 
 utmost pains a great deal must be left to the imagination. Unless, indeed, some 
 new discoveries are made, there is much about these buildings that must depend 
 more on the knowledge and ability of the individual restorer than on anything 
 found in ancient authors or derived from indications on the spot. Whatever may 
 be done to it now, the plan wants to go through a second edition, and, more than 
 this, the rectification of a second eye, by some one familiar with the spot, and 
 willing to take the pains to wade through the scattered evidence bearing on the 
 
 1 Nehemiali iii. 25. 
 
Chap. VI. 
 
 SOLOMON’S PALACE. 
 
 51 
 
 subject. Meanwhile, it may probably be accepted as explaining a good deal of 
 what was hitherto unintelligible. Its chief merit, however, will probably be 
 found to be that it enables us to understand the position of affairs when Herod 
 undertook to rebuild the Temple twenty-three years before the Christian era, 
 together with the various changes he introduced into its plan and dimensions. 
 Strange to say, we have nothing whatever to guide us as to the subsequent fate 
 of the Palace. It was burnt at the time of the Babylonian captivity, and never 
 afterwards rebuilt, and, as before remarked, we have no hint of how this angle of 
 the Haram area was occupied, till Justinian erected his Mary Church on the 
 place where Solomon’s celebrated palace had stood, and had been destroyed more 
 than eleven centuries before he reoccupied the spot. 
 
52 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OE THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 SEPULCHRES OF THE KINGS OF ISRAEL. 
 
 Assuming, for the present at least, that the buildings of Solomon were arranged 
 somewhat in the manner just described and shown in the plan, Plate I., it 
 may strike some persons as strange that they should have been compressed, so to 
 speak, into the southern portion of the Haram area, while a large vacant space, 
 about 1000 feet square, existed to the northward of them, which, so far as present 
 appearances go, was at least as suitable for them as the spot on which some of 
 them were placed. It has already been pointed out {supra, page 35) why the 
 threshing-floor of Araunah was placed where it was, and why it was chosen by 
 David as the most eligible spot about Jerusalem for the erection of his altar. 
 That being fixed, the position of the Temple behind it and that of the house of 
 the cedars of Lebanon in front of it, followed almost, as a matter of course, on the 
 same axis ; but it is not so obvious why the private apartments of the palace 
 were not placed to the northward instead of to the southward of this range of 
 buildings. It seems, indeed, at first sight strange that Solomon should be at the 
 expense of building uji a solid tower 100 feet in height to support the south- 
 eastern angle of his palace, while a more favourable site existed to the north, 
 where no such costly foundations would be required. 
 
 There may, of course, have been fifty reasons for this, and perhaps the wisest 
 plan would be to rest content with the knowledge that it was so, without 
 trying to find out why things were so arranged. At this distance of time, and 
 with our limited knowledge of the circumstances of the case, we may fairly be 
 held excused if we cannot explain everything. Meanwhile, however, there is 
 one circumstance that appears so certain as hardly to admit of a doubt, and to be 
 in itself sufficient to explain the anomaly ; at the same time, it is so important that 
 it is well worth while trying to establish it before going further. It is that the 
 greater number of the kings of Israel, from David down to the Captivity, were 
 buried within this area, to the north of the Temple ; that it was, in fact, a 
 cemetery, the spot where were situated “ the graves of the children of the people 
 at the brook Ividron, without Jerusalem,” 1 and could not consequently be built 
 upon. Whether it was so used by the Jebusites before the Jews got possession of 
 the city is by no means clear. From its position with reference to Jerusalem it 
 
 1 2 Kings xxiii. 6. 
 
Chap. VII. 
 
 SEPULCHRES OF THE KINGS OF ISRAEL. 
 
 53 
 
 appears probable it might have been so, but whether this was so or not, it seems 
 certain that David was buried there, and if he was, so were most of his successors. 
 
 The fixation of the exact position of the sepulchres of the kings of Israel 
 depends mainly — in so far, at least, as the Bible texts are concerned — on the 
 interpretation of some passages in the 3rd chapter of the Book of Nehemiah, 
 which have not yet been satisfactorily explained. In all that applies to the walls 
 of the northern half of the city, there is no difficulty. The repairs commenced 
 at the Sheep Gate, which may be a little farther from the Temple than I have 
 placed it, but certainly in that wall. They then extended to the Tower of the 
 Furnaces, which was either the tower that now stands in the citadel near the 
 Jaffa Gate or one that stood on the same site. In the 13th chapter all the 
 places mentioned in the 3rd, from this tower to the Prison Gate of the Temple, 
 are re-enumerated, but in the reverse order, so that, though it is impossible to fix 
 the exact distance between each, there is no difficulty as to their relative positions. 
 On the southern division, however, the case is by no means so clear. From the 
 Tower of the Furnaces to the Dung Gate (verse 14) all seems clear, and if we 
 might omit the first part of the 15th verse, and assume that the wall in course 
 of reparation was only that of the old city of the Jebusites, till we reach the 
 19tli verse, all would be clear. But the mention of “the wall of the pool of 
 Siloah by the king’s garden ” seems an interpolation. The only solution of the 
 difficulty that occurs to me is that, after turning the corner at the southern 
 extremity of the modern Zion, the description follows the course of the Tyropason 
 valley, which certainly had no wall across it at its southern extremity, though it 
 had on either hand. It was emphatically the place “ between two walls, which 
 is by the King’s garden,” 1 and it does not seem illogical to suppose that in this 
 instance Kehemiah may have described the repairs of the walls on his right hand 
 and on his left in alternate verses. 
 
 Be this as it may, I think there can be very little doubt “ that the stairs of 
 the city of David,” 2 above his house, were situated very nearly, even if not on the 
 exact spot, where the causeway with stairs afterwards stood leading from the Stoa 
 Basilica to the city, and that the part of the wall mentioned after the “ stairs ” in 
 the 16th verse 3 was that on the brow over the Xystus, and consequently over 
 against the spot where the Dome of the Rock was afterwards erected. This 
 becomes clearer when we take together all the three objects mentioned in the 
 16th verse, for “the house of the mighty” could hardly be other than the house 
 of David mentioned in connexion with these stairs in the 12th chapter (verse 37); 
 and the pool that was made was no doubt that which was formed by ITezekiah 
 when he “ stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down 
 to the west side of the city of David : ” 4 this was certainly within the city, 
 and was made for the purpose of supplying it with water in case of a siege. Its 
 
 2 Nehemiah xii. 37. 
 
 1 2 Kings xxv. 4. 
 
 3 Nehemiah iii. 
 
 4 2 Chron. xxxii. 30. 
 
54 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 position is further defined by a passage in Isaiah, where it is said, “ Ye made 
 also a ditch ” (a reservoir) “ between the two walls for the water of the old 
 pool.” 1 From all this, and a great deal more that could he said on the 
 subject, it seems hardly doubtful that this pool was situated in the Tyropgeon 
 valley, probably on the exact axis of the Temple ; and some evidences of its 
 existence may probably be identified, among the remains found by Captain 
 Warren in his excavations on the spot. It is possible, however, that it may 
 have been obliterated when Herod extended the Temple area westward, as it 
 was no doubt situated in the very lowest part of the ravine. 2 
 
 Be all this as it may, the one thing that seems certain is, that the sepulchre 
 of David and consequently the tombs of the kings were situated on Zion or the 
 eastern hill. The choice, in fact, in so far as Nehemiah’s evidence is concerned, 
 lies between placing the tombs of the kings on Ophel, south of the Temple, or on 
 the vacant space north of it. Taking the whole of the circumstances of the case 
 into consideration, it appears that the evidence is immeasurably in favour of the 
 northern as against the southern side. 3 
 
 The identity of Zion with the city of David is one of those points in the 
 topography of Jerusalem that may be considered as settled beyond dispute, and 
 also that Zion was the Temple hill down, certainly, to the time of the Maccabees. 4 
 Even if it were possible to get over the distinct assertion of the Book of Samuel, 
 that “ David took the strong hold of Zion : the same is the city of David,” 5 there 
 are fifty other passages which, taken together, prove beyond all cavil that the 
 eastern Temple hill was known as Zion, 6 and as the true site of the city of 
 David till at least the fourth century — possibly much later — when, in order 
 to separate Christian from Jewish tradition, the name was transferred to the 
 western hill, and naturally the tomb of David followed the name from which it 
 could not be disassociated, for all who could read the Scriptures knew that he 
 was buried “ on Zion in the city of David.” 
 
 Assuming this, for the present, we find that the following ten kings were 
 buried not only in the same group of sepulchres, generally called “ those of their 
 
 1 Isaiah xxii. 11. 
 
 2 It is just possible, however, that this pool is one of 
 those mentioned by the Bordeaux Pilgrim : “ Sunt in 
 Hierusalem piscinaj magnae duas, ad latus Templi, id est 
 una ad dextram alia ad sinistram quas Solomon fecit.” 
 In that case the other must have been on the site of 
 Solomon’s palace, and it seems it probably was so 
 considered in the fourth century ; for in the same chapter 
 the Pilgrim goes on to say, after describing the position 
 of Solomon’s palace with perfect correctness, as situated 
 
 in the south-east angle of the Haram, “ Sunt ibi et 
 
 exceptuaria magna aquae subterranea, et piscinae magno 
 
 opere aedificatas.” Tobler’s edit. p. 4. It is new to us 
 
 to be told that the site of Solomon’s palace was turned 
 into a tank, but still no other interpretation of the 
 
 Bordeaux Pilgrim’s description seems possible. 
 
 3 In a carefully reasoned paper by the Rev. W. F . 
 Birch, in the last number of the Quarterly Report of the 
 P. E. F. for October 1877, the author adopts the view 
 that David’s tomb was on Ophel, south of the Temple. 
 I cannot, however, consider his arguments as at all 
 conclusive. 
 
 4 1 Maccabees iv. 37 et seqq. and 60 ; vii. 33. 
 
 6 2 Samuel v. 7. 
 
 6 The question has been exhaustively treated by 
 Thrupp in his Ancient Jerusalem, p. 21, in such a 
 manner as to leave no doubt in my mind that the fact 
 is beyond dispute. Mr. Lewin (Sketch of Jerusalem, 
 p. 7) endorses Mr. Thrupp’s opinion. 
 
Chap. VII. 
 
 SEPULCHRES OF THE KINGS OF ISRAEL. 
 
 55 
 
 fathers,” but that in each instance it is expressly stated that these sepulchres were 
 situated in the city of David, viz. : David , 1 Solomon , 2 Rehoboam , 3 Asa , 4 Jehoshaphat , 5 
 Joram , 6 Joash , 7 Amaziah , 8 Azariah , 9 Jotham , 10 Ahaz . 11 ITezekiah was buried “in 
 the chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David,” 12 and XJzziali “ in the field of 
 the burial, which belonged to the kings ; for they said, He is a leper.” 13 On the 
 other hand, Manasseli was buried in the garden of his own house, in the garden of 
 Uzza , 14 and Amon in his own sepulchre in the same place , 15 and Josiah in his 
 own sepulchre at Jerusalem , 16 and Ahaz “ in the city, even in Jerusalem,” but not 
 in the sepulchres of the kings . 17 These last four may have been buried in those 
 sepulchres which were always known to have existed under the western boundary 
 wall of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre , 18 and their existence there may have 
 been the reason why that particular spot was chosen in the eleventh century for 
 the erection of that new sepulchral church so as to give an air of probability to 
 the imposture by showing that graves had always existed in that neighbourhood. 
 Be this as it may, the whole tendency of the above is to show that a distinction 
 was made between the late and bad kings, who were buried in the city of the 
 Jebusites, and the good and great kings, who were buried on Zion, in the city of 
 David. Other kings were buried at Samaria when they died ; but the above is a 
 complete list of all those who died at Jerusalem, and in every case the locality in 
 which the king was buried is distinctly specified, and in the great majority of in- 
 stances it is in the tombs of the kings, in the city of David, on the holy Mount Zion. 
 
 It is not quite clear whether it was because they were bad kings that the 
 later ones were buried in the city and not in the tombs of their forefathers, or 
 whether this arose from a growing feeling among the Jews that the proximity of 
 the Temple was not quite the place that ought to be used for this purpose. From 
 the language of Ezekiel it would seem that the latter was the more probable 
 cause. One of the reforms which he seems to have hoped the Israelites would 
 effect on their return to Jerusalem was that, besides the rebuilding of the Temple, 
 they should “ no more defile the place where God dwelt in the midst of his 
 people, and his holy name, by the carcases of their kings in their high places,” 
 but should put away “ the carcases of their kings far from him, that he might 
 dwell among them for ever.” 19 
 
 Whether it was in consequence of this vigorous denunciation of the practice, 
 or from some other cause, we find no further mention of any kings being buried on 
 the eastern hill till, incidentally, we find mention made of John and his faction 
 defending themselves from the tower Antonia, and from the northern cloister 
 
 I 1 Kings ii. 10. 
 
 3 1 Kings xiv. 31. 
 
 6 1 Kings xxii. 50. 
 
 7 2 Kings xii. 21. 
 
 9 2 Kings xv. 7. 
 
 II 2 Kings xvi. 20. 
 
 13 2 Chron. xxvi. 23. 
 
 2 1 Kings xi. 43. 
 
 4 1 Kings xv. 24. 
 
 6 2 Kings viii. 24. 
 
 8 2 Kings xiv. 20. 
 
 10 2 Kings xv. 38. 
 
 12 2 Chron. xxxii. 33, 
 14 2 Kings xxi. 18. 
 
 16 2 Kings xxi. 26. 16 2 Kings xxiii. 30. 
 
 17 2 Chron. xxviii. 27. 
 
 18 They are carefully figured by Bernardino Amici in 
 Trattato de sacri Edifizi, 1609, and more carefully by 
 M. Ganneau, in the Quarterly Report of the P. E. F. for 
 April 1877. 
 
 19 Ezekiel xliii. 7, 9. 
 
56 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 of the Temple, and fighting the Romans in front of the monument (ixvy][xeiov) of 
 king Alexander. 1 This is sufficient to show that kings, and probably other 
 people, were buried in the field of the sepulchres of the kings in immediate 
 proximity of the northern wall of the Temple even after the Christian era ; but 
 there is nothing to show to what extent this prevailed, nor who the parties were 
 who had this privilege. 
 
 What, then, and where were these celebrated sepulchres ? They could hardly 
 have been structural edifices of any great external magnificence, or they could 
 scarcely have escaped being mentioned by Josephus or some other traveller. The 
 pyramids of Helena of Adiabene were buildings, and are consequently mentioned 
 by Pausanias, 2 but no one alludes to the tombs of the kings of Israel. On the 
 other hand, those of the Herodian family are well known, under the name of Kub’r 
 ul Mulk, to the north of Jerusalem, and as all the tombs around the city — almost 
 without exception, so far as I know — are sejmlchral caverns, the presumption 
 certainly is that these royal sepulchres were so also. Though long disused as 
 burying-places, their position seems to have remained well known, otherwise we 
 should not have the story that Hyrcanus borrowed 3000 talents from the tomb of 
 David, 3 and still less the very circumstantial account of the second robbery of the 
 same tomb by Herod. The whole account of the adventure, as given by 
 Josephus, 4 is intelligible, if told of a natural cavern difficult to explore, and not a 
 regular building with chambers, or even with vaults underground. Besides this, 
 the propitiatory monument that Herod erected at the mouth (ini tm o-to^lo)) of 
 the sepulchres, could only be applied to a cavern, not to the door of a chamber. 
 This monument was probably that subsequently known as that of Solomon, 
 which afterwards fell, or was knocked down, in the time of Hadrian. 5 If this is 
 so, it seems difficult to escape the conviction that the great natural cavern of which 
 a portion is seen under the Dome of the Rock may be the identical sepulchre in 
 which the kings of Israel from David to Hezekiah were originally laid. 6 What 
 we now see there is a quadrangular chamber measuring 23 by 24 feet, formed by 
 four walls of masonry, erected between the roof and floor of a large natural cavern. 
 We know nothing of the form of the cavern itself, nor how far it may extend 
 
 1 Josephus, B. J. v. 7, 3 ; Ant. xiii. 16, 1. 
 
 2 Greeciaj descript, viii. 16. To this subject we shall 
 have occasion to revert further on. 
 
 3 Ant. xiii. 8, 3. 
 
 4 Ant. xvi. 7, 1. 
 
 6 Dio Cassius, xlix. 14, p. 1162, Hamburgii 1752. 
 
 6 When I wrote my Topography of Jerusalem in 
 1847, I was willing to leave this question open for 
 further investigation. I am absolutely convinced that the 
 sepulchre in which Christ was laid was in this cemetery, 
 probably in this very rock, and under the very dome, 
 and still more absolutely convinced that the Kubbet es 
 Sakhra is the identical church which Constantine erected 
 
 over the cave which he believed to be the sepulchre o f 
 Christ. So I stated the question in 1865, in my work 
 entitled Holy Sepulchre and Temple in Jerusalem, 
 p. 116, and this is all I have ever contended for since, 
 leaving the question as to whether Constantine was 
 right or was mistaken to be determined by future 
 investigation. I am still as convinced as ever that the 
 “ new sepulchre ” was there or thereabouts, and that 
 the dome was erected by Constantine; but subsequent 
 investigation seems to me to make it clear that the 
 actual cave itself, as we now know it, must be given up 
 to the kings of Judah. 
 
Chap. VII. 
 
 SEPULCHRES OF THE KINGS OF ISRAEL. 
 
 57 
 
 in any direction, nor how many loculi — if any — may be hidden by the walls that 
 now enclose the chamber. All we do know is that it is a very similar cavern to 
 that of Machpelah, in which Abraham and the Patriarchs are buried at Hebron, 
 and being so, it seems very probable that David and his successors, finding a 
 similar cave at Jerusalem, should have utilised it for the same purpose . 1 
 
 At such a distance of time, and in a place which has undergone such vicissi- 
 tudes, any tradition that may attach to any particular locality must he received 
 with extreme caution ; hut it is curious to find that Solomon’s sepulchre is 
 still pointed out under the Dome of the Rock on the north side of the Sakhra, 
 and is so marked on the Ordnance Survey. If the sepulchre of Solomon, how- 
 ever, is found here, a fortiori we ought to expect to find that of David also. 
 Fortunately, however, as just pointed out, the Bible is too explicit about the 
 identity of Zion and the city of David, and it is equally emphatic that his 
 sepulchre was in the city of David. All this, indeed, was so well known, that 
 it became indispensable, when the name Zion was, in Christian times, transferred 
 to the western hill, that the sepulchres should go there also. In a more critical 
 age the sepulchres of the other kings would have gone with that of David, but 
 as the evidence is not so direct that Solomon and his successors were buried 
 on Zion, their tombs were left where — as I have just pointed out — I believe they 
 are now to be found. 
 
 If this is so, it is probable that the chamber under the Sakhra was built 
 at the time it was taken possession of by the Christians, and when Constantine 
 built his dome over it. In that case the Christians probably placed an open 
 sarcophagus against its inner wall, which to them, in the fourth century, would 
 appear a much more natural and appropriate mode of burial than a Jewish 
 loculus. When the Mahomedans took possession of it, they, by removing this 
 sarcophagus, at once obliterated all trace of funereal usage, and referred it to 
 something they neither then nor now comprehended. For, as we shall after- 
 wards see, to the present day the Mahomedans have only the very haziest ideas 
 as to who built the mosque, when it was erected, or for what purpose. 
 
 If, however, this cave did really contain the sepulchres of David and his 
 successors — which no longer appears to me doubtful — we have gained one great 
 step in its history, and one that has the most important hearing on some of the 
 most interesting points in the topography of Jerusalem. 
 
 We shall more than once have occasion to refer to this subject in the sequel, 
 as its hearing is important on several questions connected with the topography 
 of the city. Meanwhile, it is not only curious but interesting to observe by what 
 a strange stroke of the irony of fate — though one singularly characteristic of the 
 
 1 The hole in the roof of the Sakhra cave is so very 
 similar to that in the corresponding position at Hebron 
 that one cannot help fancying it may have been used 
 for the same purpose, and that, as at Hebron, the rock 
 
 was enclosed in a wall, and no apparent access to the 
 tomb but by this opening. If we knew where the 
 stairs to the tomb, if any, at Hebron were, we might 
 settle this. 
 
 I 
 
58 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 place — the two principal tombs of Jerusalem — those of David and of Christ — 
 should both, after existing for centuries on the eastern hill, have been transferred 
 to the western, where they are now supposed to exist. It does not, however, 
 seem difficult to perceive how the transfer of the first took place. It was simply 
 that when the Christians first became aware that the eastern hill was the scene 
 of the ministration and passion of their founder, with that hatred of Jewish 
 tradition and localities which characterised all they did at Jerusalem, they 
 determined to clear as far as possible their holy places from all connexion with 
 those of the previous dispensation. The Temple and its ruins they could not 
 displace, but by calling the western hill Zion they got rid of the sepulchres of 
 the kings, and of all the associations that made that name so sweet and musical 
 to Jewish ears, and left the new Jerusalem as far as possible dissociated from 
 the old. It was not then, however, nor probably till long afterwards — most 
 likely in Moslem times — that this change of name led to its logical sequence, 
 and a new tomb of David was erected on the new Zion, because every one 
 who had access to the ancient scriptures of the Jews knew that David was 
 buried on Zion, which was identical with the city of David. 
 
 The transfer of the tomb of Christ to the western hill belongs to a subsequent 
 part of our narrative, and need not therefore be further alluded to here. That 
 the transference did take place is as certain as anything in the topography 
 of Jerusalem ; and the motives which made it necessary are equally clear, 
 though the circumstances under which this was effected have not yet been 
 investigated with sufficient fulness or care to render the mode in which it was 
 done quite clear to those who would prefer to believe that no such transference 
 ever occurred . 1 
 
 They were stated with sufficient fulness for our present purposes in my Topography of Jerusalem, pp. 164 et seqq. 
 
Chap. VIII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF EZEKIEL. 
 
 59 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF EZEKIEL. 
 
 Under ordinary circumstances the Temple of the Jews, as described in the 
 40th and subsequent chapters of the Book of Ezekiel, ought not to have any 
 place in a work purporting to describe the successive Temples erected by the 
 Israelites at Jerusalem during the time that city was occupied by them. It 
 never, in fact, had any material existence, and was neither a correct description 
 of the Temple that was destroyed when the city was taken by the Babylonians, 
 and its inhabitants led into captivity, nor an exact prophecy of that one which 
 they erected after their return. What the prophet really aimed at, in writing it, 
 seems to have been to place on record such a detailed specification of what he 
 remembered of the old Temple as would have enabled his countrymen, if they 
 ever returned to their native land, to re-erect it on the spot where it originally 
 stood. If he had confined himself to this it would have been invaluable to us 
 for our present purpose, but he added some suggestions of his own which 
 apparently were never carried into effect. This, with the obscurity inherent in 
 all mere verbal descriptions, have so confused the subject that it is perhaps not 
 too much to say that, if Ezekiel’s description had never been written, many points 
 that are now considered doubtful could have been settled long ago, and others 
 never would have been questioned. This is particularly the case with the 
 compilers of the Talmud. Throughout that work the Rabbis show the most 
 laudable anxiety to reconcile the statements of Ezekiel with the data furnished by 
 those who knew the Temple as rebuilt by Herod, and had left measurements and 
 statements regarding it on record. Had they understood what Ezekiel really did 
 say or mean, nothing could have been better, and no difficulty would ever have 
 arisen; but, in several important particulars, they certainly misunderstood the 
 meaning of the prophet, and, in modern times, this has also frequently been the 
 case. Nor, indeed, is this to be wondered at ; for in addition to the difficulties 
 above alluded to of making the form of a complicated building intelligible by 
 mere words, this is aggravated in the instance before us by the introduction of 
 supernatural machinery and the necessity of delivering in a prophetic form what 
 could hardly have been made intelligible in the soberest prose. Notwithstanding 
 all tins, with the knowledge we now possess of the form and dimensions of 
 Solomon’s Temple, and, more so, of the modifications introduced by Herod, there 
 
60 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 seems little difficulty in understanding the prophet’s meaning, and in checking 
 the extravagances sometimes ascribed to him. 1 
 
 The description of the holy house commences with the 48th verse of the 
 40th chapter, where the chapters ought to be divided, and is continued 
 throughout the 41st chapter. The specification, in length, is almost identical 
 with that given in the Middoth 2 for Herod’s Temple, except that 10 cubits are 
 omitted for the little chambers behind the wall to the westward of the Holy of 
 Holies. It is as follows — east and west : — 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Outer wall of porcli 5 
 
 Porch. 11 
 
 Wall of Temple 6 
 
 Holy place 40 
 
 Wall of separation 2 
 
 Holy of Holies .20 
 
 Wall of Temple 6 
 
 90 cubits ; 
 
 which is the length specified in verse 12, and is the same as that of Solomon’s 
 Temple, though differently divided. It therefore, probably, is correct, but as there 
 were no small chambers to the westward in the prophet’s Temple, the increased 
 length of the main body of the building is made up, to the eastward, in the porch. 
 If this were so, the specification in verse 6 must must be taken literally. There 
 would in that case be only thirty chambers in all, fifteen on each side, arranged in 
 three storeys, five in each. In Herod’s Temple, as we shall see, we have the same 
 depth of porch as in Ezekiel’s, but 10 cubits are added behind for the little 
 chambers, making up 100 cubits over all. It may be by an inadvertence that 
 they are omitted here, but, on the whole, I fancy the prophet wished to adhere as 
 exactly as possible to the dimensions of Solomon’s Temple, yet thought the greater 
 dignity to the facade of more importance than the eight little chambers behind. 
 
 The cross-sectiou, in like manner, seems to have been : — 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Central chambers 20 
 
 Walls of temple, 6x2 12 
 
 Chambers, 4x2 8 
 
 Walls of chamber, 5x2 10 
 
 50 cubits ; 
 
 or 5 cubits in excess of Solomon’s, which I believe to have been caused by the 
 so-called outer wall of 5 cubits having been, practically, a passage or verandah 
 
 1 One of the most marvellous misconceptions of the 
 prophet’s meaning that has been published in modern 
 
 times is that proposed by the Rev. Hr. Currey to ac- 
 company his revision of Ezekiel in the Speaker’s Com- 
 mentary of the Bible, published in 1876. As I have 
 
 already exposed what I believe to be its absurdities in 
 an article in the Contemporary Review for May 1876, 
 I need not do more than refer to it here, so that any one 
 that chooses may satisfy himself regarding it. 
 
 2 Middoth, ch. iv. sect. 7. 
 
Chap. VIII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF EZEKIEL. 
 
 61 
 
 giving access to each of the small chambers without going through each, which 
 must have been an intolerable nuisance in Solomon’s Temple. In verse 11, this 
 passage is called the place that “ was left,” into which a door opened on the north 
 for the northern chambers, and on the south for those on that side ; but as no 
 mention is made of it on the west, this is an additional proof that no chambers 
 were intended on that side. The “ separate place ” which the prophet so often 
 alludes to in this part of his description is evidently the hypsethral part of the 
 court in which the Temple itself stood, which was 100 cubits square, and, as we 
 might expect, was reserved for the priests alone, and separated from those parts 
 to which the laity had access. 
 
 There is one little difficulty here which I cannot explain except on the 
 hypothesis that east and “west” have somehow got transposed in the 12th and 
 14th verses. If it were not so, it would appear that the staircases leading to the 
 little chambers were at the west end, making up the width there to 70 cubits, 
 instead of at the east, as we have reason to suppose they were in Solomon’s, 
 making up the width of the front to 60 cubits. As the Temple itself was 
 5 cubits wider, it is not unnatural to suppose the fa£ade may have been wider 
 also ; for the specification (in verse 14) states, “Also the breadth of the face of 
 the house, and of the separate place towards the east an hundred cubits ” ; but 
 how much of this belonged to the house, and how much to the separate place, 
 we are not told. So it was also with the length east and west (verse 15). 
 In other words — and that, in fact, is all, or nearly all, that it is essential for us 
 to know here — the Temple as described by Ezekiel was a building measuring 
 90 cubits east and west by 50 cubits north and south, and probably with a 
 fa£ade of 70 cubits width, and, further, that it stood in a courtyard measuring 
 100 cubits each way. 
 
 Besides this court, in which the Temple itself stood, the prophet describes in 
 the 40th chapter four other courts, which seem certainly to have been disposed as 
 shown in the diagram on next page (woodcut No. 9). He begins with the 
 eastern court, and first describes its gateways, which, notwithstanding the 
 minuteness of his details, is a puzzle not easy to solve, and is, indeed, hardly 
 worthwhile spending much time upon. No such gates existed, so far as we know, 
 in Solomon’s Temple, nor in Herod’s. In fact, it does not seem to have been a 
 Jewish feature at all, but one the jirophet may have seen and admired in Assyria, 
 and one he may have thought it expedient to introduce into the Temple at 
 Jerusalem, if it ever were rebuilt. For our present purpose it is sufficient to 
 know that these gates were 50 cubits east and west and 25 cubits broad, and 
 that they stood, apparently, projecting one- third outside the walls ; one-third was 
 occupied by the thickness of the walls, and of the thirty little cells that surrounded 
 the court ; and the rest projected into the court. From the face of the gate of the 
 entrance to the face of the porch of the inner gate was 50 cubits (verse 15), while 
 the court itself measured 100 cubits eastward and northward (verse 19). That 
 
02 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 none of these courts were longer than 100 cubits is tolerably clear from the 
 fact, that no longer measure than 100 cubits is anywhere to he found in this 
 description, and that with it all the measurements fit easily into their places. 
 
 8. — City Gateways, Khorsabad. (From Victor Place.) 
 
 The verandahs — “posts” — on each side of the gateway were 30 cubits on the 
 right and 30 on the left — “three score” together (verse 14). The gateway 
 was 25 cubits, and, consequently, 7 \ cubits must have been the width of the 
 
 9. — Diagram Plan of the Temple as described by Ezekiel. 
 
 thirty little cells, that being the length necessary to make up the 100 cubits, 
 which were the internal dimensions of the court. 
 
 The prophet then describes five other gateways, which were identical in 
 
Chap. VIII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF EZEKIEL. 
 
 63 
 
 form and dimensions with the one first described; two to the northern and two 
 to the southern, as there were two to the eastern court ; and all centred in the 
 altar court, which is described in verses 39-43. 
 
 Having in the 40th chapter described these courts, he, as before mentioned, 
 devotes the 41st to the Temple itself, and begins the 42nd with these words 
 “ He brought me forth into the outer court, the way toward the north : and he 
 brought me into the chamber that was over against the separate place, and which 
 was before the building” (the Temple) “ toward the north;” and the next thirteen 
 
 10. — Plan of the Temple and Sanctuary as described by Ezekiel. 
 
 verses are occupied with the description of this enclosure in the north-west angle 
 of the other courts. It is hardly worth while trying to work out its arrangements 
 in this place, through this could easily be done with more or less certainty. Its 
 principal interest for us, here, is to know that it occupied the same relative position 
 to Ezekiel’s Temple that the Armoury did in Solomon’s, and that it was devoted 
 to the same purposes, viz. for keeping of the priests’ garments and the utensils 
 and furniture used in the ceremonial of the Temple, and also for the lodging 
 of some of the servants of the Temple. 
 
G4 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 When Herod rebuilt the Temple, he rebuilt the old citadel Baris, calling it 
 Antonia, and, as we shall afterwards see, devoted it to the same uses. 
 
 The prophet then concludes this chapter with the following words, which 
 have been a stumbling-block to many, and a source of infinite error to most of 
 those who have attempted to restore the Temple : — “ Now when he had made an 
 end of measuring the inner house, he brought me forth toward the gate whose 
 prospect is toward the east, and measured it round about. He measured the east 
 side with the measuring reed, five hundred reeds, with the measuriug reed round 
 about.” And so with the north, south, and west sides, each 500 reeds, 3000 cubits, 
 and he sums up, verse 20 : — “ He measured it by the four sides : it had a wall 
 round about, five hundred reeds long, and five hundred broad, to make a 
 separation between the sanctuary and the profane place.” 1 Evidently this had 
 nothing to do with the Temple or its courts, which cannot by any legerdemain 
 be stretched beyond 300 cubits each way, but was a great division of the land, 
 including the city, and separating the just from the unjust or impure. 
 
 The Septuagint, however, translates it “cubits” instead of “reeds,” and the 
 Rabbis, in the Talmud, have adopted that translation, aud hence nine-tenths of 
 the difficulties which have arisen in the attempts to reconcile the Talmud with 
 Josephus or with the Ordnance Survey, as we shall find as we proceed. Having 
 adopted 500 cubits instead of the true number of 400 cubits for the external 
 measurements of the outside of the “ mountain of the house,” the Rabbis had 
 100 cubits to dispose of, and, not knowing what better to do with them, put 
 them into the Court of the Women, and so vitiated the whole plan and 
 arrangement. But of this hereafter. Meanwhile, what the vision of Ezekiel 
 practically comes to is this. He describes the Temple, properly so called, very 
 nearly as it had been erected by Solomon, only increasing the depth of the porch, 
 and omitting the cells behind ; assuming these to have existed in the earlier 
 Temple, which, however, is not quite clear ; and he may have proposed to increase 
 the width of the fat^ade from 60 to 70 cubits with a corresponding height. The 
 court in which the Temple and altar stood, he makes 200 cubits by 100 as before, 
 and he adds a court 100 cubits square to the eastward, all which, as above 
 stated, we have every reason to believe certainly existed in Solomon’s Temple. He 
 adds, however, a northern and southern court, each 100 cubits square. The latter 
 of these, as above pointed out, may have been indicated in the earlier Temple, 
 though no trace of the northern court is to be found anywhere ; and he replaced 
 the armoury of Solomon’s Temple by a fifth court, making it 100 cubits square, in 
 which, besides there being, as in the armoury, apartments devoted to the custody of 
 the priests’ garments, there were also residences for a certain number of priests. 
 
 1 It is not quite clear whether or not this is the wall mentioned at the beginning of the 5th verse of chapter xl. 
 My impression is that it is, though its dimensions, 6 cubits high by the same breadth, are peculiar. 
 
Chap. VIII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF EZEKIEL. 
 
 65 
 
 The alterations, though none of them very important, were all, doubtless, 
 improvements ; and, as none of them infringed on the Sacred measures de- 
 livered to Moses on the Mount, may have been just such as the prophet might 
 reasonably hope to see adopted whenever the Temple was rebuilt. 
 
 The one point, however, on which it is most important to dwell, here, is that 
 the last measurement of 500 reeds has no more to do with the dimensions of the 
 Temple, properly so called, than those of the walls of the City of London have to 
 do with the dimensions of St. Paul’s Cathedral. This measurement belongs 
 
 O “ 
 
 in fact, to the 45th chapter, and, if I am not very much mistaken, is repeated 
 in its second verse as the first of the divisions into which the land was to be 
 apportioned for various administrative purposes. 
 
 K 
 
66 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Pakt I. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF ZERUBBABEL. 
 
 Except the passages above quoted with reference to the Temple of Solomon 
 (ante, page 30), there is very little in the Bible to assist us in forming an idea of 
 the appearance of the Temple as rebuilt after the return from the Captivity. That 
 its facade was 60 cubits broad by 60 cubits in height seems perfectly clear ; but 
 the other dimensions we only obtain from the descriptions of the earlier Temple 
 in the Book of Kings, or from the vision of Ezekiel. These no doubt give them 
 with fairly approximate certainty. This, however, adds little to our knowledge 
 beyond confirming the presumption that all the earlier Temples were as nearly as 
 possible the same. The one new fact is, that we have both in Ezra and Esdras 
 the same specification which we before alluded to as found in the Book of Kings, 1 
 that the Temple was built with “three rows of great” (or hewn) “stones, and a 
 row of new timber.” 2 In this instance, however, the description appears to 
 apply to the body of the house itself, and not to the courts ; and if so, I fancy 
 that it refers, or was meant to refer, to the three rows of pillars or squared 
 stones that supported the fronts of the verandahs of the cells. I am quite 
 ready to admit that neither the Hebrew nor the Septuagint quite bears out this 
 translation, if taken literally ; but I do not doubt that the pillars did exist, and 
 I do not know to what else the words can refer. To reconcile this theory with 
 the text, it would be necessary to insert the words “ between each,” so as to 
 make the sentence stand : — “ Three rows of hewn stones, with a row or roof 
 of timber between each.” In this case the arrangement would be as shown 
 in the diagram opposite, which would then explain the expression ; but I by 
 no means would insist on this. 
 
 Josephus is of little assistance to us here. He was so prepossessed with 
 the idea that the dimensions of Solomon’s Temple, both in extent and height, 
 were identical with those of Herod's that he continually confounds the one 
 with the other, so that no dependence can be placed on his statements in this 
 respect. He knew, however, that this intermediate Temple was only 60 cubits 
 high, and represents Herod as promising that he would add the 60 cubits that 
 were deficient from the height of Solomon’s building, and restore the original 
 120 cubits. 3 As we shall afterwards see, he apparently did effect this, but, in the 
 
 1 1 Kings vi. 36. 
 
 2 Ezra vi. 4 ; Esdras vi. 25. 
 
 3 Josephus xv. 11, 1. 
 
Chap. IX. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF ZERUBBABEL. 
 
 67 
 
 first place, by increasing the width to 100 cubits, and probably raising the two 
 towers only to the whole height specified. 
 
 In this dearth of information from our usual authorities, it is most fortunate 
 that in Hecatseus of Abdera we have the testimony of an eye-witness, who not 
 only could observe correctly, but could describe with a terseness and precision 
 we so sadly miss in the confused rhetorical flourishes of Josephus. As there is 
 not one of Hecatseus’ statements that cannot be confirmed to a greater or less 
 extent from independent testimony, what he says may almost always he accepted 
 implicitly as true, and is, as such, invaluable to us in the present instance. His 
 account is as follows : — “ Near the middle of the city of Jerusalem is a stone 
 enclosure, about 5 plethra” (or 500 feet) “in length by 100 cubits in breadth, 
 with double gateways. Inside there is a square altar, not made of hewn, but of 
 
 ; i 
 
 11.— Diagram op Three Rows of Hewn Stones, with a Row op Cedar Beams, vertically. 
 
 rough unpolished stone, which measures 20 cubits on each side, and is 10 cubits 
 in height. Near to it is a large temple (01/07/ra), wherein is an altar and a 
 candlestick, both of gold, weighing two talents ; and in these is a light that is 
 never extinguished by day or by night. There is no image and no donation 
 therein, and neither tree nor grove, nor anything of that sort. The priests reside 
 therein, both day and night, performing certain purifications, and never drinking 
 one drop of wine whilst they are in the Temple.” 1 
 
 The dimensions of the courts here given are exactly what we should expect 
 from other sources. For reasons above given, we learn that the courts which 
 Solomon built and Ezekiel saw in his vision were internally 300 cubits, or 450 
 feet, east and west ; and, if we add to this the thickness of the walls and the 
 probable projection of the eastern gate, we reach the length of 5 plethra, with 
 
 Josephus contra Apion. i. 22. 
 
G8 
 
 EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 quite sufficient accuracy for our purposes. The width, 100 cubits, is exactly 
 what we expect— it may be said, knew — not only from this being an exact 
 duplication of the court of the Tabernacle, but from all the other indications 
 in the Bible. 
 
 The description of the altar and its mode of construction is also exact. So is 
 his account of the Temple and its contents, so far as it goes, and of its furniture, 
 and of the duties of the priests. There is not, in fact, one word in his statements 
 that seems open to doubt, and our only regret is that his account is so brief ; not 
 that it is obscure for that reason, only our wish is that so accurate an observer 
 had written at greater length on a subject so interesting. 
 
 The principal facts, that interest us most at present, which we learn from 
 all this discussion, are, that only those portions of Ezekiel’s Temple which 
 are hatched in the woodcut (No. 8) were carried out after the Captivity. 
 Those drawn in black were not even attempted. Even if a southern court 
 was intended for Solomon’s Temple, neither it nor a northern court existed 
 in the fourth century B.c. ; nothing, indeed, beyond the two simple courts of 
 Solomon’s Temple. As regards the future Temple, we know, too, exactly from 
 Hecataeus’ description what it was that Herod is said to have doubled when 
 he rebuilt the Temple; 1 for as this earlier Temple covered only 75,000 feet 
 (500 x 150), and Herod’s Temple was 600 feet square, or 360,000, he not only 
 doubled it, but made its area between four and five times as great ; so that 
 an} r argument derived from this source for increased dimensions of Herod’s 
 Temple is quite untenable, and could never have been put forward by any one 
 who had studied the whole question, instead of being content with fragments, 
 as is too frequently the case. 
 
 Our knowledge of the dimensions of this Temple is also important to us 
 in studying the history of the wars of the Jews, for it was this Temple that 
 Pompey attacked, and not the larger Temple afterwards constructed by Herod. 
 In Pompey ’s time, as indeed ever afterwards, the Temple was most easily 
 attacked from the north ; but even on that side “ there were great towers, and 
 a ditch had been dug.” 2 This ditch does not, however, seem to have been of 
 great extent, for Pompey filled it up one Sabbath morning when the Jews had 
 desisted from work. Its existence, however, is another proof of there being no 
 north court on that side. The wall mentioned in this paragraph is apparently 
 that one which, in the description of the Temple in the ‘ Wars of the Jews,’ is 
 said to have been broken down on the north side, in order “ that so much space 
 might be taken in as sufficed for the compass of the entire Temple.” 3 On the 
 other sides it seems to have been open, being sufficiently protected by its elevation 
 on the west and south sides towards the city. 4 
 
 1 B. J. i. 21, l. 
 
 Ant. xiv. 4, 1. 
 
 3 B. J. v. 5, 1. 
 
 4 Ant. xiv. 4, 1. 
 
Chap. IX. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF ZERUBBABEL. 
 
 69 
 
 There seems also to have been a ravine somewhere on the north and east 
 sides, and Lewin, in his ‘Sketch of Jerusalem,’ insists strongly on the existence 
 of the “ so-called Kidron ravine ” existing in this neighbourhood as contra- 
 distinguished from the “ great Kidron valley.” The instances he quotes appear 
 to me sufficient to establish the fact that Josephus believed this to be the case ; 1 
 but it is impossible now to trace its course without excavating under the present 
 level surface of the Haram area, and till that is done, it is of little use insisting on 
 its existence. The only advantage we would derive from knowing its position 
 would be to understand certain rhetorical phrases of Josephus which are now 
 obscure from the want of that knowledge, but which, if taken only for what they 
 are worth, have but little influence on our knowledge of the subject. 
 
 1 Sketch of Jerusalem, 1861, pp. 206 et seqq. 
 

 
 
Part II. 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 EXTEENAL DIMENSIONS. 
 
 After what has been said of the earlier Temples at Jerusalem, we are now in a 
 position to ascertain, approximative^ at least, the position and dimensions of that 
 commenced by Herod nineteen years before the Christian era, and which was 
 not only by far the most magnificent of the series, but to Christians the most 
 interesting, as it was within its precincts that so many of the events recorded 
 in the New Testament actually took place. 
 
 It is in the first place quite certain that the Altar in this last Temple stood 
 on exactly the same spot originally chosen by David on the threshing-floor of 
 Araunali, and that the Holy of Holies of Herod’s Temple occupied exactly the 
 same relative position to the Altar that it did in Solomon’s ; and though not so 
 capable of direct proof, it is nearly as certain that Solomon’s porch stood at the 
 same distance eastward from the Altar in both Temples. 
 
 With these three fixed points, it only remains to ascertain what were the 
 external dimensions of the whole building, and on this point Josephus leaves 
 us no room for doubt or hesitation. In the ‘ Antiquities,’ he says : — ■“ The whole 
 enclosure was 4 stadia in circuit, each side or angle being 1 stadium in extent.” 1 
 He then goes on to mention the porch or the double cloisters which ornamented 
 its eastern side, facing the gates of the Temple itself, which stood “ opposite the 
 middle of this porch,” and which, he adds, had been adorned by many kings in 
 former times. It has, however, been contended that Josephus is here speaking of 
 Solomon’s, not of Herod’s Temple, but a careful study of the context dispels the 
 idea. In his 8th book he had already described Solomon’s Temple— incorrectly 
 enough, it must be confessed — but in its right place in his history. In his 
 15th book he is wholly concerned with the works of Herod, and though in 
 the chapter just referred to he does introduce an incidental allusion to Solomon’s. 
 
 1 Ant. xv. 11, 3. 
 
72 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 it is onlv incidental, and ought to he put into brackets. An exact author would 
 have made a pause, and introduced Herod’s name as a nominative when he had 
 ceased speaking of the first, and was describing the works of the latter ; 1 but it 
 is quite evident from his allusion to the many kings who had adorned Solomon’s 
 porch since his time that he is speaking of what existed in his own day, not of 
 things as they were in Solomon’s time. 
 
 A little farther on, however, in the same chapter (section 5) he makes astate- 
 ment that admits of no ambiguity. After describing in minute detail the Stoa 
 Basilica which no one doubts was the work of Herod, and of him only, he states 
 categorically that it was one stadium or 600 feet in length. Farther on he 
 makes a similar statement with regard to Solomon’s Porch, which in the last age 
 of the city, the Jews requested Agrippa to rebuild, and which, Josephus states, 
 likewise measured, at that time, 400 cubits or 600 feet. 2 
 
 In the ‘Wars of the Jews,’ Josephus’ testimony is equally distinct, but here 
 also, with his usual clumsiness, he expresses himself in such a manner as to admit 
 of his plain meaning being disputed. The cloisters of the outer court, he says, 
 “ were 30 cubits in breadth, and their whole circumference, including also that of 
 the Antonia, was 6 stadia.” 3 The one question, therefore, is how much we must 
 deduct from the 6 stadia for the circumference of the Antonia. This can only 
 be directly ascertained when we know what the dimensions of the Antonia 
 actually were ; but I think it may safely be asserted that a building with “ four 
 great angle towers, and containing courts and baths and broad spaces for camps, 
 and having all the conveniences that cities required, and by its magnificence 
 seeming a palace,” 4 must have required a circumference of 2 stadia at least, and 
 this consequently brings us back to a building the south side of which, we are 
 distinctly told, was 1 stadium and the east side 400 cubits in length. 5 There is 
 not, in fact, in the whole works of Josephus a single statement in which he is so 
 consistent and persistent as this. It is true, he sometimes confounds what was 
 done by Solomon with what was really the work of later times, though this is, 
 under the circumstances, hardly to be wondered at ; but he never deviates one inch 
 either in excess or diminution from the statement that the Temple was a square 
 measuring 600 feet each way. He may be right or he may be wrong, but this 
 is his testimony. 
 
 Those whose views of the Temple area are not in accord with the statement 
 of Josephus appeal first to the Talmud, which states the dimensions of the 
 “ mountain of the house ” as 500 cubits. But this, as stated above, I believe to 
 be entirely a misconception of the statement of Ezekiel that the boundaries of 
 the sanctuary were 500 reeds, 3000 cubits, each way. Had the Rabbis been able 
 
 : My impression is that the break ought to occur after dnereix i&v, and tbe new sentence b'gin with "Avaidev, 
 but any one nmy place it where he thinks Lest, provided it comes before the passage quoted above. 
 
 2 Ant. xx. 9, 7. 3 II. J. v. 5, 2. 4 B. J. v. 5, 8. 6 Ant. xx. 10, 7. 
 
Chap. I. 
 
 EXTERNAL DIMENSIONS. 
 
 73 
 
 to distribute tbe extra 100 cubits, which their reading gave them, over the whole 
 of the courts, so as to make up a more magnificent whole, it might now have been 
 difficult, from their point of view, to prove that they were in error. As, however, 
 their only device was to put the whole 100 cubits into the Court of the Women, 
 making that 135 cubits square, while the Court of the Men of Israel remained 
 only 11 cubits wide by 135 long, the whole thing bears absurdity on the face of 
 it, and on this ground alone might safely be rejected. Though this measurement 
 was adopted by the Rabbis for the express purpose of reconciling the dimensions 
 of Herod’s Temple with those of the Temple described by Ezekiel, had they 
 taken the pains of protracting what the prophet specified, they would have found 
 out that they were directly contradicting and disproving his statements. Still 
 more so, had they gone back to the Books of Kings and Chronicles, they would 
 have found the dimensions they were adopting utterly irreconcilable with those 
 there quoted. It thus happens that in their mistaken zeal to reconcile the 
 dimensions of ancient with those of the more modern temples, they have done 
 more to confuse the subject, and to render such reconciliation impossible, than 
 could well be done by any literal statement of the facts as they really were, 
 however much these might at first sight appear to differ from one another. 1 
 
 The real and practical refutation, however, of all such theories is to be found 
 in the Ordnance Survey, whose testimony on such matters must be considered as 
 final, and, so far as I am capable of understanding the matter, is so, in the present 
 instance. 
 
 Whatever other differences of opinion may exist with regard to the position 
 or dimensions of the Temple at Jerusalem, all, I believe, are now agreed that the 
 south-west angle of the Haram area is identical with the south-west angle of the 
 Temple, not only because it is the only light angle of the Haram, but from the 
 existence there of the remains of the archway known as Robinson’s arch, which 
 was undoubtedly a means of access from the city to the Temple. The style, too, 
 of the masonry and all other indications suggest this, and it seems quite impos- 
 sible to account for what we still can see except on this hypothesis. This is so 
 generally admitted that it is hardly worth while arguing the point, and if this is 
 so, it follows that the western wall of the Haram, as far north, at least, as the 
 Jews’ Wailing Place, is part of the west wall of the Temple ; and in like manner 
 the south wall of the Haram, as far, at least, as the Double Gateway, is identical 
 in plan with the south wall of the Temple as rebuilt by Herod. Assuming this 
 to be so, we further find, at the distance of exactly 600 feet from the southern 
 
 1 I do not know any more complete reductio ad 
 absurdum than the plan of the Temple just published 
 by the Rev. Dr. Barclay, in his work entitled “The 
 Talmud.' It is avowedly based wholly on the writings 
 of the Rabbis, quite irrespective of either Josephus or 
 the Ordnance Survey, and is only intended to illustrate 
 
 their writings. The relative importance given to the 
 court of the women in this plan over those of the 
 men of Israel, or even that of the priests, is, in my 
 opinion, quite sufficient to show how mistaken the 
 Rabbis must have been in this respect. 
 
 L 
 
74 
 
 THE TEMPLE OP HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 wall, and perfectly parallel with it, a terrace wall, now supporting the platform of 
 the Dome of the Rock, and above that the hare rocky summit of the hill, rising 
 now, as it always did, 20 or 21 feet above the lower platform. 
 
 In like manner, when we measure eastward from the western face of the 
 Haram, at a distance a little less than 600 feet, the ground sinks suddenly, at the 
 Triple Gateway, to a platform 40 feet, as before mentioned, below the level of 
 the general surface of the intervening area. Between these two points we have a 
 perfectly level area, measuring about 600 feet each way ; perfectly solid through- 
 out, except where pierced by two tunnel gateways, the presence of which we are 
 led to expect, and where it is hollowed out into cisterns, which we also know did 
 exist under the area of the Temple. 1 These latter are also important, as showing 
 us the rock existing very near the surface, though, in consequence of the area 
 being paved, we cannot now detect its presence on the surface, except near the 
 north-eastern angle of this square platform. 
 
 We have, unfortunately, no means of knowing in what state the surface of 
 the rock is under the pavement of the upper platform, and consequently no 
 direct evidence from the Survey to jirove or disprove any theory that may be 
 advanced, except the fatal one, that the Sakhra is situated 800 feet from the 
 southern wall ; and by no possible means can any testimony, either in Josephus 
 or the Talmud, be stretched so as to include that distance within the limits of the 
 Temple area, provided it is admitted, which no one seems to doubt, that the 
 southern wall of the Haram is one of the terrace walls of the platform on 
 which the Temple stood. 
 
 One of the most common arguments used by those that wish to extend the 
 Temple is the assertion of Josephus, that, “ when Herod rebuilt the Temple, and 
 encompassed a piece of land about it with a wall, which land was twice as large 
 as that before enclosed ” ; 2 but they forget to ascertain what the area of the 
 previous Temples was. Solomon’s, as already explained, measured 300 by 100 
 cubits, and covered, consequently, 67,500 square feet. Ezekiel’s Temple, even 
 assuming it to have been a square of 300 cubits, would even in that case cover 
 only 202,500 square feet ; but in reality it was composed of six courts of 100 cubits 
 each, or 135,000, so that doubling that would only give 270,000, while Herod’s 
 Temple measured 600x600 = 360,000 square feet. What in reality he did 
 double, as pointed out above, was the Temple described by Ilecateus {supra, 
 page 68), which measured 500 feet hy 150, or 75,000 square feet, so that in reality 
 the area of Herod’s Temple was between four or five times as great as that of 
 any previous Temple which had any real existence. More than even this, it 
 was twice as great as that dreamt of by an enthusiastic prophet languishing in 
 captivity, and anxious for the glories of his people, who, he hoped, might 
 one day revive the greatness of their earlier kings. 
 
 1 Tacitus, Hist. v. 1. 
 
 2 B. J. i. 21, 1. 
 
Chap. I. 
 
 EXTERNAL DIMENSIONS. 
 
 75 
 
 There seems thus no excuse for an extension north and south. Eastward, 
 the case is even clearer, for, in addition to the arguments just adduced, the 
 platform there, as already mentioned, sinks 40 feet below the surface of the 600 
 feet area just described, and nothing was apparently ever erected upon it till 
 the depression was filled up by “weak vaults,” “probably of the time of 
 Justinian.” 1 Be this as it may, it is quite certain that the Stoa Basilica, which 
 was the most remarkable feature of Herod’s Temple, never extended beyond 
 600 feet from the south-west angle. Had it done so, some piers or foundations 
 must have remained to indicate how it was supported, but there is absolutely 
 nothing, and no remains are found in the vaults that can be assigned to a 
 building of this class. In fact, there is no point in the whole topography 
 of Jerusalem more certain than that the Stoa Basilica of the Temple did 
 not extend over the area of these vaults ; 2 and while that is so, the 
 boundary of the Temple to the eastward is fixed with the same certainty that 
 it is to the southward and westward. The Ordnance Survey also indicates the 
 position of the northern boundary, hut not with the same absolute certainty. 
 Yet if the Temple was square in figure — and this no one seems to doubt — it 
 could not have been far from the position of the southern terrace wall of the 
 upper platform. 
 
 1 Warren’s Underground Jerusalem, pp. 347 and 325. 
 
 2 When I wrote the article in the Dictionary of the 
 Bible, on the Temple, I published the annexed diagram 
 to show how impossible it was that Herod should have 
 erected these arches to support his great portico. 
 Absurd as the diagram makes it appear, it really 
 
 understates the case. Captain Warren, notwithstanding 
 this and his own admission, just quoted, that they were 
 probably of the time of Justinian, persists in believing 
 that the Stoa Basilica extended to the eastern wall. If, 
 however, he thinks there is anything wrong in the 
 diagram, and can show how the pillars were supported, 
 
 12. — Longitudinal and Transverse Sections of the Vaults in the South-eastern Angle of the Haram Area. 
 
 (From a drawing by Arundale.) 
 
 let him publish another and explain how this could 
 be done. At present he simply ignores it, relying on 
 the ignorance or carelessness of his readers, who, to save 
 themselves trouble, are willing to believe anything that 
 is confidently asserted by anyone they think ought to 
 know ; but a diagram is not so easily got over, and 
 
 I trust therefore that Captain Warren will favour us 
 with one. It will be more to the purpose than his 
 arguments in the Athenamm in June and July 1875, 
 when his theory was so completely refuted that he 
 seems since to have tried to forget all about it. 
 
76 
 
 THE TEMPLE OP H EP, OP. 
 
 Pakt II. 
 
 If any insuperable difficulty were found in accommodating all the various 
 buildings of the Temple within an area so circumscribed, we might pause 
 before adopting these dimensions, but then it would only be to confess that 
 the problem was insoluble, and that it was impossible to reconcile the facts 
 disclosed by the Survey with the dimensions given in the Bible, when combined 
 with those quoted by Josephus and the Talmud. If, however, it can be shown 
 that there is not only room for all, but that with a larger space the difficulties 
 of restoring the plan would be infinitely increased, this objection falls at once to 
 the ground. On the other hand, if we take the dimensions of the solid platform 
 as we find it in the Ordnance Survey, 600 by 585 feet, and protract on it the plan 
 of the Temple as given by our authorities, it is found to be easy to co-ordinate the 
 whole, and to restore the plan, at least, of the Temple with a precision that is 
 very remarkable, considering all the vicissitudes through which it has passed. 
 If this can be done, it is the best, and probably a sufficient, answer to those 
 who plead for larger dimensions, and such a restoration is consequently what 
 it is proposed to attempt in the next succeeding chapters. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE COUET OF THE GENTILES. 
 
 77 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE COUET OF THE GENTILES. 
 
 The first essential, before attempting to restore tbe plan of the Temple, is to 
 ascertain what were the exact dimensions of the platform on which it stood. This, 
 for reasons given above (page 11), is by no means so easy a task as might at first 
 sight be supposed ; but after repeated trials I have come to the conclusion that its 
 dimensions east, and west — measured from the face of the west wall a little south 
 of the Jews’ Wailing Place to the eastern face of wall running up from the Triple 
 Gateway — were 585 feet, or 15 feet (10 cubits) less than the 600 feet ascribed 
 to it by Josephus. North and south its dimensions are exactly 600 feet, measured 
 from the southern face of the terrace wall supporting the platform of the Dome of 
 the Rock to the face of the southern wall near the double gates. As, however, 
 the northern boundary of this space must be the inner face of the north wall — if it 
 was a wall of the Temple at all — we must add to this its thickness. This I have 
 assumed to be 6 cubits, or 9 or 10 feet, as a probable width ; its real dimensions 
 could only be ascertained by digging, and that would not be allowed under the 
 present regime. Instead, therefore, of an exact square 1 stadium, or 600 feet, 
 each way, we have only, according to the Ordnance Survey, a rectangular area 
 measuring 585 feet east and west, by 610 feet north and south; which con- 
 sequently we must, for the present at least, assume to represent the external 
 dimensions of the Temple. 
 
 It may seem a little disappointing at first sight to find the actual dimensions 
 15 feet less in one direction, and 10 feet more in another, than those which 
 Josephus states so repeatedly with such apparent precision. They are, however, 
 sufficiently near to justify a historian in making the assertion he does, but whether 
 they do so or not is of little consequence for our present purposes. They are the 
 dimensions to which Herod’s architects had to work, and to which we consequently 
 must adhere, in attempting to understand what they did. Even, however, if we 
 are inclined to record this among the many proofs how little Josephus’ accuracy 
 is to be depended upon in matters of detail, it is satisfactory to find that, when 
 looked closely into, these dimensions fit the internal arrangements of the Temple 
 far better than those he quotes. ITad the Temple area been an exact square of 
 600 feet each way, it wonld have been very difficult, if indeed it were possible, to 
 make the external arrangements agree with the internal. As it is, they fit one 
 another, as we hope presently to be able to show, within very narrow limits of 
 
78 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 deviation. There may be a cubit or two in some places which may be retrenched 
 or added, but, beyond this, nothing seems doubtful in plan. In elevation, the case 
 may be different, but of that hereafter. Before, however, going further, it may 
 be as well to point out that all the four angles of this platform are right angles, 
 and its sides consequently perfectly parallel to one another, which cannot be said 
 of any other platform hitherto suggested for the site of the Temple. Of the four 
 angles of the Haram, that at the south-west is the only one which is really and 
 practically rectangular. 
 
 It need hardly be remarked here that the real cause which has rendered the 
 site of the Temple doubtful, and its restoration difficult, arises from the fulfilment 
 of the prophecy in the Gospels. 1 It is literally a fact, that not one stone, above 
 ground, remains upon another of that once glorious edifice : nor have we any 
 exact means of knowing when this destruction was completed. Enough certainly 
 remained at the time of the Moslem conquest in the seventh century to permit of 
 the conquerors identifying its features without fail, and to enable Abd-el-Malek 
 at the end of that century to centre his mosque on the altar of the Jewish Temple 
 with minute exactness. At present, however, we look in vain for any feature, 
 or any stone that can be supposed to have belonged to the Jewish Temple. 
 Under ground, however, the case is fortunately different. There are few 
 things in the topography of Jerusalem so certain as that the double gates under 
 the mosque El Aksa, and the vestibule within, as far at least as the three 
 monolithic pillars extend, with the roof over them, are really parts of the sub- 
 structures of the Stoa Basilica which Herod added to the Temple. It is as certain 
 that they represent the gate Huldah of the Talmud, which led direct to the 
 Water Gate of the inner Temple, and thence direct to the Altar. 2 If, therefore, a 
 line is drawn at right angles to the southern front along the line of arches that 
 divide the passage leading north from that gateway, the first presumption is that 
 it will point out the position of the centre of the Altar. If that line is extended 
 farther north, it cuts the centre of a flight of steps leading to the upper platform, 
 but not symmetrically with the Dome of the Rock, which stands there, and which 
 may consequently mark the position of the northern gate called Teri or Tadi in 
 the Talmud. 
 
 This presumption arises to something like certainty when we come to take 
 the dimensions from the Ordnance Survey. As was pointed out in Chapter V. 
 Part I., when describing Solomon’s Temple, the great court was a double square, 
 200 by 100 cubits, in the centre of the eastern portion of which stood the Altar, 
 and beyond this, eastward, was the “ new ” or “ outer court,” 100 cubits square, the 
 east side of which was called Solomon’s Porch. 3 The distance, therefore, from the 
 centre of the Altar to the inner face of the wall at the back of Solomon’s Porch 
 ought to be 150 cubits, or 225 feet, plus the thickness of the wall, if any, that may 
 
 1 Matthew xxiv. 2 ; Mark xiii. 2 ; Luke xix. 44. 
 
 2 Middoth i. 3, 4; Lightfoot, p. 350. 
 
 3 Ante, p. 38. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE COURT OF THE GENTILES. 
 
 79 
 
 have separated the two courts. The actual dimensions taken from the Ordnance 
 Survey, measured from the wall on the west side of the Triple Gateway to the 
 centre of the monolith in the vestibule of the Double Gateway, which certainly 
 belongs to Herod’s Temple, are 235 or 237 feet, according as we measure from 
 the face of the wall in the recesses or from the face of the piers. This leaves 
 10 or 12 feet to be apportioned between the outer wall of the Temple and the 
 partition, if any, that existed between the two courts in Solomon’s time. This is 
 so exactly what we would expect from other sources that we may feel perfectly 
 certain that what was here intended was to set out 150 cubits from the central 
 point of the Altar to the inner face of the wall at the hack of Solomon’s Porch. 
 This being so, it seems hardly doubtful that, if a line be drawn north and south 
 from the centre of the monolith in the vestibule of the gate Huldah to the centre 
 of the monolith at the top of the stairs on the north, this line will pass through 
 the centre of the Altar, and fix its position east and west to within a very few 
 inches, supposing the Temple to have been set out with minute accuracy, which, 
 however, is by no means certain. It has also the advantage of giving us a 
 base-line to which all our dimensions east and west may be referred. 
 
 Unfortunately there are no landmarks by which we can fix the centre of the 
 Altar north and south in the same manner. That can be obtained by calculation 
 — as we shall presently see — to within a cubit or thereabouts, probably with 
 absolute accuracy ; but the only base-line on the ground to which we can refer 
 our measurements north and south is that drawn from the centre of the bridge 
 — known as Robinson’s arch — along the middle aisle of the Stoa Basilica. 
 According to Wilson the south face of the arch is 39 feet from the angle of the 
 wall, and the arch 50 feet in width. 1 Its centre, consequently, is 64 feet from 
 the south wall. Deducting from this half the width of the centre aisle, or 22^ feet, 
 we reach the centre of the great monolith in the vestibule, which stands at 
 40 or 40 feet 6 inches (27 cubits ?) from the face of the outer wall, and this accords 
 perfectly with the position of one of the pillars of the Stoa above, 2 and, so far as 
 one instance can go, proves not only the position of the Stoa, but the accuracy of 
 Josephus' description of the dimensions. Deducting from this the width of the 
 southern aisle 30 feet, there remain 1P5 feet, say, 8 cubits, which, I take it, may 
 have been made up of a wall 4 feet in thickness and a parapet of 7i feet. The 
 roof of this Stoa was not flat like those of the other three, nor capable of defence, 
 and it was consequently necessary that there should be some sort of cliemin des 
 rondes, or parapet, on this face, on the level of the floor of the Temple from 
 which the defence could be carried on. 
 
 1 Notes on the Survey, by Major Wilson, p. 27. 
 
 2 This is just one of those instances where figured 
 dimensions would he so valuable. The two plans 
 being superimposed, the one under ground, the other 
 above, it is not so absolutely certain that they are so 
 accurately engraved as when all are on the same plane, 
 
 while the plan in Wilson’s Notes, pi. xvi., is on too 
 small a scale and too carelessly engraved to be of much 
 use here. There may consequently be an error to the 
 extent of a foot or so in this dimension, but I believe it 
 to be very nearly correct if not quite so. 
 
80 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 Josephus’ description of the Stoa Basilica is so detailed that there is no great 
 difficulty in understanding its general arrangements, though it requires a little 
 ingenuity to make them fit exactly with those on the other three sides of the 
 court. “On the south front of the Temple stood the royal cloisters with three 
 aisles, which reached from the east valley unto the west, for it was impossible 
 they should reach any further ” 1 (westward). Passing over the absurd hyper- 
 bolical language in which he describes their height, he goes on to say : — “ The 
 
 13. — Diagram Plan Section of the Stoa Basilica and Enclosure or Inner Temple, with Substructures. 
 
 (Scale, 50 feet to 1 inch.) 
 
 cloisters had pillars that stood in four rows, one over against the other, all 
 along ; for the fourth row was interwoven into the wall, which was also of stone, 
 and the diameter of each pillar was such that three men might with their arms 
 extended fathom it round and join their hands again, while its height was 27 feet, 
 with a double spiral at its base, and the number of pillars in that Stoa was 162. 
 Their capitals were made with sculpture of the Corinthian order.” “ These four 
 rows of pillars included three intervals for walking ; two of which walks were 
 
 1 Ant. xv. 11, 5. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE COURT OF THE GENTILES. 
 
 81 
 
 similar to each other.” “ The breadth of each of them was 30 feet, their length 
 was 1 stadium (600 feet), and their height 50 feet, but the breadth of the middle 
 aisle and cloister was one and a half that of the others, and the height was double. 
 The roofs were adorned with deep sculptures in wood, representing many sorts of 
 figures,” &C . 1 
 
 In this description there appears to be only one thing which is a palpable 
 mistake. If the pillars were of the Corinthian order, and only 27 feet in height, 
 they could hardly have been even 3 feet in diameter, or more than 9 feet in 
 circumference, and consequently two very short men could easily have joined 
 hands round them, nor would it be possible to have eked out the order to 50 feet, 
 as stated in the text. If we might assume that 27 cubits, or 40 feet, were meant, 
 the whole would be intelligible, but I believe the true solution is to be found in 
 the ‘ Wars of the Jews,’ where the pillars — but this time apparently of the minor 
 cloisters — are stated as 25 cubits, or 37 feet 6 inches, in height. 2 Somehow or 
 other, these numbers seem to have got transposed, though it is difficult to see how 
 such a mistake could have arisen. It is certain, however, that pillars that 
 required three men to span them, and were parts of an order 50 feet in height, 
 must have been at least 4 feet in diameter, and could hardly have been less than 
 40 feet in height. Those of the minor porticos on the other three sides of the 
 Court of the Gentiles may very well have been 2 feet 8 inches to 3 feet in 
 diameter, and 27 feet high. 
 
 With regard to the arrangement of these 162 columns, it would be sufficient 
 for all topographical and historical purposes to assert that they were ranged in 
 four rows, spaced 10 cubits apart from centre to centre; and that the two odd 
 columns were employed to carry the stone entablature across the opening of the 
 central aisle at the end of the bridge, where its width was exactly 30 cubits, or 
 three intercolumniations. Thus thirty-nine intercolumniations would give 390 
 cubits, two half-columns, say 3, and the thickness of the outside walls on the east 
 and west, say 7, or 400 cubits in all. It is nearly certain that 10 cubits was the 
 intercolumniation aimed at, as all the transverse dimensions are multiples of 10, 
 and in all instances are measured from the centre of one column to the centre 
 of the next. Unless, therefore, we are allowed to assume that, though having 
 this object in view, they could not attain it without cutting off a few inches 
 from each intercolumniation in one direction, — which I believe to be quite inadmis- 
 sible, — the result would be that, having a length of only 390 cubits to deal with, 
 there would, according to the above scheme, be one intercolumniation, or 10 cubits, 
 in excess, which is sufficient to render this theory of the spacing untenable. 
 
 A second difficulty is that on the east and west the cloisters were only double, 
 so that, if the central range was in the centre, it would fall between two inter- 
 columniations of the great Stoa. This difficulty might be obviated by dividing 
 
 1 Ant. Jud. xv. 11, 5. 2 Bel. Jud. v. 5, 2. 
 
 M 
 
82 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 the smaller porticos, unequally, into an outer aisle of 10 cubits, and an inner of 
 20 cubits or two intercolumniations. This, however, in a flat-roofed building, 
 meant for defence, would be a source of weakness, which could hardly be tolerated, 
 while it is directly contradicted by the only similar example that is known to 
 exist. In the Temple of the Sun, at Palmyra, 1 there are four porticos surround- 
 ing the sides of a great square enclosure so similar in extent (600 feet square) and 
 arrangement to that at Jerusalem that there seems no doubt the one was copied 
 from the other, or from some third example which may have been the type of both. 
 There the smaller porticos are double and equally spaced, but are joined to the 
 greater porticos, by compound columns, a form that does not appear to have been 
 invented in Herod’s time. Even supposing, however, that they were known as 
 early, and might consequently be introduced here, this would not obviate the 
 necessity of equal spacing in the side cloisters, where the constructive necessities, 
 coupled with the Palmyrene example, render its existence nearly certain. 
 Assuming this to be so, the difficulty is easily got over by coupling some of 
 the pillars of the great portico in the manner shown in the plan (Plate II.), 
 a mode of treatment perfectly consonant with what is found at Palmyra, 
 Baalbec, and elsewhere, and here introduced, I fancy, with the most pleasing 
 effect. That some of the pillars were coupled seems evident from the mode 
 in which the stairs ascending from the gate Huldah are introduced. According 
 to the Ordnance Survey, the clear width of the passage between the walls is 
 a little over 40 feet ; and supposing a pillar to stand on each side of this 
 opening, and one in the centre — as shown in woodcut No. 13 — there would be 
 two spaces for three intercolumniations, or 45 feet ; but if we make the next two 
 intercolumniations 7'5 feet from centre to centre, we resume our equal spacing 
 without difficulty. I need hardly remark that the effect of this coupling of the 
 pillars at the head of these stairs would be most appropriate, architecturally. 
 Without it, there would be nothing to mark the position of the stairs externally, 
 but leading up to the Water Gate and down to the gate Huldah, this accentuation 
 becomes almost indispensable. 
 
 If, consequently, it is conceded that it is admissible to couple the columns 
 where necessary, the arrangement of the others does not seem difficult. If a stone 
 architrave was carried across the central aisle at its entrance from the bridge, the 
 width being 45 feet, it would be indispensable that two pillars should be employed 
 to carry it. In like manner, unless the ends of the side aisles were built up solidly, 
 which seems to be most unlikely, they would require one pillar each to support 
 their entablature, with the regulation width of 10 cubits, or 15 feet. 
 
 If these adjustments are admitted, you have the whole 162 columns arranged, 
 as shown on Plate II., in the allotted space of 390 cubits east and west in a 
 manner that appears to me eminently beautiful as an architectural design, and 
 
 Wood’s Palmyra, pi. iii. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE COURT OF THE GENTILES. 
 
 83 
 
 except when varied for a distinct and easily recognisable object, they are in all 
 instances exactly 10 cubits, or 15 feet, apart from centre to centre. 
 
 Notwithstanding all this, I am still far from asserting that this was the 
 arrangement in all its details that was actually adopted by Herod’s architects, or 
 that some other may not now be proposed that would meet the exigencies of the 
 case equally well ; but I do assert that all the written or topographical, as well as 
 the architectural requirements of the case, so far as they are at present known, 
 are satisfied by the arrangement proposed ; and this being so, it may be allowed 
 to stand till some better is put forward to take its place. But whether arranged 
 on this or any other scheme, the size of these pillars, their number, and the 
 space over which they were spread, must have rendered this one of the most 
 magnificent Stoas in either ancient or modern times. As I have before pointed 
 out., 1 it may convey some idea of its dimensions if we compare it with York, 
 the largest of our English cathedrals. If the transepts of that church were 
 removed from the centre, and added to the ends, we should have a building of 
 about the same length and nearly also of the same section, and, barring the style, 
 not differing much in material and construction. In the English example, 
 however, the church is the great and principal object of the whole design, 
 to which all things were subordinate. At Jerusalem, the Stoa was only the 
 vestibule or principal approach to the Temple itself, which, in the eyes of the 
 Jews at least, surpassed it in beauty and magnificence as much as it did in 
 height or holiness. 
 
 As this magnificent Stoa formed the principal entrance to the Temple from 
 the city, which, according to Josephus, lay over against it like a theatre, 2 it, 
 no doubt, was connected with it by a bridge or causeway of proportionate 
 grandeur, but it still, strange to sa}', remains a mystery how this was con- 
 structed. Many years ago, Ur. Robinson observed the springing of an arch 
 50 feet wide at 39 feet, as already mentioned, from the south-west angle of the 
 Haram. It was composed of stones of the largest size used in these constructions, 
 and altogether worthy of the situation. In 1867, Captain Warren discovered the 
 substructure of the next pier at a distance of 4U6 inches from the wall, showing 
 that the arch was of that width, while its height, from the pavement which at one 
 time floored it, w r as 70 feet. 3 Beyond this he sunk seven or eight shafts to the 
 westward, towards the upper city, but failed to find any remains which would 
 explain how the bridge was continued over a distance of about 280 feet before it 
 meets the slope of the upper city. Whether this failure arose from the mode in 
 which the investigation was conducted, or from the materials having been 
 removed and utilised elsewhere, is by no means clear ; but, from the extent to 
 which the ground has been explored, the probability seems to be that we may 
 
 1 The Holy Sepulchre and Temple at Jerusalem, 1865, p. 95. 
 
 3 Recovery of Jerusalem, pp. 94 et seqq. 
 
 2 Ant. Jud. xv. 11, 5. 
 
84 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEBOD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 never get material evidence of how it was constructed, while unfortunately our 
 friend Josephus does not help us much here, as his account of the gates of the 
 Temple on this side is by no means satisfactory. On the western side of the Temple, 
 he says, there were four gates. The first led to the king’s palace by a causeway 
 across the intermediate valley, two led to the suburbs, and the fourth to the other 
 city, where the road descended by many steps into the valley, thence up again 
 by an ascent to the city, which lay over against (the Temple) like a theatre . 1 
 
 The first of these we can have little difficulty in identifying with the 
 causeway which still leads to the Bab as Silsile, which is still one of the principal 
 entrances to the ITaram, and which then led through the precincts of the Turris 
 
 14. — Diagram representing the supposed Plan and Elevation op the Causeway across the Tyropjeon Valley. 
 
 Antonia to the palace of the Asmonean kings above the Xystus, which was then 
 the royal residence of Jerusalem . 2 It could not be the one that led down by 
 many steps to the valley and up again, because in it is embedded the aqueduct 
 that brought water, from Solomon’s pools, to the Temple area, and because it was 
 apparently close to the Xystus, where the first wall crossed the valley , 3 which it 
 could not have done farther south than this. 
 
 If this is so, it is evident that the bridge or causeway with steps can only 
 be that extending from the upper city to the Stoa Basilica. Still it seems incon- 
 ceivable that the architects could have been so stupid, when they wanted to ascend 
 
 1 Ant. xv. 11, 5. 
 
 2 Bel. Jud. ii. 16, 3. 
 
 3 Bel. Jud. v. 4, 2. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE COURT OP THE GENTILES. 
 
 85 
 
 to the streets of a town 30 feet above the level of the Temple platform, that they 
 should first descend 40 feet into the valley, only to reascend some 7 0 feet into the 
 city. The only solution of the difficulty that occurs to me is that, after the first 
 two arches from the Temple area — I think there is evidence of two 1 — the causeway 
 assumed a solid form, and two flights of steps descended right and left to the 
 valley, while the central division continued on a level or slightly rising 
 gradient to the upper city. 2 Such an arrangement would be convenient and 
 dignified, and as the retaining walls need not have been of any great thickness, 
 nor composed of large stones, this may account for their disappearance. Either 
 it may be that the central roadway was reduced to 30 feet after the first two 
 arches, and the lateral stairs were 10 feet or 10 cubits respectively, or they 
 may have been added altogether, and the roadway continued 50 feet broad 
 to the upper city. 
 
 Josephus’ assertion that two gates led from the Temple to Parbar, or the 
 suburbs, on the west side of the Temple, is assumed to be incorrect, as not borne 
 out by recent researches. Major Wilson and Captain Warren examined the 
 whole of the western wall to such an extent as almost to prove that only 
 one exists between the causeway (Wilsou's arch) and the bridge known as 
 Robinson’s arch. I hope, however, farther on to be able to show that the fourth 
 gate was one that led through or from the Antonia to the suburbs. Josephus 
 certainly considered the Temple and the Antonia as parts of one great whole ; so 
 much so indeed that he comprehends both in one perimeter of 6 stadia ; and 
 there is nothing strange in his enumerating, as gates of the Temple, the four 
 entrances that certainly existed on the west side, though one of these more 
 properly belonged to the Antonia only. It is a point on which it is extremely 
 unlikety he would be mistaken, aud if this is not the true solution, there is little 
 doubt another will reward further investigation. But to this we shall return 
 presently. 
 
 The gateway that was found about 180 feet north of Robinson’s arch bears 
 generally the name of “Barclay’s,” from his being the first to observe it. By 
 the Moslems it is called the Gate of Burak, and they still show the ring by 
 which the Prophet fastened his monture on the night when he ascended from 
 the Temple at Jerusalem to Paradise — a tradition of some value to our topography, 
 because it shows that, at the time it was invented, the Mahomedans were 
 perfectly well aware that this was the chamber nearest to the Holy of Holies 
 of the Jewish Temple of all those which existed or exist in the Haram area. 
 
 1 Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 98. 
 
 2 The facility with which the bridge was broken 
 down in Pompey’s time would lead to the supposition 
 that it was then constructed of wood (B. J. i. 7, 3 ; 
 Ant. xiv. 42). But this is of little importance for our 
 present purpose. The Stoa Basilica and the ground on 
 
 which it stood were first raised by Herod, and did not 
 exist in Pompey’s time. Consequently, any bridge that 
 then existed must have been of a totally different 
 nature from that we find now, even if erected in the 
 same place. 
 
 3 B. J. v. 5, 2. 
 
86 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 This gateway is situated, as nearly as may be, halfway between what I 
 believe to be the southern wall of the precincts of the Antonia and the great 
 causeway leading to the Stoa Basilica ; so central, indeed, to the exposed part of 
 this face that it seems extremely improbable that a second gateway should 
 exist in its vicinity. The sill of the gateway is 50 feet below the level of the 
 Temple area, 1 and runs inward at right angles to the wall for about 85 feet, 
 when it turns abruptly to the right, and partly by an inclined plane, partly 
 apparently by steps, rose to the level of the platform area just at the angle of 
 the inner Temple. Major Wilson is of opinion that this abrupt deflexion is owing 
 to its meeting the rock, which, he believes, here assumes something of a cliff-like 
 form. This, I, too, consider as extremely probable, but it also appears to me that 
 the architectural exigencies of the case as shown in the plau, Plate II., are as 
 
 10 20 30 40 50 100 FT 
 
 I - -4 » - » 1- i 1 — 
 
 15. — Section North and South through Barclay’s Gateway. 
 (From an unpublished plate by Major Wilson .) 2 
 
 cogent, and meet all the difficulties of the case in a most satisfactory manner. The 
 passage went inwards till it cleared the jiortico of the court, and then rose to the 
 surface in the open part of the Court of the Gentiles at a distance of 12 cubits 
 from the front of the portico, and 7 cubits, as will presently be explained, from 
 the Chel that surrounded the Temple on this side. The width of the passage 
 being 11 cubits, these measurements make up the 30 cubits of the hypsethral part 
 of this court. This disposition of the passage affords another proof — if any were 
 wanted — that the steps leading up to the Chel were omitted on this side. There 
 is still room for them, but the architects would hardly have left a passage of only 
 
 I cubit between the lowest step and the opening of the rising passage — 10 or 
 
 II feet is a reasonable pathway — but the object, evidently, was to leave as much 
 space free on the west side next the portico as could be conveniently done. 
 Assuming the south edge of the modern cistern to rejiresent the top step of the 
 
 Recovery of Jerusalem, pp. Ill et seqq. 
 
 2 The steps in cistern 20 are inserted by me. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE COURT OP THE GENTILES. 
 
 87 
 
 stairs, it is exactly flush with the northern boundary of the southern Court of 
 the Gentiles ; but till this is explored more carefully, we cannot ascertain how far 
 the steps extended downwards, or where they met the inclined plane from the 
 north. That, however, is of comparatively little consequence; what interests us 
 most here is to know that, like the Huldah Gateway, this one from the Parbar 
 fits in the minutest particulars with the restoration we are now proposing, but 
 accords with no other that has yet been attempted. 
 
 In his description of the Temple, Josephus makes no mention of any external 
 gateway on the north side of the Temple . 1 The Rabbis, on the contrary, place 
 the gate Tadi or Teri in the locality indicated above, as probably exactly opposite 
 the gate Huldah. They admit, however, that it was not used for any ordinary 
 purpose , 2 though at the end of the chapter they describe the priests going out 
 by it on certain occasions . 3 As no mention is made of it in the siege, I fancy it 
 must have been walled up before that time in order to strengthen the fortifications 
 on the northern, which seems always to have been the weakest and most 
 vulnerable, side of the Temple . 4 Had it been a gateway of the usual form, it 
 is hardly possible that no mention should have been made of it in the long 
 struggles which Josephus describes as taking place in this angle between the 
 Temple and the Antonia. 
 
 In the same manner, Josephus makes no mention of an outer gate on the 
 eastern side of the Temple, while the Rabbis are quite positive that the gate 
 Shushan was so situated. If they are correct in this, however, it is equally certain 
 that they omit all mention of the gate which led from the Court of the Gentiles 
 to the Court of the Women. This gate certainly existed, and, though inferior 
 in size and ornament to the gate Nicanor, which led from that court to the inner 
 court of the Temple, must have been of some importance, and, I am very much 
 inclined to believe, was the gate Shushan, which the Rabbis have confounded 
 with the outer gate. There can be no doubt that in Solomon’s time — as above 
 shown (Plate I.) — the principal entrance to the Temple was on the eastern face, 
 and there was then a gateway which may have borne this name, and on the inner 
 side of this court there was a second gate, which was then, as always, the principal 
 and most ornamental gate of the Temple. So far as I can make it out, the 
 confusion seems to have arisen in the minds of the Rabbis from the circumstance 
 that, when Solomon’s Court was cut in two, and one portion of it devoted to 
 the women and the other to the Gentiles, a third gate was, or rather would 
 have become, necessary. But as at the same time the necessity had also become 
 
 1 In the siege of the Temple by Cestius (B. J. ii. 19, 
 
 5) a northern gate seems to he mentioned, hut in such 
 a manner as to make it doubtful whether it belonged 
 
 to the outer or inner Temple. If the former, it seems 
 
 to have been walled up before the siege by Titus, 
 
 possibly in consequence of Cestius having penetrated 
 through it. 
 
 2 Middoth i. 3. 
 
 3 Middoth i. 9. 
 
 4 B. J. i. 17, 8; i. 7, 4; v. 7, 3. 
 
88 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Pakt II. 
 
 apparent of fortifying the Temple, “ which before had stood all naked except 
 on the east side,” 1 this outer gate seems then to have been suppressed, and the 
 name transferred to the gate between the two inner courts. 
 
 Against this view we must put the persistent assertion of the Rabbis 
 that the red heifer was led through the gate Shushan out of the Temple and 
 conducted across the Red Heifer Bridge to the top of the Mount of Olives and 
 there burnt. The circumstances attending this important sacrifice are repeated by 
 the Rabbis so often, and in such detail, that it is difficult to believe they have not 
 some foundation in fact, though all the information we have regarding it rests 
 wholly on their unsupported testimony. 2 There is no hint of it in the Bible or 
 Josephus, and when not corroborated by other circumstances, anything they 
 assert must be received with very considerable caution. If they, however, are 
 correct, there must have been, not only an eastern outer gate to the Temple, but 
 a bridge across the Ividron. To this we shall have occasion to return again, but 
 meanwhile it may be remarked that one of the most inexplicable things, about the 
 Jewish Temple, is to understand the mode by which not only the red heifers, but 
 the whole herds of cattle there sacrificed, were got in, and their carcasses and the 
 refuse afterwards removed. There is no hint anywhere how this was accom- 
 plished, and no one has yet, so far as I know, fairly looked the difficulty in the 
 face. The red heifers may, however, have fairly been got out in the same 
 manner as they were got in, even if an external gate did not exist on the eastern 
 face. On the whole, I am inclined to think the weight of evidence is against 
 the existence of an external eastern gate in Herod’s Temple, but it is a point 
 on which it is extremely difficult to form a decided opinion. If we knew how 
 the south-eastern angle of the Haram area was occupied at the time of the 
 rebuilding by Herod, we might find out ; but we are absolutely without evidence, 
 either written or topographical, on this point. Till, consequently, something 
 new is discovered that may throw light upon it, it is to be feared we must be 
 content to allow the decision, as to the existence of this external gateway to the 
 eastward, to remain in suspense. 
 
 Although nothing now remains in situ of all these magnificent colonnades 
 of the outer court of the Temple, there would probably be no great difficulty 
 in restoring them architecturally, if it were worth while making the attempt. In 
 the first place, because, of the quasi-secular character of this court, they probably 
 were of a comparatively pure Corinthian order, without much, if any, admixture 
 of Jewish feeling or local art ; but more so, because there are a number of 
 columns of a Corinthian order still standing in the Haram area, which originally, 
 in all probability, belonged to these colonnades. They are now generally used 
 as screens at the top of the various flights of steps leading to the platform on 
 the centre of which the Dome of the Rock stands, and, as they are certainly 
 
 1 B. J. v. 5, 1. 
 
 2 Middoth ii. 4 ; Lightfoot, p. 219. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE COURT OF THE GENTILES. 
 
 89 
 
 earlier than the time of Constantine, must consequently have belonged to the 
 Herodian Temple. If they were carefully measured and drawn, we might 
 probably be able to assign to each its place in the original building, but as that 
 has not yet been done, we must wait yet awhile before making the attempt. 
 
 As the whole of the superstructure thus, to a great extent, must depend on 
 conjecture, there only remains the vestibule of the southern entrance, which is 
 certainly in situ, and sufficiently entire to enable us to judge of the style of 
 architecture introduced by Herod, and employed by him in rebuilding those 
 parts of the Temple to which he was allowed access. Even this, however, 
 has, unfortunately, been considerably damaged by the fire that consumed the 
 Temple at the time of its destruction by Titus, and it has also been patched and 
 repaired by Julian, during his unsuccessful attempt to rebuild the Temple. 
 
 As it now stands, however, it is a hall measuring about 30 by 40 feet, 1 in 
 the centre of which stands a splendid monolithic column 3 feet 6 inches in 
 
 16. — Capital of Pillar in Vestibule of 
 Southern Entrance. 
 
 17. — Capital of Order of the Tower of 
 the Winds, Athens. 
 
 diameter, and 19 feet in height, 2 with a Corinthian capital of very beautiful and, 
 for its situation, very appropriate design. It consists of alternate acanthus and 
 water leaves, without any volutes or any of the accompaniments of the later 
 Corinthian order. 3 It resembles, in fact, more the order of the Tower of the 
 Winds at Athens than any other known specimens. It is, of course, more 
 modern, yet cannot be very far distant in age. From its summit spring four 
 very flat arches, resting on piers or pilasters at their outer ends, and dividing 
 the roof into four compartments, a little longer, apparently, north and south than 
 
 1 Strange to say, no plan of the vestibule has yet been 
 published on a sufficient scale and so detailed as to enable 
 us to speak of its dimensions with certainty. 
 
 2 This dimension is taken from De Vogue’s plate. 
 Tipping, in Trail’s Josephus, makes it 21 feet (p. xxv.), 
 and others give other dimensions. 
 
 3 Unfortunately, no very good representation of this 
 capital exists ; that given here, by Arundale, is correct 
 
 as to character, but not as to the number of leaves. In 
 this respect it is fully confirmed by De Vogue’s wood- 
 cut 34, p. 49, Le Temple de J erusalem. Perhaps the best 
 is that given in Renan’s Mission de Phe'nicie, pi. xli. 
 It is, however, far from being satisfactory. It is a mere 
 picturesque sketch ; what is wanting is a drawing by an 
 architect, and this has not been made, or at least pub- 
 lished, so far, at least, as I know. 
 
 N 
 
90 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF IIEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 iii the transverse direction. Each of these, as shown above, in woodcut 13, 
 is roofed by a low flat dome, which at one time was covered with sculpture of 
 great beauty, and extremely interesting from its local character. The two inner 
 domes, however, were so damaged by the fire in Titus’ time 1 that their sculptures 
 are now undistinguishable ; and it is easy to see how this happened. When the 
 burning roof of the great Stoa fell in, the heat on the open stairs ( ante , woodcut 
 13), must have been sufficient to calcine all around it, and to reach the two inner 
 domes at a distance of 20 to 30 feet. But as the draught was inwards, towards 
 the Temple, it is probable the two outer would escape ; and this is, exactly, what 
 
 18. — One Quadrant op One of the Domes in the Vestibule of the Gate Huldah. 
 (From a drawing by M. de Saulcy.) 
 
 has happened, and forms one of many evidences that the restoration now proposed 
 cannot be far from the truth. 
 
 The ornamentation of one of these outer domes is of a singularly elegant 
 fluted pattern, and may have been copied almost literally from some classical 
 example. The other is curiously unconstructive in design, and is just such a 
 pattern as a local artist would spread over a surface the constructive necessities 
 of which he had not completely mastered, and could not consequently express it 
 in its ornamentation. In both, however, the vine is the principal motivo of the 
 
 1 Bel. Jud. vi. 5, 2. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE COURT OF THE GENTILES. 
 
 91 
 
 design, as it is in all Jewish architecture ; here as elsewhere very little con- 
 ventionalised, but spread among the geometric features in a singularly graceful 
 manner. If the gates of the inner court were ornamented to the same extent as 
 this outer one, the effect of the whole must have been such as to justify all 
 Josephus’ rhetorical flourishes ; and the Temple itself must indeed have been 
 gorgeous if this outer gate was in the subordination proper to its inferior 
 position. 
 
 In addition to the extreme interest attaching to this vestibule as the only 
 remaining fragment of Herod’s Temple still existing, and thus giving us an 
 
 19. — One Quadrant of Dome of the Vestibule under the Aksa. (From a drawing by M. de Saulcy.) 
 
 idea of what its style of decoration may have been, it is also of great value 
 as elucidating an unexpected incident in the general history of architecture. 
 Just as at Rome, about the same time, we are startled at finding in the dome 
 of Agrippa’s Pantheon not only the first, but the greatest and most perfect, 
 specimen of its class erected either before or since, so here we find the form of a 
 pendentive dome, apparently complete, but at a much earlier age than anything 
 hitherto known would lead us to expect. It is not clear, however, even now, 
 whether it is a true dome in construction. It is composed of so few stones that 
 it may be constructed, like all Indian domes, horizontally ; but whether this is 
 so or not, as domical forms had been frequently employed both in Greece and 
 in Asia for centuries before Herod's time, we ought not to be suiqirised that 
 attempts should have been made to fit them as roofs to square apartments. If 
 
92 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part IT. 
 
 none so early as this have hitherto been discovered, this is no reason for 
 denying their existence, and they probably will be found when looked for. 1 
 
 One of the most regretable omissions in Josephus’ description of the Temple 
 is that he nowhere mentions the width of the hypsethral part of the Court of the 
 Gentiles. Had he done so, the plan of the Temple would never have been a 
 mystery. It is, however, the one important dimension for which we have no 
 written authority, and which must consequently be obtained by calculation ; and 
 that always may be disputed, though, I think, in this instance with very little 
 chance of success. We have above pointed out that the external dimensions of 
 the Temple, from the Ordnance Survey, are 610 by 585 feet, and we have in 
 Josephus’ works the width of all the porticos. We thus, with the slight element 
 of uncertainty as to the thickness of the walls, know exactly what were the 
 external dimensions of the hypsethral part. Its inner boundary can only be 
 known when it is ascertained what were the dimensions of the inner Temple 
 which stood in its midst. This, as I hope presently to show, the measurements 
 given in the Talmud enable us to do with minute accuracy, as 210 cubits square. 
 The Rabbis, it is true, afford no assistance in fixing the dimensions of the outer 
 court. It was not to them sacred ; hardly, indeed, a part of the Temple. They 
 call it the Mountain of the House, and it was sufficient for their purposes to 
 quote Ezekiel’s dimensions of 500 cubits square, which, as above pointed out, 
 was a mistake ; and there they leave it. With the inner Temple, however, 
 the case was different. There the Rabbis quote every dimension — in so far as 
 they understood them — in the most minute detail ; and between their inner 
 and Josephus’ outer court, we are able to ascertain that the dimensions of the 
 hypsethral part of the Court of the Gentiles was practically 30 cubits or 45 feet 
 all round ; and this was made up of 24 cubits from the centre of the pillars of the 
 colonnades to the foot of the steps of the inner Temple, and 6 cubits for twelve 
 steps of half a cubit each, which lead from the pavement of the Court of the 
 Gentiles to the Chel or sacred platform of 10 cubits which surrounded the inner 
 Temple on all sides. 2 
 
 The variations from these dimensions were slight, but it is important to 
 point them out, as a knowledge of them adds considerably to the precision of 
 what follows. On the north they seem to have been exactly as stated, but on the 
 
 1 In De Vogue's Syrie Centrale, pi. 6, lie gives two 
 specimens of a class of building which, he states, are 
 very common in Syria. They all consist of small square 
 apartments, surmounted by circular domes resting on an 
 octagon, not, it is true, as in the Jerusalem instance, 
 formed like Byzantine pendentives, but, as explained in 
 
 the woodcut in p. 44, by successive contractions from 
 an octagon to the polygon of 16, then of 32 sides, exactly 
 as is done at the present day, and always has been done 
 in India quite irrespective of the Byzantine invention. 
 
 The date of the building illustrated in the woodcut, 
 De Vogue gives as 282 a.d., the others as 263, from 
 some unascertained era. They are, however, very 
 numerous, and some specimens may be of any age, 
 and, if constructed in brick and ornamented in stucco, 
 may have assumed the appearance of these Jerusalem 
 roofs long before the invention of the true penden- 
 tives, which play so important a part in Byzantine 
 architecture. 
 
 2 Middoth ii. 3. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE COURT OF THE GENTILES. 
 
 93 
 
 south they were 2 cubits in excess ; first, because the ground falls now, and 
 in ancient times must have fallen, to admit of surface drainage, to the extent of 
 1 cubit ; so that there must have been then fourteen steps instead of twelve ; and, 
 curiously enough, this exactly accounts for a discrepancy between Josephus 1 and 
 the Talmud, 2 the former stating apparently what he saw on the principal facade, 
 the latter jotting down what they found in their books without knowing to what 
 part the quotation applied. This accounts for 1 cubit. The other was introduced 
 because practically the pillars of the Stoa Basilica were 1 cubit more in diameter 
 than those of the northern and other porches. This would account for only 
 9 inches, but as the court was probably set out from the front of the bases, 
 and not from the centre of the pillars, the pavement in both instances would be 
 practically 23 cubits from the front of the lowest steps of the stairs to the bases 
 of the columns. 
 
 On the east, the dimension was, I believe, the same, or 23 cubits, but then 
 there were only three steps, and the Chel, for reasons to be given hereafter, was 
 only 5 instead 10 cubits ; while on the west we know that the steps were omitted 
 altogether, first, because, as there was no opening in the wall there, 3 they were 
 useless; and, next, we are distinctly told that John erected his engines against 
 the west wall of the inner Temple, in consequence of his not being able to 
 approach the other sides owing to the number of steps in front of them. 4 
 Another reason for the steps beiug omitted on this side was, as before men- 
 tioned, that the steps from the Prophet’s Gate (Barclay’s) occupied the greater 
 part of the central space of the court, so that, besides being useless, they would 
 have impeded the traffic in this direction. 
 
 Putting these dimensions together in a tabular form, we have for the southern 
 Court of the Gentiles : — 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Wall and parapet 8 
 
 Three aisles according to Josephus 70 
 
 Hypgethral part of court 25 
 
 Steps 7 
 
 32 
 
 Total for southern Court of the Gentiles . ... 110 
 
 Chel 10 
 
 Chambers (as will he explained hereafter) ... 30 
 
 150 cubits. 
 
 Northern Court of the Gentiles : — Cubits. 
 
 Portico 30 
 
 To steps 24 
 
 Steps 6 
 
 60 
 
 Chel 10 
 
 Chambers (as will be explained hereafter) ... 30 
 
 100 cubits. 
 
 1 B. J. v. 5, 2. 2 Middoth ii. 3. 3 B. J. v 5 , 2. 4 B. J. v. 2, 5. 
 
94 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 Western Court of the Gentiles : — 
 
 Portico 
 
 Hypasthral court 
 
 Chel 
 
 Thickness of western and eastern external walls 
 
 Internal Dimensions of Eastern Court 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 . 30 
 
 . 30 
 
 60 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 80 cubits. 
 100 cubits. 
 
 If to these dimensions east and west we add the external dimensions of the 
 inner Temple, 210 cubits, as will be presently explained, we obtain the total 
 dimensions of the Temple east and west, thus: — 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Western court, with external east and west walls 80 
 
 Internal court over all 210 
 
 Eastern court 100 
 
 390 cubits, or 535 feet. 
 
 North and south, in the same manner, we obtain : — 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Northern court, with Chel and chambers . . . 100 
 
 Internal couit, from wall to wall 150 
 
 Southern court, with Chel and chambers (as will 
 be explained hereafter) 150 
 
 400 cubits, or 600 feet ; 
 
 Add for thickness of northern wall .... 6 (?) „ „ 10 „ 
 
 406 cubits, or 610 feet; 
 
 both these being the exact dimensions we obtain from the Ordnance Survey. 
 
 It may also be remarked that the distance, as shown in the above table, from 
 the inner face of the inner court to the southern face of the Temple, is exactly 150 
 cubits, or just equal to the width of the inner court itself, as we hope presently 
 to be able to prove. The two together make up the three hundred cubits of 
 Ezekiel’s Temple, which there seems little doubt it was intended they should 
 repeat, though differently divided. All this shows such regularity of design, 
 and works out so satisfactorily, that it seems impossible these coincidences can 
 be accidental. They must be component parts of a well considered design 
 carefully worked out. 
 
Chap. III. 
 
 THE INNER TEMPLE. 
 
 95 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE INNER TEMPLE. 
 
 Plan, Plate II. 
 
 As might be expected, we are almost as dependent on the Talmud for the 
 dimensions and arrangements of the inner Temple as we are on Josephus for those 
 of the outer courts. AVhether it really was that, in spite of his boasted priestly 
 descent, Josephus was less familiar with the inner sacred precincts than he pretends 
 to be, or from whatever cause, his description of them is marked by blunders 
 and exaggerations that are quite intolerable. The Talmudists, on the contrary, 
 are generally to be depended upon in so far as dimensions are concerned. The 
 figures they quote are taken from earlier works of persons who had sufficient local 
 knowledge to enable them to state them correctly ; but the compilers of the 
 Talmud had themselves no such knowledge, nor had they any plan, nor skill suffi- 
 cient to make one, or to see how the whole fitted together, and they consequently 
 sometimes blundered to such an extent that it requires considerable care and study 
 to rectify their errors. Still, when all that is said by Josephus and the Rabbis is 
 compared with what is found in the Bible, and checked by the Ordnance Survey, 
 I believe the plan, at least, of the inner Temple may be laid down, if not with 
 absolute certainty, at least with quite sufficient accuracy for all our present 
 purposes. The disposition and names of some of the rooms attached to the 
 Temple must, for the present at least, remain somewhat doubtful ; but these are 
 not important, and may fairly be left to future investigation. 
 
 If the dimensions of the inner court, so frequently and so loudly proclaimed 
 in the Talmud, could be depended upon, the task of the restorer would be con- 
 siderably simplified. It is over and over again stated to have been a parallelogram 
 187 cubits east and west by 135 cubits north and south, both which measurements 
 are palpably wrong, the first to the extent of 13 cubits, the other by 15 to 16 
 cubits. The first is obtained by the Rabbis from the following addition : — 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 From the inside of the wall to the back of the Holy House — the 
 
 “ separate place ” of Ezekiel 11 
 
 The house itself 100 
 
 From the porch to the altar 22 
 
 The altar 32 
 
 The Court of the Priests 11 
 
 The Court of the Men of Israel 11 
 
 187 cubits. 1 
 
 Middoth v. 1. 
 
96 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. Paht II. 
 
 It is evident, however, that the Rabhis omit to take into account the space 
 between the front of the house and the toran, or screen, which in Herod’s Temple 
 took the place of Jachin and Boaz in that of Solomon, as will he explained here- 
 after, and is here called “the porch,” hut is quite distinct from the Ailam, or 
 porch, of the house itself. This I estimate at 5 cubits. The Altar was, east and 
 west, 33 instead of 32 cubits. They omit the width of the steps that separated 
 the Court of the Priests from that of the Men of Israel, probably It or 2 cubits, 
 and, lastly, they omit the depth of the gate Eleanor. In other words, the width 
 of the Court of Israel— already too narrow — must have been measured from the 
 front of that gateway ; and if it projected 5 cubits into the court — which is 
 the least assignable measure — these omissions amount together to 13 cubits, and 
 make the whole inner length of the court 200 cubits, instead of 187 cubits. 
 
 If the Talmudists had been aware that the courts of Solomon’s Temple 
 were exactly double those of the Tabernacle, and that consequently 200 cubits 
 was a sacred number, they would no doubt have found means of making their 
 measurements of this court agree with those of the Bible. The fact of the 
 one being double 1 the other is, however, nowhere mentioned in the Bible, nor 
 this number quoted in so many words. It seems, however, strange that they 
 should have studied Ezekiel with so little care as not to perceive that he 
 makes the court, in which the Temple and the Altar stand, 200 cubits east and 
 west. Had they done so, instead of misreading 500 reeds for 500 cubits, the 
 confusion they have introduced into the measurements of the Temple would 
 never have existed. They have thus, however, prevented the true state of 
 the case from being perceived up to this time, and it is therefore a 
 fortunate circumstance that the materials exist for correcting so serious a 
 mistake. From what has been said above about the dimensions of Solomon’s 
 Temple, it does not seem to admit of a doubt that in it 200 cubits was the 
 length of the court which contained the Temple and Altar, and if this were 
 so, it seems simply impossible that any other dimensions could have been 
 introduced in the rebuilding in Herod's time. 
 
 The section north and south is not so easily disposed of, as the Rabbis give 
 us no addition that makes up the sum of 135 cubits at which they state it. 
 What they do state is the following, beginning from the north : — 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 From the walls to the pillars (of the court) 8 
 
 From the pillars to the tables 4 
 
 From the tables to the rings 4 
 
 Place of the rings 24 
 
 From the rings to the altar 8 
 
 From north side of altar to the foot of sloping ascent on south side G2 
 
 110 cubits. 
 
 1 I do not want to take credit for what may not be my due, but so far as I know I am the first to insist on the 
 duplication of the Tabernacle in the Temple, as one of the principal means of ascertaining the dimensions of the latter. 
 
Chap. III. 
 
 THE INNER TEMPLE. 
 
 97 
 
 Tlie remainder, they merely add, lay between the foot of the slope and the 
 place of the pillars, but what that amount was, they do not state, and we are 
 left to supply it as best we may. It may either be 17, or 25, or 33, or, in fact, 
 any number we please. Before, however, trying to explain this, it is necessary 
 to point out that even then the Rabbis omit the width of the “ tables.” They 
 measure to and from them, but do not state what their breadth was. In 
 Ezekiel’s Temple, the dimension was li cubit, 1 and it may have been the same 
 in Herod’s, or, more probably, 2 cubits in the larger Temple. 
 
 When we add the Talmudic measures together with the corrections, we find 
 the distance from the north wall to the centre of the altar is 66^ cubits, made up 
 
 of the following items : — 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 From the wall to the pillars 8 
 
 From the pillars to the tables 4 
 
 Tables according to Ezekiel 
 
 From the tables to the rings 4 
 
 Place of the rings . 24 
 
 From rings to altar 8 
 
 Half-altar 17 
 
 66^ cubits ; 
 
 the one element of uncertainty here being whether the measurement of the 
 Altar ought to be taken as 16 or 17 cubits to its centre; in other words, 
 whether the cubit “the children of the Captivity” 2 added was taken into 
 account in the above specification, or whether the Rabbis adhered to the 
 sacred number of 32 cubits for the Altar. On the whole, I am inclined to 
 think they did so, and also, as no half-cubits are found in the Middoth, that 
 the width of the tables was increased from 1^ cubit to 2 cubits, making 
 the whole distance from the wall to the centre of the Altar 66 cubits. To 
 this we shall have occasion to refer hereafter, when I think it will be 
 found expedient to drop the half-cubit, which, after all, is not mentioned in 
 the Talmud, but only adopted from Ezekiel. Sometimes I am inclined to 
 fancy that, having thus got to what they believed to be the centre of the 
 court, they doubled the figure above obtained for the whole width. It is 
 true this only makes 132 or 133 cubits, instead of 135, but we are not sure 
 of the component parts of their sum, which are not stated in the Middoth. 
 
 The unfortunate part of the business is that the Rabbis afford us no 
 means of checking this sum, or of ascertaining how it was arrived at. As 
 just explained, we can see how the 187 cubits of this court, east and west, 
 was made up, but they give us no figures which, added together, make up 
 135 cubits. The duplication theory, just hinted at, can hardly be maintained; 
 
 Ezekiel xl. 42. 
 
 2 Middoth iii. 1. 
 
98 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 and, besides, it only gives 132 or 133 cubits, instead of 135; and the only 
 suggestion that occurs to me is that the 135 cuhits was the width of the 
 hypmthral part of the great court, and that to this must be added 16 cubits, 
 for the width of the two colonnades on the north and south, making altogether 
 151. This, on the other hand, is 1 cubit in excess, and results in an uneven 
 number, which I hold to be quite inadmissible in Jewish architecture. I 
 have therefore assumed that the width of the open court was 134 cubits, 
 and with the porticos 150 cubits from wall to wall. I am, of course, aware 
 that this is a mere assumption, for which there is no direct authority ; but 
 as it is the one measurement in the whole Temple plan that cannot be proved, 
 any one is at liberty to reject this one cubit if he thinks it expedient to do 
 so. All I can object is that the uneven number in which it results is most 
 improbable, and that, if it is retained, the outside dimensions of the inner 
 Temple will be 210 cubits east and west, and 211 cubits north and south, 
 which, to say the least of it, is equally unlikely. If, however, it is determined 
 that it must be retained, this cubit must be taken out of the southern Court 
 of the Gentiles, where, as above explained, there are 2 cubits in excess of 
 the other courts ; and one of them may have been overlooked in the design, 
 though found necessary in the execution. This is the most that can result 
 from its retention ; but as it is the only important measurement in the 
 whole Temple plan regarding which I feel any doubt or hesitation, I must 
 leave it to others to decide whether it should be retained or rejected. 
 
 Besides the testimony of the Talmud, Josephus describes these “ single 
 cloisters ” (of the inner court) “ as no way inferior, except in magnitude, to 
 those of the lower court.” 1 Nor must we forget that the inner court of 
 Solomon’s Temple was surrounded by three rows of hewn stone, with a row 
 of cedar beams, which, as explained above (page 39), I fancy meant a double 
 colonnade. Be this as it may, these 16 cubits being added to the Rabbinical 
 measure of 134 or 135 cubits, instead of being included in it, is just what 
 was wanted to render the plan of this court reasonable and intelligible. 
 Without them, in addition to the absurdity of having a Court of the Women 
 of Israel 135 cubits in length by 135 cubits in width, we had only a Court 
 of the Men of Israel 135 cubits in length by 11 cubits in width, or less in 
 size than one-twelfth of that of the women. We had the further difficulty that 
 the Court of the Men could only be entered from the east through the Court 
 of the Women, for the Court of the Priests, of the same dimensions, extended 
 from wall to wall, and, according to the Rabbis, cut off the men t of Israel from 
 all the southern entrances. Such an arrangement is utterly untenable, for no 
 one can study the plan of the Temple even superficially without perceiving that 
 practically the principal facade and the principal entrances faced the south. 
 
 1 B. J. V. 5, 2. 
 
Chap. III. 
 
 THE INNER TEMPLE. 
 
 99 
 
 Not only was the Stoa Basilica there, but all the three entrances, which we know 
 were in use, open into the southern Court of the Grentiles, and from it, as we shall 
 see presently, three double gateways led to the inner court ; and to say that 
 these could not be used by the men of Israel is too manifestly absurd to be for 
 one moment admitted. By the arrangement now proposed, we have a southern 
 Court of the Men of Israel 200 cubits long by 34 or 35 cubits wide ; and 
 we understand at once the whole design, which was singularly appropriate 
 and well arranged. The accommodation thus provided for the men of Israel 
 is, as nearly as may be, double that provided for the women, instead of being 
 only one twelfth ; and it is exactly where it is wanted, and arranged just as 
 any one now designing the Temple would like to place it. 
 
 If, therefore, we may assume, for the reasons above given, that the 
 dimensions of the open part of this court were 134 cubits, not 135 cubits, 
 as the Rabbis state them, and the whole width, with the colonnades, 150 cubits, 
 the section through the fa£ade of the holy house becomes easy, thus : — 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Width of cloister 8 
 
 Entrance to separate place 8 
 
 Half-width of faQade of Temple 50 
 
 66 
 
 Half-width again 50 
 
 Sonth Court of Men of Israel 34 
 
 84 
 
 150 cubits. 
 
 If the internal dimensions of this court were consequently 200 by 150 
 cubits, we have only to add, to the first figure, the thickness of its western 
 and eastern walls, which I have assumed to be 6 and 4 cubits respectively, 
 and we have a total dimension of 210 cubits over all. In like manner, we 
 have only to add the width of the two ranges of chambers on the north and 
 south sides of the court, which, we learn from Josephus, were each 30 cubits, 1 
 and we arrive at the same dimension ; in other words, that the inner Temple 
 was an exact square of 210 cubits, which is an extremely satisfactory result, 
 inasmuch as we learn from Josephus that it was an exact square, 2 though, 
 unfortunately, neither he nor the Talmud tells us what its real dimensions 
 were. Besides this, nothing can be more in conformity with the whole spirit 
 of Jewish architecture than that they should make their inner Temple — the 
 only part they considered sacred — a perfectly regular figure. They attempted 
 the same with the whole “ mountain of the house,” but failed, owing to local 
 difficulties; but this they evidently considered as of comparatively little import- 
 
 1 B. J. v. 5, 3. 
 
 2 B. J. v. 5, 2. 
 
ioo 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Paet II. 
 
 ance, and the difference between 406 and 390 was not so great as to be 
 detected without measurement, and consequently sufficed for the semi-sacred 
 parts of the Temple. 
 
 Immediately outside this square inner court was a flat terrace or berm, called 
 the Chel, 1 0 cubits wide, which was part of the sacred precincts, into which only 
 the Israelites were allowed to enter. On its outer edge was a marble screen 
 of elegant design, 3 cubits in height, in which at intervals were inserted pillars 
 bearing inscriptions in Greek and Roman characters, declaring that it was 
 forbidden to any foreigner to enter the sanctuary. 1 The Talmud represents 
 this screen, which they call Soreg, as of wood, richly carved, 2 but this is 
 evidently a mistake, as M. Ganneau found one of these pillars built into the wall 
 of a house near the Haram area. 3 It was of marble, and bore the identical 
 inscription in Greek letters that is mentioned by Josephus. 
 
 In almost all the restorations of the Temple published hitherto, this barrier, 
 or Soreg, is placed halfway between the pillars of the outer porticos and the foot 
 of the steps leading to the Chel. There, however, it would be singularly 
 unmeaning and devoid of any dignity of form, but placed where I have put it, at 
 the head of the steep flight of steps, it gains dignity from its position, and its 
 meaning is sufficiently plain. It was placed there to protect the Chel from 
 profanation by the impure, but no part of the Court of the Gentiles nor of the 
 steps was included in the inner Temple, and they therefore required no such 
 protection. Besides this, if we read carefully the description of Josephus, we see 
 that he describes, first, the hypiethral part of the Court of the Gentiles, or outer 
 court, as paved with stones of various sorts and colours. He then proceeds to 
 describe the inner or second Temple as surrounded by this barrier, and then adds, 
 “ This second or inner Temple is called 4 the sanctuary,’ and is ascended to by 
 fourteen steps.” 4 From this it is quite evident that the steps led up from the 
 Court of the Gentiles, which was accessible to foreigners, to the inner or sacred 
 parts, to which Israelites only were admitted ; and the barrier inside the steps 
 was the obvious division between what was common to all and wdiat was sacred, 
 including the Chel, and appropriated to the men of Israel only. 
 
 It seems quite certain that the Chel with its Soreg extended round three 
 sides of the inner Temple, on the south, north, and west sides, though it may have 
 been omitted on the last, where there were no steps ; but it seems doubtful whether 
 it extended to the east, so as to encompass also the Court of the Women. If you 
 ask the Talmudists, they answer unhesitatingly that it did. 5 There can be no 
 doubt that the Court of the Women was chel , or sacred, if the word may be used as 
 an adjective. The events narrated in the Acts of the Apostles, 6 which certainly 
 took place in the Court of the Women, are alone sufficient to prove this; but the 
 
 1 Bel. Jud. v. 5, 2. 2 Lightfoot, p. 306. 3 Quarterly Reports, P. E. F., new series, No. 2, p. 132, 1871. 
 
 4 B. J. v. 5, 2. 5 Lightfoot, pp. 300 et seqq. 6 Acts xxi. 28. 
 
Chap. III. 
 
 THE INNER TEMPLE. 
 
 101 
 
 question is, Was not tlie Court of the Women practically the Chel of the inner 
 Temple ? That, it must he remembered, was the square court above described 
 as 210 cubits square, and though certain portions around it were chel, they were 
 less sacred than the sanctuary itself. It was, for instance, lawful to sit in the 
 Chel and in the Court of the Women. It was not lawful to do so in the court of 
 the Temple, unless it were the king ; 1 while it is almost certain that it was in this 
 court that Christ sat and taught, as narrated in Mark xii. 41. Besides this, we are 
 told that Herod was not permitted to enter into the Temple itself, nor into the 
 Court of the Priests, nor of that of the Men of Israel. 2 These three places are 
 distinctly specified as forbidden, but as the Court of the Women is not mentioned, 
 the inference is that he might have entered that without committing sacrilege. 
 
 The question, however, is not so much the degree of relative sanctity of the 
 Temple and the Court of the Women as the manner in which the latter was defined 
 and maintained. If we consult the Talmud, we find the Rabbis maintaining 
 without hesitation that the Chel with its barrier surrounded the whole, and 
 included the Court of the Women in the same manner as it did the more sacred 
 parts of the Temple ; and it is easy to understand that, having put the whole of 
 the 100 cubits they had to spare, from their mislection of Ezekiel, into the Court 
 of the Women, and made it 135 cubits square, it never could have occurred to 
 them that a court of these dimensions could be a Chel to one only 210 cubits 
 square. The case, however, is different when we have ascertained that the Court 
 of the Women was only 35 cubits wide. The difference between that and the 
 Chel of 10 cubits that surrounded the three other sides is not so great that 
 they might not be considered as subserving the same purposes. The Temple 
 properly so called was contained in the square, described above as a square of 
 210 cubits. What was beyond that was, in Solomon’s time, the New Court; in 
 Ezekiel’s time the Outer Court; and, though it is nowhere expressly so stated, 
 these may even in those days have been accessible to foreigners. When in 
 Herod’s time the eastern court was divided into two, and the inner half given 
 up to the women of Israel and the outer half avowedly to the Gentiles, it may 
 very well have been that the women’s court was considered as a partition taken 
 from the outer and less sacred parts of the Temple to mark and enforce a 
 distinction which had become indispensable between Jews and Gentiles, at a 
 time when the latter had acquired certain privileges which were nevertheless 
 fiercely resented by the stricter sects of the Jewish nation. 
 
 There are other reasons, some of which will appear in the sequel, why the 
 Court of the Women should be considered as the Chel on the east side of the 
 Temple ; but in case anyone should object to this view, I have drawn it with a Chel 
 of its own, but one only 5 cubits in width. In the first place, as symbolical of its 
 
 Lightfoot, p. 338. 
 
 2 Josephus, Ant. xv. 11, 5. 
 
102 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 less complete sanctity, and, in the second, because the steps leading to it were only 
 three in number, instead of twelve or fourteen, such a diminution would be 
 architecturally appropriate. If, however, it is thought that it is still necessary 
 to provide it with a Chel of 10 cubits width, it can easily be done, but only 
 at the expense of the Court of the Gentiles. This, however, I consider, to say 
 the least of it, as extremely improbable, inasmuch as the pavement of the 
 hypsethral part of the Court of the Gentiles seems certainly to have been set 
 out with a width of 24 cubits on the three other sides, and it seems very 
 unlikely they would have varied it unnecessarily on the east, while it could 
 easily have been set out with the same width all round. 
 
 The mode in which we ascertain the number of steps leading from the Court 
 of the Gentiles to that of the Women is this. As explained above, there were on 
 the north side twelve steps leading to the Chel, and beyond that there were five 
 more leading to the Court of Israel of the inner Temple, 1 or seventeen on the 
 north and nineteen on the south, but consequently in the middle eighteen. Now 
 from the Talmud we know that fifteen steps led from the Court of the Women to 
 that of Israel, so that only three more were required to ascend from the Court 
 of the Gentiles to that of the Women, and these in plan would occupy only 
 1 cubit or at most 2 cubits. The section, therefore, of the court may be 
 expressed in the following figures : — 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Court of the Women — corrected Middoth 35 
 
 Eastern wall 4 
 
 Chel with its harrier (?) 5 
 
 Steps, cubit or 2 cubits 2 
 
 Court of Gentiles, as on all sides 24 
 
 Solomon’s Porch, as rebuilt by Herod 30 
 
 100 cubits ; 
 
 or the exact inner dimensions of the new or outer Court of Solomon’s Temple 
 which was subdivided in this manner when the Temple was rebuilt by Herod. 
 To this we must add 6 cubits, say, 10 feet, for the assumed thickness of the 
 outer wall to make up the dimensions obtained from the Ordnance Survey. 
 
 It is now only necessary to explain how the western Court of the Gentiles 
 was subdivided, and this fortunately is the easiest of the whole, as the simplest in 
 its arrangements. The external wall, being an upper one, and, like that on the 
 south, not liable to be attacked, was, it seems, only 4 cubits in thickness ; the 
 portico, as on the north and east sides, according to Josephus, 30 cubits. This 
 also was the width, as before exjilained, of the open part of the Court of the 
 
 1 Bel. Jud. y. 5, 2. 
 
Chap. III. 
 
 THE INNER TEMPLE. 
 
 103 
 
 Gentiles all round, including the steps, which, however, did not exist on this 
 side ; and if to these figures we add the Chel, 10 cubits, we have : — 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Wall 4 
 
 Covered part, or porch 30 
 
 Open or hypastliral part, including position of steps . . 30 
 
 Chel 10 
 
 74 cubits ; 
 
 all which is so appropriate, and so consonant with what we find in other parts, 
 that it does not appear to me to admit of any doubt. 
 
 Our grand section east and west will therefore, as before stated, stand thus : — 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Western Court of Gentiles 74 
 
 Inner Temple over all 210 
 
 Eastern court, including Court of Women ..... 100 
 
 Outer eastern wall 6 
 
 390 cubits, or 585 feet, 
 
 as measured by the Ordnance Survey. 
 
 The elements of uncertainty in this are very few, and confined wholly to 
 matters of detail, which in themselves are really of very slight importance. Thus 
 the position of the Altar being given — and this, as before explained, I consider 
 fixed absolutely by the centre line of the ITuldah Gate— and the dimensions of the 
 inner Temple, being ascertained (210 cubits), those of the western Court of the 
 Gentiles are also determined as 74 cubits beyond all cavil. In like manner, the 
 distance of 100 cubits between the outer face of the inner Temple and the back 
 of Solomon's Porch, I look upon as absolutely fixed, not only by the Bible, but also 
 by calculation, and it consequently is only how the last figure should be subdivided 
 that is at all open to question. For myself, I fancy that the 5 cubits allowed for 
 a Chel here could be as well or better employed in providing galleries and porches 
 inside the Court of the Women, but it seems of singularly little importance how 
 this is decided. The general dimensions of these three great divisions east and 
 west may be considered as ascertained within inches, and so, too, is their exact 
 position on the Ordnance Survey. 
 
 The section north and south is equally satisfactory. First we have : — 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Northern Court of the Gentiles as before 70 
 
 The Temple properly so called 210 
 
 Southern Court of the Gentiles 120 
 
 400 
 
 To which we must add the thickness of the north wall, 
 for which there is no authority, say 6 
 
 406 cubits = 609 or 610 feet. 
 
104 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 Here the one element of uncertainty is whether the inner Temple is to be 
 considered as measuring 210 or 211 cubits north and south. For reasons above 
 given, I myself have no doubt that it was 210, and the centre line to have been 
 66 cubits from the northern wall, so that this section appears to be ascertained 
 with the same precision and certainty as that in the transverse direction. 
 
 We are now in a position to understand the scheme on which the rebuilding 
 of the Temple by Herod was undertaken, and the motives that governed the 
 selection of the dimensions given to each part. They originated, partly, in a love 
 of even numbers, for which the Jewish architects always showed so strong 
 a predilection, but more in the necessity for adhering to dimensions they 
 considered sacred, as having been divinely revealed to their ancestors under 
 circumstances of the deepest solemnity. 
 
 The largest or outer dimension of 400 cubits was not sacred, and nowhere 
 occurs in the Bible. It therefore was of the least possible consequence whether 
 it was a few cubits longer or shorter in any direction ; the architects were 
 consequently free to adopt any number they found most convenient for the 
 harmonious arrangement of the internal parts. 
 
 As the internal dimensions of the holy house itself were divinely ordained^ 
 there was very little room for extension in those parts ; but the fa£ade did not 
 exist in the Tabernacle, and had already been extended in Solomon’s Temple ; 
 so the Jews in Herod’s time were allowed to indulge in their love of numerical 
 symmetry, by extending the three “ sixties ” of Solomon’s Temple into three 
 “hundreds” in Herod’s, and to make the building, which was 100 cubits long 
 in the body, 100 cubits high and 100 cubits broad in the fafjade, so as to 
 make it practically a cube or at least a building of three equal dimensions, like 
 the Holy of Holies, which was their beau-icleal of symmetrical proportions. 
 
 A building, however, that was 100 cubits in width could not stand in a 
 court of 100 cubits, and allow of the necessary passages round it ; so the architects 
 boldly added 50 cubits to its width north and south, while retaining the sacred 
 dimension of 200 cubits east and west. Several advantages were gained by this 
 adjustment, which enabled them to indulge in their love of symmetry, without 
 interfering with their sacred traditions. Thus, although it was of the least 
 possible consequence whether the outer court should be exactly 400 cubits each 
 way, it was essential, according to their ideas, that the inner court of the Temple 
 should be perfectly symmetrical, and it thus became — as above pointed out — an 
 exact square measuring 210 cubits externally ; and internally it was no doubt 
 200 cubits each way, though, as we do not know the exact thickness of the north 
 and south walls, it is hardly possible to prove this. If, however, we assume the 
 north and south walls of the chambers to have been 5 cubits, 7h feet, which is 
 an extremely probable number, the result would be that the inner court of the 
 Temple was an exact square measuring 200 cubits each way internally. Not 
 
Chap. III. 
 
 THE INNER TEMPLE. 
 
 105 
 
 only dicl the inner Temple thus become perfectly symmetrical, but this result was 
 obtained by repeating in Herod’s Temple the exact arithmetical operation that 
 Solomon bad performed on the Tabernacle. The court in which the Tabernacle 
 stood was 50 cubits by 100 ; Solomon made it 100 cubits by 200 ; and in Herod’s 
 time it was increased to a square of 200 cubits, retaining its dimensions east 
 and west, but doubling them in right angles. 
 
 Another very important advantage was obtained by this adjustment. As 
 before pointed out (page 94), the inner Temple, with its southern and eastern courts, 
 as rebuilt by Herod, measured 300 cubits north and south, as well as east and 
 west, thus reproducing exactly the dimensions of the Temple described by 
 Ezekiel. The western and northern outer courts were hardly considered, at any 
 time, sacred by the Jews. There was absolutely no connexion between the 
 western and the inner court, and no opening in the western wall of the Temple 
 properly so called ; nor was there any public entrance from the northern to the 
 inner court of the Temple. The priests and servants of the Temple had access 
 from the north. The public had not, and in fact, except for the purposes of a 
 passage, had no business on that side at all. The inner Temple, with its southern 
 and eastern courts, was in fact the Temple properly so called. The western and 
 northern courts, like the Gamma of the Altar, 1 were an excrescence necessary 
 for convenience, but neither for sanctity nor symmetry. 
 
 In Solomon’s time the western court could have had no existence, as it stands 
 , on new ground made by Herod, and the northern court in his day was a ditch 
 which was filled up by Pompey, and only taken into the precincts when the 
 enlargement on the north 3 was determined upon. It thus happened that neither 
 their site nor their dimensions had at any time much sanctity attached to them, 
 but the case was widely different with the remaining 300 cubits, which, had the 
 Rabbis been capable of understanding Ezekiel, they would have adopted, as 
 Herod’s architect did, from his writing, instead of the 500 cubits, with reference 
 to which they blundered so egregiously. 
 
 All this is so exactly in conformity with all we know of the history of the 
 Temple, and of the feelings which dictated and governed its design, that now 
 that these dimensions are confirmed to within inches by the Ordnance Survey, I 
 do not see that the dimensions of the Temple in plan can any longer be open to 
 doubt. I, at least, know of no building in the whole world, which has been so 
 completely ruined, regarding the plan and dimensions of which we can feel the 
 same confident certainty as we can regarding this celebrated Temple, and unless 
 I am strangely mistaken, this part of the question may be considered — in all its 
 essential parts — settled at once and for ever. 
 
 1 Middoth iii. 1. 
 
 B. J. v. 5, 1. 
 
106 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 GATES AND CHAMBERS. 
 
 When from these dimensions and details, which work out so satisfactorily and 
 with such minute accuracy in plan, we turn to the arrangement and the names of 
 the various gates and chambers that surrounded the inner court of the Temple, 
 we find a totally different state of matters. The position and the form of the 
 Water Cate may be fixed with perfect accuracy, but, beyond that, the evidence is 
 so confused and contradictory that only approximate certainty can be attained 
 in any case ; but, fortunately, no important issues depend on their arrangement. 
 Their general form and use are easily understood, and whether one was east or 
 west of another, or whether it bore one or two names, is only of interest to 
 students of the Talmud. The Bible hardly alludes to them, and history would 
 not be made much clearer if we knew all that could be known about them. 
 
 If written materials existed for explaining their positions and uses, it 
 certainly would have been done long ago by Lightfoot . 1 His intimate familiarity 
 with the writings of the Rabbis and his critical sagacity would certainly have 
 enabled him to clear up the mystery, but nothing can be more unsatisfactory 
 than the twelve chapters he devotes to this purpose (xxi.-xxxii.). There are 
 some points, of course, which he establishes with tolerable certainty, but the whole 
 is a mass of confusion that is most disheartening. It is quite evident, from what 
 he says, that the Rabbis had no real knowledge of the locality, and no treatise 
 had been written by any one personally acquainted with it. They gathered 
 together from various treatises, written by different hands, such allusions as they 
 found bearing on the matter in hand, and noted them down without having the 
 skill sufficient to construct a plan from them, or to see how the one piece of 
 knowledge elucidated or contradicted another. In this instance, local knowledge 
 was not required, and the want of it would not have prevented Lightfoot from 
 settling the question, had the necessary materials been available ; but, without 
 going farther than the little treatise of the Middoth in the Appendix, it is easy 
 to see how and why he broke down in the task. 
 
 1 The Temple Service and the Prospect of the Temple, 
 by the Rev. John Lightfoot, D.D., Master of Catharine 
 Hall, Cambridge, published with other works in two 
 volumes folio; afterwards by the Rev. John Pitman, in 
 the ninth volume of his collected works in 1823, but, 
 
 strange to say, without correcting any of the errors or 
 inadvertences of the original work. It is this octavo 
 edition of 1823 from which all the references here given 
 are taken. 
 
Chap. IV. 
 
 GATES AND CHAMBERS. 
 
 107 
 
 In tlie first chapter we have the following statement : — “ In the court (the 
 inner) there were seven gates : three in the north and three in the south and one 
 in the east. That in the south was called the Gate of Flaming, the second after it 
 the Gate of Offering, the third after it the Water Gate. That in the east was called 
 the gate Nicanor ” (sect. 5). “ At the gate Nitzus, in the north, was a kind of cloister 
 with a room built over it, where the priests kept ward above and the Levites 
 below. Second to it was the Gate of Offering ; third was the house of Moked or 
 Mokadk.” If the description stopped there, all would be clear. The position ot 
 the Water Gate we know absolutely ; it was opposite the Altar, and in continuation 
 of the gate Huldah, and if we may assume — which I think we are justified in 
 doing — that on the north, as well as on the south, the enumeration begins from 
 the west, all is clear. The two Gates of Offering were opposite to one another in 
 the centre, and the gate Mokadh was opposite the Water Gate, and this I believe 
 to be the true state of the case. But a little farther on (chap. ii. sect. 6) we have 
 the following statement : — “ In the south, near the west, were the Upper Gate, the 
 Gate of Flaming, the Gate of the First-born, the Water Gate.” Here a fourth gate 
 is ^interpolated, which, we may say, certainly did not exist, and, except for the 
 Water Gate, new names are applied. The Rabbis then go on to say : — “ Opposite 
 to them in the north, near to the west, the gate of Jochania, the Gate of Offering, 
 the Gate of the Women, and the Gate of Music.” Here also we have four gates, 
 and, except the Gate of Offering, with new names, so that their identification 
 becomes difficult, though not so much so as Lightfoot would lead us to suppose. 
 In his 32nd chapter, he places the gate Nitzus as the most eastern, neglecting the 
 distinct assertion, just quoted from the Middoth, that it was the most western, 
 and identifying it with the Gate of Music, for which he confesses he has no 
 authority, 1 but in doing this, he disarranges the whole matter, and introduces 
 a confusion that runs through his entire work. 
 
 In this dilemma it is fortunate that Josephus comes forward to help us with 
 a distinct statement. Beyond the Chel, he says, “ There were five other steps 
 which led to the gates, which gates were eight, on the north and south sides, or 
 four on each, and of necessity two on the east, for since there was a partition 
 built for the women on that side, as a proper place for them to worship, there 
 was of necessity a second gate for them.” 2 “ This gate was cut out of the 
 wall over against the first gate. But on the other sides, there was one 
 northern and one southern gate, through which there was a passage to the Court 
 of the "Women, for, as to the other gates, the women were not allowed to pass 
 through them, nor, when they went through their own, could they pass beyond 
 their own wall.' 3 Even this passage, however, would not be quite free from 
 
 1 Lightfoot, p. 378. 
 
 2 The mode in which Josephus speaks of this' Gupn, 
 or partition cut off from something else, is alone suffi- 
 
 cient to prove that it rvas not a court nearly as large 
 
 as the Temple court itself, as the Rabbis would wish us 
 to believe. B. J. v. 5, 2. 
 
 3 B. J. v. 5, 2. 
 
108 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 ambiguity, were it not that, in the next section (3), he mentions twice over that 
 nine of these gates were covered with gold and silver, and one with Corinthian 
 brass — the Beautiful Gate of the Bible, the Nicauor of the Talmud. From this 
 and from the necessities of the plan, there seems no doubt that there were ten 
 gates, and ten gates only, to the inner Temple with the Court of the Women. The 
 Rabbinical specification of thirteen 1 I believe to be accounted for by the fact 
 that the three southern gates were double, while all the others were single, as 
 will be explained presently. 
 
 Of these ten gates, the only one of the position and dimensions of which we 
 can feel quite sure from local indications is the Water Gate. As Lightfoot says, 
 “ It opened directly on the altar.” 3 It was in fact a continuation of the gate 
 Huldah, and derived its name from being attached on the west side to the “draw- 
 well room,” whence the principal supply of water for the use of the Temple was 
 then obtained, as it is now. It stands, in fact, over the “ Well of the Leaf,” 
 which was supplied with water from Solomon’s Pool, certainly in Herod’s, if not in 
 Solomon’s time. The conduit that brought the water into it was cut through by 
 the builders of the Aksa 3 (694 a.d.), when they found it necessary to extend the 
 passage from the gate Huldah, so as to rise to the surface in front of the mosque, 
 considerably farther north than was originally necessary. It was probably owing 
 to the fact of its being supplied from Etam that it was considered the principal 
 source, from which water was obtained, for the service of the Altar and courts ; 
 otherwise we should suppose that the “ great sea,” so called, was more important ; 
 but that seems to receive rain water only, or to be supplied from some 
 underground springs, which may have been less constant and less to be depended 
 upon. Be that as it may, the principal opening through which water is now 
 drawn from the “Well of the Leaf ” occurs under the colonnade of the inner 
 Temple, just where we would expect to find it placed for the service of the 
 Temple. If, however, it is thought necessary to take the expression of the Talmud 
 literally, it was in the “ room ” adjoining the gateway. This, however, need 
 cause no difficulty, as a second opening, though now disused, still exists, and 
 is marked on the Ordnance Survey, in that room, as protracted from the 
 indications in Josephus and the Talmud ; in the centre towards the east. 
 
 With their usual correctness in detail, the Rabbis make these gates all 10 
 cubits or 15 feet wide, by 20 cubits or 30 feet in height, which is, as nearly as may 
 be, the dimensions we derive from those of the passage from the gate Huldah, 
 that is, 40 feet in width ; while by protraction of the south facade of the Temple 
 we obtain 39 feet between the towers, and, making the necessary allowance for 
 the central dividing pier and the door-posts, 15 leet, is, as nearly as may be, 
 the dimensions we arrive at. But here, for the first time, we detect a mode of 
 exaggeration Josephus is too fond of indulging in. Instead of 15 by 30 feet, 
 
 1 Middoth ii. 6. 
 
 2 Chap. xxiv. p. 350. 
 
 Wilson’s Notes, p. 39 ; see also Ordnance Survey map. 
 
Chap. IY. 
 
 GATES AND CHAMBERS. 
 
 109 
 
 lie says the doors were 15 cubits wide by 30 cubits high, 1 which are dimensions we 
 cannot possibly work to, especially if the gates were double. It appears to me 
 hardly doubtful that Josephus was wrong in this statement. In the first place, it 
 would he a curious instance of architectural bathos if a double gateway like that 
 of Huldah, with two passages of 1 2 cubits each, were to lead to a single entrance 
 only 10 cubits wide. Besides this, we must never lose sight of the fact that, 
 though Solomon’s Temple faced the east, because his palace was on that side, 
 and access to the Temple was easily obtained by the inclined plane between the 
 Horse Gate and the Upper Gate, its orientation was entirely changed by Herod’s 
 additions. In his time the Temple faced the south ; not only did the great Stoa 
 Basilica occupy that side, but all the three great entrances we know of, centred 
 in the southern Court of the Gentiles : that from Ophel, by the gate Huldah ; 
 that from the city, across the causeway; and that from the suburbs, by the 
 Parbar Gate. It, consequently, was necessary to provide access to the Temple 
 from that court, equal, or at least nearly equal, in width to those that gave access 
 to the lower court. The former were — one of 12 cubits from the Parbar, two of 
 12 cubits from the Huldah, and one of 30 cubits from the central aisle of the 
 Stoa Basilica, or 66 cubits in all. Six gates of 10 cubits to the Temple and 
 one of like dimensions to the Court of the Women would suffice for this; but 
 less would be a defect in the design hardly to be expected in so beautiful and 
 regular a building. 
 
 If this is so — or, indeed, whether it is or not — we have little difficulty in 
 setting out the southern facade, which was the principal one of Herod’s Temple. 
 The position of the eastern or Water Gate being fixed absolutely, that of the 
 western or Gate Hadlak or of Flaming must, of course, correspond with it ; and 
 the only question is, should it correspond with the internal or with the external 
 divisions of the court ? — for as the wall on the west was, in all probability, 2 cubits 
 thicker than that on the east, the western block must be 2 cubits wider than the 
 eastern. For reasons which will appear hereafter, I have preferred the internal 
 to the external symmetry of the facade ; but it is so small a matter — no human 
 eye could detect it — that it is hardly worth arguing about. But if any one 
 thinks this a defect, he can easily distribute the two cubits among the inter- 
 mediate parts. According to the arrangement adopted in the plan, this front 
 consisted of — 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Two central towers of 28 cubits each 56 
 
 Three intermediate gateway spaces of 26 cubits each . 78 
 
 One angle tower of 37 
 
 Another angle tower 39 
 
 1 B. J. y. 5, 3. 
 
 210 cubits. 
 
110 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Pakt II. 
 
 The Talmud does not give us the height ot these buildings, but Josephus 
 does in a manner to lead us to suspect another exaggeration, by changing feet 
 into cubits. Externally, he says, they were 40 cubits in height, but internally 
 only 25, because of the steps that led up from the Court of the Gentiles to that 
 of the Temple. Now we know, as above stated, that these steps were 14 + 5 or 
 1 9 in number, and as each was half a cubit in height, this gives 9 h cubits, or 
 14 feet 3 inches, which is suspiciously like the 15 cubits Josephus assigns 
 to this difference. 
 
 Eastward from the chamber of the draw-well stood the chamber Gazith or 
 the chamber of hewn stone, in which the Sanhedrin sat from the time of the 
 Captivity till forty years before the destruction of the Temple, or till a.d. 30. 1 
 Before the Captivity they sat apparently first in the outer and then in the inner 
 of the two eastern gates of the Temple ; but, as we have shown above, in describing 
 Ezekiel’s Temple, the gates were of a very different form and construction in the 
 old Temples to what they were in either the second or third, and when this 
 alteration was made, it was indispensable that a new chamber should be 
 provided for the accommodation of the seventy-one members composing this 
 great council. 
 
 The position and arrangements of this room have proved rather a stumbling- 
 block to those who have hitherto attempted to restore the Temple, inasmuch as 
 the Rabbis have added to it the specification that one-half of it must be within 
 the Chel and one-half without ; the reason given for this being that “ it was not 
 lawful for any man to sit in the (inner) court unless it be one of the kings of 
 the house of David.” 2 It was consequently necessary to provide that one-half of 
 the room in which the great council sat should be outside the Chel, and have an 
 entrance from the outer court, as well as from the inner. 3 All this is easily 
 provided for, as shown in the plan ; but how are we to understand the 
 specification, “ One-half inside the Chel and one-half outside ” ? 
 
 If the Chel were a barrier ( soreg ) or a rail, this might easily be explained ; 
 and a barrier that ran through a lower room might easily be carried either 
 figuratively or actually through an upper one. But the Chel was a space 
 10 cubits wide, enclosed by a barrier which separated the profane from the holy ; 
 and how that can be said to run through a room is by no means clear. 
 Supposing, for instance, any of the rooms round the inner court were doubled in 
 extent in a direction north or south ; one-half might be said to be outside, one- 
 half inside the Chel ; but, in that case, the fact would be, that the Chel was broken, 
 and had ceased to exist certainly for the purposes for which it was intended 
 when this extension took place. As I have placed it, if we might consider the 
 passage, 10 cubits wide, leading to the Court of the Women under the Gazith as an 
 extension of the Chel round the inner Temple, the difficulty would vanish ; and 
 
 1 Lightfoot, p. 242. 
 
 2 Lightfoot, p. 338. 
 
 3 Lightfoot, p. 337. 
 
Chap. IV. 
 
 GATES AND CHAMBERS. 
 
 Ill 
 
 this is probably what was intended. If so, the Chel again expanded to 35 cubits, 
 and formed the Court of the Women. There may be, indeed are, other modes 
 which could be suggested for getting over the difficulty ; but as this one seems to 
 meet all the circumstances of the case, better than any other I can suggest, it is 
 hardly worth while to dwell upon them. For our present purpose, it is sufficient 
 to know that the room Grazitli stood at this angle, and was considered as partly 
 belonging to the inner, partly to the outer, court of the Temple, and having 
 entrances from both. 
 
 Beyond this room Grazith, westward, there is very little difficulty in appor- 
 tioning to each part of the south front the use for which it was employed. The 
 only uncertainty arises from an embarras de riches.ses. We have more accom- 
 modation than we can find tenants for. Just over the draw-well room we 
 have the Chamber of the Abtines, who had charge of the incense used in the 
 services of the Temple, and were apparently persons of considerable importance. 
 Over the Water Grate was the chamber of the high-priest, where he purified 
 himself before taking part in the service of the Temple. The ground floor of 
 the next tower was used as a store for the selected wood to be used for the 
 service of the altar, for which it was most conveniently situated. The upper 
 storey was the room Parhedrim, or council-chamber, next to that of the high-priest. 
 Beyond this was the Grate of the Firstlings ; but we are not told what was over it, 
 nor to what purpose the room beyond was devoted, unless it was for the deposit 
 of these offerings, or, as Dr. Lightfoot suggests, they were slain there. 1 In like 
 manner, we have only a very indistinct account of why the Grate of Kindling, 
 “ Hadlakh,” was so called, or of the purpose to which the large chamber beyond 
 was appropriated. Dr. Lightfoot suggests that it may be the place where 
 the Levites kept guard over against the vail, 2 meaning thereby the vail which 
 separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. There is, in fact, in the 
 whole Temple no place so well suited for a guard chamber as this. It com- 
 mands all the entrances, and if there was any chamber of the guard, this is the 
 place where it would naturally be looked for. 
 
 It is hardly worth while pursuing this investigation further, for, as before 
 mentioned, the names and uses of these various gates and chambers is of very 
 little interest, except to specialists. They are not connected, historically, with any 
 events which such appropriations would elucidate, while, architecturally, it is 
 sufficient to know that this principal front of the Temple was divided into four 
 tower-like masses, between which were three double gateways leading from the 
 lower to the upper courts of the Temple, and extending over 210 cubits or 
 315 feet. For their uses, it is sufficient for our present purposes to know that 
 their lower storeys were appropriated to the supply of water and wood for the 
 service of the Altar and courts, and for the storage of offerings or guard chambers ; 
 
 1 Lightfoot, p. 359. 
 
 2 Lightfoot, p. 364. 
 
112 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEKOD. 
 
 Past 11. 
 
 while their upper chambers were used as the vestries or council chambers of the 
 high-priest, and as the offices or residences of subordinate officials connected with 
 the Temple service. It need hardly be remarked that, as they were all, including 
 Gazith, of two storeys in height, they must have been connected with each other 
 by stairs, though none are shown in the plans. These are omitted simply because 
 they are not mentioned either in the Talmud or by Josephus, and there is no 
 indication as to where they may have been placed. Under these circumstances 
 it is open to any one to supply them wherever he pleases, and one arrangement 
 is likely to be as good as another. The best will only be an evidence of its 
 author’s ingenuity, but be of no historical value. 
 
 When from the southern we turn to the northern face of the inner Temple, 
 we find a very different state of things. In the first place, this fia^ade seems 
 alwa}^s to have been considered as what, in common parlance, may be called the 
 hack front of the Temple. The public always, of course, had access to the northern 
 Court of the Gentiles, which extended along it, and probably may have occasionally 
 circumambulated the Temple in this direction ; but no external entrance opened 
 into this court, for the passage through the Antonia could hardly ever have been 
 considered as a public thoroughfare, and the gateway Tadi or Teri was, as before 
 mentioned, disused at the time we are speaking of. In like manner, no access to 
 the inner Temple was permitted to either the men or women of Israel from the 
 northern side. All the three entrances on this side opened into the Court of 
 the Priests, and were available for the priests, and them only. Even on the 
 inside the men of Israel were only allowed to approach the northern range 
 of buildings by a narrow slip 11 cubits wide on the extreme eastern side of the 
 inner court, where apparently the Chamber of Shewbread was situated. All the 
 rest was appropriated to the priests, and forbidden to the laity. The first con- 
 sequence of this seems to have been that the gates on this side were single, and 
 probably less magnificent than those on the south, and the chambers more 
 numerous, but of a more utilitarian character, than those on the other side. 
 
 It is probably in consequence of their being of such minor importance that 
 the buildings on this side are described so carelessly and with so much less detail 
 than those on the south. But whatever the cause may be, it is at least certain 
 that neither the compilers of the Talmud nor their commentators have any clear 
 ideas on the subject of their arrangement. As Dr. Lightfoot says, each of the 
 gates had two names ; the centre one certainly had three. In two instances, at 
 least, different rooms had the same names, and, as he avers, one author describes 
 the various apartments from east to west, while another proceeds in a contrary 
 direction. All this is of course sufficiently perplexing, but still I do not think the 
 confusion is so great as the learned doctor makes it appear to be. 1 Practically, 
 the whole difficulty hinges on the position of the Beth Mokadh. If it was — where 
 
 1 Liglitfout, chaps, xxviii.-xxxii. 
 
Chap. IV. 
 
 GATES AND CHAMBEKS. 
 
 113 
 
 it was placed in the 1st chapter of the Middoth, quoted above — immediately 
 behind the Altar, all the rest is clear ; if, on the contrary, it is at the west end 
 of the range, where Lightfoot and others place it, I am afraid the confusion must 
 remain as hopeless as he represents its being. 
 
 The reason for placing the Beth Mokadh immediately behind the Altar will 
 be understood from the annexed diagram : — 
 
 Chel. 
 
 
 Descent to Chamber 
 of Baptism. 
 
 c3 
 
 £ 
 
 CD 
 
 cd 
 
 o 
 
 Stones of Altar. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <D 
 
 
 
 
 Chamber 
 
 cd 
 
 Chamber 
 
 
 
 of Offering. 
 
 
 of Shewbread. 
 
 Court of Priests. 
 
 20. — Diagram explanatory of Betii Mokadii. 
 
 Beth Mokadh was by far the most important building on this side, and 
 consisted of five apartments on the ground floor. The central one was vaulted 
 (query, domed), and opened on the north on the Chel, on the south on the inner 
 court. Here the elders kept watch day and night, and here too the keys of the 
 court were always kept. It seems also that it was opposite the gate Tadi, 1 and if 
 that gate was where I have placed it, this would settle the question. The south- 
 eastern chamber was where the shewbread was prepared and kept, and was, 
 according to this arrangement, next the place of the pancake maker, which was 
 on the north of the gate Nicanor. The south-west chamber was where the lambs 
 were kept for daily sacrifice, and it thus adjoined the Grate of Offerings. If 
 Mokadh was placed in the north-west corner of the court, the lambs would be at 
 the greatest possible distance from the Altar, and wholly disconnected with the 
 Gate of Offerings. The north-east chamber was called the Chamber of Stones, 
 because it was there that the stones of the Altar were stored up which had 
 been defiled by the Greek kings. 2 Its situation exactly corresponds with that in 
 which the high-priest was shut up at the north-east angle of the Temple for seven 
 days before the ceremony of the sacrifice of the red heifer on the Mount of 
 Olives, and which bore this name. In order to reconcile this legend with his 
 position of the Beth Mokadh, Dr. Lightfoot, and, I presume, the Rabbis he 
 follows, introduce a second chamber bearing this name, 3 but for which I can find 
 no authority elsewhere. The fourth room, in the north-west corner, led down to a 
 
 1 Middoth i. 9. 
 
 3 Lightfoot, pp. 379, 380. 
 
 2 Middoth i. 6. 
 
 Q 
 
114 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 bath or place of baptism, and by stairs up to some chambers. This, of course, 
 might be anywhere ; but the other three can, I fancy, only be where I have placed 
 them. The Beth Mokadh was, in fact, the principal building on this side, and as 
 such could only be placed opposite the only open space in the court. Its being 
 thrust into the north-west corner, behind the Temple, seems not only at variance 
 with architectural propriety, but also with the Talmudic indications, in so far as 
 I can understand them . 1 
 
 The only passage, I know, that seems to contradict this view of the position 
 of the Beth Mokadh is one in Lightfoot, where he describes the perambulation of 
 the Temple by its guards . 2 They seem to have divided themselves into two 
 companies, one perambulating the north and east sides, the other the west and 
 south, and they seem to have met in the house of the pastryman, adjacent to the 
 gate Nicanor. From this it seems evident that they started from the north-west 
 corner, and if from the gate Mokadh, this would go far to prove that its position 
 was there. But is not this just one of those cases where Dr. Lightfoot, or the 
 Rabbis, haviug assumed that Beth Mokadh was in this corner, would assume that 
 the procession started thence ? In opposition, however, to this, we know that a 
 barrack or chamber was erected over the cloisters at the north-west angle, where 
 the priests kept guard ; and, as before pointed out, this seems to have been attached 
 to the gate Nitzus . 3 On the whole, it does not appear to me that Dr. Lightfoot 
 had any other authority for saying that the guard started from the Beth Mokadh 
 except that they did set out from the north-west corner, and as he had placed that 
 building there, he necessarily assumed it was thence. It seems, therefore, that we 
 should be as fully justified in substituting Nitsots for Beth Mokadh as he does 
 for the contrary assumption. 
 
 Assuming this for the present, the rest seems clear enough. The central 
 gateway was called the Gate of Offering, because by it, as by the opposite gate on 
 the south, offerings were brought in. It was called the Gate of Corban, because 
 the treasury of the inner Temple was situated immediately to the westward of it, 
 and it was miscalled the Gate of the Women, because the Rabbis confounded this 
 Corban with that in the Court of the Women under which the northern entrance 
 to that court passed. There seems, in fact, to be no doubt that, besides the various 
 chests or boxes for receiving alms, placed in the Court of the 'Women, and 
 elsewhere, there were two chambers so called ; one in the Court of the Women, 
 opposite to and corresponding in position and dimensions with the chamber 
 Gazitli ; the other in the northern range of the buildings surrounding the inner 
 Temple court ; and it is by confusing one with another, having no plan before 
 them, that the centre gate was by mistake called the Gate of the Women. 
 
 The last gate to the westward was called Nitzus or Nitsots, the Gate of Song 
 or of Sparkling , 4 and also bore the name of Jeconiah because through it that 
 
 1 Lightfoot, 1 ^. 373. 
 
 2 Lightfoot, p. 106. 
 
 3 Middoth i. 5. 
 
 4 Lightfoot, p. 378. 
 
Chap. IV. 
 
 GATES AND CHAMBERS. 
 
 115 
 
 unfortunate king was led to captivity. The question of which gate was the one 
 most likely to witness this event will depend on where the headquarters of the 
 Assyrian general then were. If in the city itself, which is most probable, it 
 would be by the most western gate. This, of course, is too vague to found any 
 argument upon, but, at all events, it is enough to show that there is no impro- 
 bability in this gate being so called. 
 
 There is one other reason why the gate Nit sots should be considered the 
 most western, which is that there was a room built over the cloister in front of it, 
 beyond the gate westward, where the priests kept ward above and the Levites 
 below . 1 Such an erection, as shown in the plan, would be easy at this inner end, 
 but could hardly be placed in the open court behind the Altar, where it would 
 have been a deformity. 
 
 If this arrangement of the gates is conceded, the position of the three 
 remaining rooms follows as a matter of course. The room of “ washing ” was 
 next the Corban to the westward, and the rooms of Salt and of Parvah between 
 the gate Nitsots and the western wall of the court. 
 
 It is possible that some other arrangement of this northern range of 
 buildings, or some modification of this one, may be suggested ; but till this is 
 done, I believe the one proposed here meets all the exigencies of the case, in so 
 far as they are known to me at least ; and it is, at all events, quite sufficient for 
 all historical or architectural purposes. There is, however, one difficulty I have 
 passed over, because I cannot explain it. In describing the four chambers 
 of the Beth Mokadh, the Middoth says, “ two were in the holy place, and 
 two in the unconsecrated, and pointed rails formed the division between the 
 holy and the unconsecrated . 2 
 
 The difficulty here is of the same nature as that which arose in speaking of 
 the room Gazith ; but there it seems capable of explanation. Here I cannot 
 realise any arrangement by which the two northern rooms can be got outside the 
 Chel, unless wholly detached from the southern ones, which they certainly were 
 not, nor how the Chel could have been broken here. Perhaps it only means 
 that the two northern chambers opening on the Chel were considered as less holy 
 than the two southern, which opened on to the inner court of the Temple, 
 and that their partition wall was continued by rails across the central room 
 to mark this relative degree of sanctity ; if it was not this, I am afraid we 
 must wait for some suggestion which has not yet been offered. 
 
 The dignity and importance of the north front of the inner Temple 
 being so much less than that of the south front, its design most probably 
 corresponded architecturally with this relative inferiority ; and being more 
 liable to attack, the defensive masses would be extended, and the gateways 
 between them, besides being single, would be in narrower recesses, and con- 
 
 Middoth i. 5. 
 
 2 Middoth i. 6. 
 
116 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEEOD. 
 
 Pakt II. 
 
 sequently less easy to be got at than those of the southern face. It is probable, 
 also, that, besides a difference in outline, the whole style of ornamentation in this 
 front would be simpler, but bolder, than that on the south front of the Temple. 
 These, however, are details that only interest any one who is designing 
 architectural elevations for the various fronts, and we are hardly yet in a position 
 to undertake these. Before attempting this, it is necessary to settle the plan 
 and disposition of the various parts, and that is all we have been trying to 
 elucidate at present, at least in so far as the courts are concerned. For the 
 holy house itself, it may be necessary to attempt something more, in order to 
 make it intelligible ; but for the courts, this hardly appears important, at least 
 in the present stage of the enquiry. 
 
Chap. V. 
 
 THE COURT OP THE WOMEN. 
 
 117 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE COURT OP THE WOMEN. 
 
 Unfortunately, the Middoth gives us very little real information about the 
 arrangement of the Court of the Women. It may have been that the authorities 
 from which that treatise was originally compiled considered it so much less 
 sacred than the Temple itself, that they left no particulars ; or it may be that the 
 Rabbis, finding it difficult to reconcile their theories with the facts, neglected to 
 quote the details. Whether from these or from some other causes, the practical 
 result is that all they tell us of this court is borrowed avowedly, but unintelli- 
 gently, from the Book of Ezekiel. First, they made the unpardonable blunder of 
 inserting into this court the whole of the 100 cubits they obtained in excess of 
 the true dimensions of the Mountain of the House, by their mislection of Ezekiel, 
 as above explained. They then made a second mistake, almost as glaring, 
 though not so disastrous, by assuming that this court was identical with the outer 
 or northern court of Ezekiel’s Temple ; and their description of it is avowedly 
 taken from the 46th chapter of the prophet’s vision, and the 21st and following 
 verses. 1 
 
 We may say we know with certainty that no northern court was attached to 
 the Temple before the Captivity, nor indeed afterwards, for Hecatarus’ measure- 
 ments are quite sufficiently exact to prove this. It only existed in the prophet’s 
 brain, and there is nothing in the arrangements of Herod’s Temple that would 
 suggest the existence of any sacred adjunct on the northern side of any pre- 
 existing Temple. When, therefore, the Rabbis tell us that this court was 135 
 cubits square, and had in each angle a court or apartment 40 cubits square, we 
 can only say, the thing is impossible. Indeed, its improbability must have struck 
 even the Rabbis, had they been able to draw or appreciate a plan. The dispro- 
 portion of this court to its uses has already been insisted upon, but it is even 
 more apparent in speaking of the four angular courts. The first was “ the 
 chamber of the Nazarites, where they cooked their peace-offering, and polled their 
 hair, and cast it under the pot.” 1 A very small kitchen would surely have 
 sufficed for this. Another was where the priests selected the wood for the altar. 
 A third was for the lepers, who certainly would not be allowed to be numerous 
 within the precincts of the Temple ; and as to the fourth, one Rabbi forgets what 
 
 1 Middoth ii. 5. 
 
118 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 it was used for, and another recollects that there they put wine and oil. 1 It was 
 the lamp room, in fact, of the Temple. That there were four rooms in the four 
 corners of this court is more than probable, and they are shown in the plan of 
 this court, Plate II., as measuring 12 by 22 cubits internally — 18 by 33 feet — - 
 which would provide amply for all the uses to which the above description 
 would apply. 
 
 Besides these rooms, the court was a good deal encumbered by galleries, 
 which it is not easy to restore from such descriptions as we possess. As its 
 pavement was 7 ^ cubits lower than that of the court of the Temple, it is evident 
 that, even supposing there was no wall of separation, only those who stood or 
 the top of the stairs could see what was passing in the upper court. Only fifty or 
 one hundred persons, at most, of all those for whom this immense court was 
 provided, could really take part in the Temple services. It was partly to remedy 
 this, partly to admit of the separation of the sexes, “ who, being formerly mixed 
 promiscuously together, occasioned lightness and irreverence,” 2 that these galleries 
 were provided. It would not be difficult to restore them if it were worth while, 
 except as regards their height. Either they must have been very high, or the 
 wall between the courts must have been very low, if even then the women could 
 see what was passing in the inner court. They might hear, as they would be 
 only 50 cubits from the dukan , or pulpit, where the Levites stood when chanting 
 the Psalms, but had the court been 100 cubits wider, as the Rabbis would have 
 us believe it was, they would have been deprived of even this advantage. 
 
 The Rabbis seem to have been aware that the Court of the Women was not 
 concentric with the Temple court ; but the reason assigned for this, as quoted by 
 Dr. Lightfoot, 3 is rather an effect than a cause. They — the Rabbis — say the 
 
 greatest space of the Mount was on the south, the second on the east, the third 
 on the north, and the least to the westward ; a specification that might be 
 interpreted in various ways, were it not that the Middoth adds, “ that in the 
 place largest in measurement was held most service,” 4 which limits its application 
 to the inner Temple, no service, in their eyes, being held outside that sacred 
 precinct. Even then, however, the expression must be one of considerable 
 ambiguity till it is defined whence the measurements are taken. My impression 
 is that the Rabbis considered the Temple and its Altar as one and indivisible, and 
 measured from thence as from one object ; the consequence of which would be that 
 the figures would be 35 cubits on the south, 22 on the east, 16 north, and 11 west. 
 
 The same result, however, would be obtained if we consider the inner 
 court — 200 cubits by 150 cubits — as the sacred spot, and measure from that. 
 The figures would then stand, south 150, east 110, north 106, and west 74. The 
 east and north are a little too near one another in this scheme, which is otherwise 
 improbable, and some other may be suggested. The matter is not one of much 
 
 1 Middoth ii. 5. 2 Lightfoot, p. 311. 3 Lightfoot, p. 220. 4 Middoth ii. 1. 
 
Chap. V. 
 
 THE COURT OF THE WOMEN. 
 
 119 
 
 importance. It is sufficient for us to know that the Rabbis were aware that there 
 was a greater space inside the court on the south than on the north side of the 
 central line of the Temple and Altar. They knew, consequently, that, as the two 
 gates of the Women’s Court, Shuslian and Nicanor, were opposite to each other, 
 and centred on the line of the Altar and the Temple, this court itself being 
 shorter, and having these two gates in its centre, the position of its centre could 
 not coincide with that of the inner court, but must be farther north. 
 
 There does not seem to be any doubt that Dr. Lightfoot was quite correct 
 in considering the Women’s Court as that which is called the Treasury in the 
 New Testament, and that it received this designation because in it were placed 
 the treasure chests in which the people deposited their contributions towards 
 the objects for which each of these was appropriated. “ The treasuries of the 
 Temple,” he says, “ were of a twofold nature and capacity — namely, treasure 
 chests and treasure chambers. The former were called Shopheroth, the latter 
 Lesacoth, and both bore the general name of Corban.” 1 There were thirteen of 
 the former class, and all, apparently, placed in the Court of the Women, to which 
 persons of both sexes were admitted, while women were jealously excluded from 
 the inner Temple ; and there were certainly two of the latter class, whose position 
 has already been pointed out — one on the north side of the inner court, and one 
 on the north of the Court of the Women, over the two angle apartments. 2 
 
 Although the upper and inner court was by far the more important, and 
 in the eyes of the Jews by far the more sacred, to Christians the Court of the 
 Women is even more interesting, as it was within its precincts that nearly all the 
 events took place which are alluded to in the New Testament. It is, however, 
 almost certain that “ the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them 
 that sold doves,” 3 were in the Court of the Gentiles — probably in the great 
 thoroughfare of the southern Stoa. But it was in the Court of the Women 
 that Christ “ sat over against the treasury,” and saw the people cast in money, 
 and saw a widow throw in “ two mites,” 4 which she could only have done in a 
 place to which women were admitted. It was also here that John represents 
 Jesus speaking “ in the treasury, as he taught in the temple.” 5 
 
 It was in the inner gate of this court, called the Beautiful (Nicanor), that 
 Peter and John healed the lame man, and, when the astonished crowd followed 
 them, took refuge in Solomon’s Porch close at hand, and there preached to the 
 people in the words quoted in the 3rd chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. It 
 was the accusation that Paul had introduced a stranger into this court 6 which led 
 
 1 Lightfoot, p. 313. 
 
 2 Josephus’ mention of the Treasuries in the plural — 
 
 77 po tuv ya(o(j)v\aKLoni — in speaking of the porticos of the 
 
 inner court of the Temple (B. J. v. 5, 2) may either he 
 
 considered as indicating that there were more treasuries 
 
 than one in the inner Temple, or, what seems to me 
 
 more probable, that he referred to the porticos in both 
 courts, though I admit that a literal adherence to the 
 text will hardly bear that interpretation. 
 
 3 Matt. xxi. 12 ; Mark xi. 15 ; John ii. 14, 15. 
 
 4 Mark xii. 41 ; Luke xxi. 1. 
 
 5 John viii. 20. 6 Acts xxi. 28, 
 
120 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEEOD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 to the tumult and to the important series of events which are narrated in the 
 21st and subsequent chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. Now that the plan 
 of the place is known, it is easy to follow these events topographically. The 
 chamber where the four went to have their heads shaved and be purified was, 
 without doubt, the chamber of the Nazarites in the north-west angle of the 
 court. The castle was the Antonia, and the tumult may have taken place in the 
 northern Court of the Gentiles, between these two places. It is more probable, 
 however, that the tumult took place in the city, for it is said, “ They took Paul, 
 and drew him out of the temple ; and forthwith the doors were shut.” 1 This 
 cannot be applied to the inner Temple, as there is no evidence that Paul ever 
 entered it; they must consequently have expelled him by the western Parbar 
 Gate, and then sought to kill him in the city. This also is more consonant with 
 what we now know of the localities, for the soldiers ran down , from the castle, to 
 rescue him, and bore him into the Antonia, where he addressed the multitude from 
 the “ stairs,” leading apparently from the Gabbatha to the Judgment Hall of the 
 fortress ; in the very same localities in which the most important scenes of 
 Christ’s Passion had been previously enacted. 
 
 It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say more at present with regard to the 
 form or measurements of the courts of the Temple ; enough has been said to 
 explain the authorities from which these forms have been gathered and their 
 measurements ascertained. To go beyond this would be tedious, and could only 
 lead to disquisitions which are interesting to very few, and only intelligible to 
 those who are intimately familiar with the writings of the Rabbis, and with 
 the wonderful mysticism they threw over all that was connected with their lost 
 Temple or its ceremonial. As drawn on the plan, Plate II., the Temple speaks 
 for itself. Any one with the Bible, Josephus or the Talmud in his hand can 
 follow on the plan what is said in these works, and understand it, if it agrees with 
 what is written, or reject it if he finds it does not accord ; and this is all that can 
 be expected or required of a treatise like the present. The restoration of the 
 Temple itself is a matter of more general interest, but, it must also be confessed, 
 of greater difficulty ; but to this we must now turn, and try to find out how far 
 the materials requisite for this purpose are available, or how they can best be 
 utilised, so as to reproduce the forms of this celebrated building. 
 
 1 Acts xxi. 30. 
 
Chap. VL 
 
 THE ALTAR AND THE TEMPLE IN PLAN. 
 
 121 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE ALTAR AND THE TEMPLE IN PLAN. 
 
 Thanks to the minute care with which it is described in the 3rd chapter of the 
 Middoth, there is very little difficulty in understanding the general form and 
 dimensions of the Altar, though some of its details, as given by the Rabbis, 
 can hardly be accepted without modification. 
 
 n 33CuVits- 
 
 21.— Plan and Elevation op the Altar. 
 
 The base of the Altar was 32 cubits square and 1 cubit in height. Within 
 this stood the platform, 30 cubits square and 5 cubits in height, thus bringing the 
 surface of the platform to the same level as the floor of the Temple. The same 
 level is attained by Ezekiel, but in a different manner. He makes the basement 
 2 cubits, and the rise 4 cubits, 1 together 6 cubits, as in the Middoth. The 
 basement again receded 1 cubit all round, leaving a space of 1 cubit between 
 the 13th and 14th cubits from the centre, in which were fixed what were called 
 
 1 Ezekiel xliii. 14. 
 
 R 
 
122 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 the “ horns ” of the Altar. Their number is not given in the Middotli, nor 
 their height, hut they seem to have been the posts to which victims were bound 
 when prepared for sacrifice on the altar. Ezekiel, however, distinctly specifies 
 their number as four, 1 one, it is presumed, at each angle, and so they are 
 represented in the woodcut. Whether the place of the horns was on the level 
 of the platform, or 1 cubit higher, we are not told; but the context appears to 
 necessitate a rise here, making the place of the horns 7 cubits from the ground. 
 Within this was, first, the place for “the feet of the priests, one cubit,” and 
 the remainder, 24 cubits square, was called the hearth. We are not told how 
 these two were distinguished from one another, but my impression is, that the 
 place on which the priests stood was raised 1 cubit above the place of the 
 horns, and the hearth again 1 cubit above that. Such an arrangement would 
 be, at least, convenient, but some other means may have been adopted for 
 marking the distinction. Within the hearth — in its centre — stood the Altar, 
 properly so called, like that described in Ezekiel, 12 cubits square, 2 and probably 
 2 or 3 feet in height. If it were higher, it is difficult to see how it could be 
 served by priests standing on the hearth. The whole height was almost certainly 
 10 cubits from the ground, as that is the height of Solomon’s Altar, 3 and 
 apparently also of Ezekiel’s; 4 but however this may be protracted, it comes so 
 near to that dimension, that it may confidently be asserted it must have been 
 attained. It is also the height we should infer from Josephus’ statement that the 
 altar was 50 cubits square by 15 in height. The first dimension can be proved to 
 be one of his usual exaggerations by turning feet into cubits. The Altar 
 certainly was 33 cubits square, as we shall presently see, or as nearly as may be 
 50 feet, and as he calls this 50 cubits, we may feel confident that, as in the case 
 of the gates above pointed out, it was one-third less, and if this is so on plan, 
 we may feel sure the same exaggeration was made as to the height. The most 
 distinct testimony, however, on this point is that of Hecafieus. He distinctly 
 states that the height of the Altar was 10 cubits, 5 and his testimony appears, in 
 almost every instance, to be more trustworthy than that of Josephus himself. 
 
 Before going farther, it may be necessary to allude to a difficulty which has 
 proved a stumbling-block to many commentators. The Altar, it is said, and the 
 sloping ascent to it, were built of stones which no iron tool had touched— natural, 
 unhewn stones from the valley of Bethcerem. 6 The sloping ascent may have been 
 so constructed — though I doubt it — but the platform with its perpendicular walls, 
 its drains to convey the blood of the victims to the valley of Kidron, its steps and 
 other complicated arrangements, could not possibly have been constructed with- 
 out the mason’s aid. What seems necessary here is to make a distinction between 
 the altar on which the victims were burnt and the platform on which that altar 
 
 1 Ezekiel xliii. 15. 2 Ezekiel xliii. 16. 3 2 Chron. iv. 1. 4 Ligktfoot, p. 393. 
 
 0 Josephus contra Apion. i. 22. 6 Middoth iii. 4. 
 
Chap. VI. 
 
 THE ALTAR AND THE TEMPLE IN PLAN. 
 
 123 
 
 stood. For the latter such an arrangement was not only feasible, but appropriate. 
 A platform 3 or 4 feet high, built of cannon-balls of cast iron, would be, now, the 
 best mode of construction we could suggest. To light and maintain a fire on a 
 solid floor would always be a difficulty, but a platform erected with rounded 
 stones or spherical bodies of any sort, so placed as to allow a draught of air 
 through their interstices, would admit of this being done to perfection, and 
 was, no doubt, what was attempted. 
 
 In the description of the Altar in the Middoth 1 there is one point which it 
 seems, at first sight, a little difficult to explain. When the children of the Captivity 
 came up, it is said they added 4 cubits to the north and 4 cubits to the west of the 
 Altar, like a Greek gamma, r. The addition was made apparently to the 26 cubits 
 where the level space commenced, and it consequently made the distance from the 
 centre IT cubits north and west, while it was only 16 cubits south and east from 
 the centre. The motive of this addition seems clear enough. There was only one 
 approach, according to the Rabbis, to the Altar, by the sloping ascent on the 
 south side ; but as all the business of the Altar was done on the north side, it 
 seems absurd to suppose that everything was to be carried round, and that no 
 means of access to the platform of the Altar should exist where it was most 
 wanted and was most convenient. No ascent was wanted in the east. On the 
 south there existed the sloping ascent up which the victims were no doubt driven, 
 but which was not particularly convenient for the priests. But on the west 
 towards the Temple, and on the north towards the shambles, there must have 
 been means of access, and it was to provide these, probably in the manner shown 
 in the plan, that the Altar was enlarged on these two faces. As to the reason the 
 Rabbis give, that there were no steps up to the Altar, but only an inclined plane, 
 it is too absurd to bear a moment’s investigation, and is one of those misquotations 
 which occur too frequently in the Talmud. It is there said, quoting Exodus xx. 
 26, that “ neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness 
 be not discovered thereon." This may have applied to a priest stooping down, 
 with his back to the people, to serve on some form of altar we do not quite 
 understand, but can have no application to a person ascending lateral steps to 
 a platform on which the Altar stood. If this were so, no one could enter the 
 Temple without indecency, for the steps leading up to the Chel were higher 
 and as steep, while those ascending them turned their backs on the people 
 below, which was not the case with those ascending sideways to the platform 
 of the Altar. 
 
 It is not quite clear why the “ two openings like nostrils,” 2 through which the 
 blood spilt on the Altar flowed to the brook of Kidron, were placed at the south- 
 west, instead of the south-east, angle of the Altar, the latter being nearer the 
 outlet than the former. It probably was for some convenience in forming a 
 
 Middoth iii. 1. 
 
 2 Middoth iii. 2. 
 
124 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 channel underground, or for the flushing of the sewer by water from Etam ; but 
 it is of little consequence to discuss, what only interests us as a fact, which is not 
 only distinctly asserted by our only authority, hut is confirmed by this being, in 
 all probability, the “ Lapis Pertusus ” of the Jews in the time of Constantine, 1 
 on which, as will be afterwards explained, the Aksa was centred by the 
 Mahomedans. But, be that as it may, it is sufficient for us to know that it was at 
 the south-west angle that this precious stone was placed, and that those channels 
 which have been found cut in the rock under the Triple Gateway are those by 
 which the refuse of the Altar passing through these holes was discharged from 
 the Temple precincts, and either utilised as manure or allowed to run to waste. 
 
 The space north of the Altar, measuring about 40 cubits square, was devoted, 
 as already pointed out, to its service. The victims were apparently first tethered 
 to the rings, and were either slaughtered there or on the hearth while attached 
 to the horns of the Altar. If this were so, however, there must have been two 
 modes of sacrifice, for those skinned and cut up at “ the tables ” could not be 
 the same as those slain on the Altar and burned in its fires. Or was it that all 
 were slaughtered below, and their carcasses carried up afterwards to be burned 
 on the Altar ? These, however, are questions that do not belong to the 
 architectural arrangements, with which alone we are concerned at present, 
 and their discussion must be left to those who are more familiar with the 
 literature of the subject than I can pretend to be. All that is here attempted 
 is to explain the dimensions and architectural arrangements of the Altar ; its 
 ceremonial and uses belong to a totally different branch of the subject, though 
 the conclusions that may be arrived at regarding them will be considerably 
 facilitated by the enquiries on which we are at present engaged, provided the 
 means exist for bringing them to a successful issue. 
 
 Plan of the Temple. 
 
 After wffiat has been said above regarding the plans of Solomon’s and 
 Ezekiel’s Temples, it is easy to understand the alterations that were made in it 
 when rebuilt in the time of Herod, in so far, at least, as the arrangements 
 connected with the plan are concerned. 
 
 The Holy of Holies remained a cube of 20 cubits, and occupied the 
 same place as it had from Solomon’s days. The Holy Place was 40 cubits east 
 and west by 20 cubits across, and 30 cubits high, as before. The most 
 marked alteration was in the porch, which was made 11 cubits wide by 
 apparently 50 cubits north and south, bounded on the east by a wall 5 cubits 
 thick, while one 6 cubits in thickness separated it from the Holy Place, 
 
 1 Bordeaux Pilgrim, Tobler’s edit. p. 4. Appendix iv. 
 
Chap. YI. 
 
 THE ALTAB AND THE TEMPLE IN PLAN. 
 
 125 
 
 making 22 cubits in all. These, however, are the dimensions given in the 
 Book of Ezekiel, and, though differing from those of Solomon’s Temple, can, 
 consequently, hardly be called innovations. The most important change was, 
 however, extending the width of the facade to 100 cubits, which was certainly 
 40 cubits in excess of that of Solomon, or of the Temple as erected after the 
 Captivity by Zerubbabel, and 30 cubits, apparently, in excess of that described 
 by Ezekiel. Whether the height was increased in the same proportion is a 
 question we shall have presently to discuss, but it certainly appears prima facie 
 
 22. — Plan op Herod’s Temple. 
 (Scale, 50 feet to 1 inch.) 
 
 that this must have been the case. As Zerubbabel’s Temple certainly had a 
 fa 9 ade the height of which was equal to its width, 1 the presumpton is that the 
 same proportion was adopted here, and that a less height would in this instance 
 have seemed low and disproportioned. 
 
 One of the most pleasing features in Herod’s Temple was the magnificent 
 flight of steps that led up to its platform from the Court of the Priests. No such 
 
 1 Ezra vi. 3 ; Josephus, Ant. xv. 11, 1 ; ante, pp. 30 and 66. 
 
126 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 perron is mentioned anywhere, as existing in any of the earlier temples, hut 
 these are described in their own quaint way in the Middoth, in such detail 
 that there is no reason for doubting their existence, and no difficulty in 
 understanding their form. 1 They were twelve in number, of half a cubit 
 each in height, thus raising the floor of the Temple to the same height as 
 that of the platform on which the Altar stood. The treads were each 1 cubit 
 in breadth, and divided into three flights of four steps, each separated by 
 two landings of 3 cubits each, and leading to a platform in front of the doors of 
 the Temple, 6 cubits in width, as shown in the plans. 
 
 The Toran, or screen bearing the golden vine, which formed the principal 
 ornament of the fayade of the Temple, stood on the platform at the top of this 
 flight of steps. It will be described in detail farther on, but, meanwhile, it may 
 suffice to say that it occupied the same position in Herod’s Temple that was 
 assigned to the celebrated pillars Jachin and Boaz in Solomon’s, and had 
 apparently the same meaning, though what that was remains to he seen. 2 
 
 Whatever may have been the case in the previous temples, the specification 
 of the Talmud is so distinct and reasonable regarding the little chambers that 
 surrounded that of Herod, that it may probably be accepted without hesitation. 
 
 According to the Middoth, 3 there were thirty-eight little chambers in all : 
 fifteen on the north and fifteen on the south side, as in Ezekiel’s Temple, and 
 eight at the western end. The northern and southern were placed in three 
 storeys five over five, and on the west three over three, and two over them. 
 Even assuming that the number was greater in the earlier Temples — though 
 that is doubtful — this is so consonant with what we should expect from the 
 increased magnificence of the Temple and the increased luxury of the age that 
 
 1 Middotli iii. 6. 
 
 2 In Japan the principal distinction between Buddhist and Shinto temples is that the latter all have in front 
 ot them a toran consisting of upright pillars in granite, supporting two or more transverse beams in the same 
 
 23. — Japanese Toran. (From an original drawing.) 
 
 material. What they say is that, unless you pass under the toran on entering the temple, your prayers would 
 not be listened to. 3 Middoth iv. 3. 
 
Chap. VI. 
 
 THE ALTAR AND THE TEMPLE IN PLAN. 
 
 127 
 
 we can hardly refuse to accept it, especially as it is so contrary to the usual 
 spirit of the Talmud to admit of such a change. The whole confusion, in fact, 
 seems to have arisen from a misconception of Josephus, who seems to have 
 blundered with regard to the number and height of those chambers to an 
 extent which is almost inconceivable in any one who had really seen the 
 building while it was still standing. 
 
 As the walls of the house were of the very unusual and unnecessary 
 thickness of 6 cubits (9 feet) at their base, there seems no reason for doubting 
 that these chambers were increased by offsets of 1 cubit each, as in the old 
 Temple ; and that though the lower rooms were only 5 cubits wide, the upper 
 were 7 cubits, and, with the dimensions in length now ascribed to them, made 
 really habitable apartments. A more difficult question is to ascertain how they 
 communicated with one another. Here the descriptions of the Talmud, as of 
 Ezekiel, are wholly unintelligible. A gallery gradually rising from the north- 
 eastern to the south-eastern seems impossible, as it would be on the level of the 
 floors only at the ends, and would cut across all the doors and windows of all the 
 cells. Equally absurd is the specification that each chamber had three doors, two 
 leading to the chambers right and left, and one to the chamber above it. The 
 probability is that the third door was described by the authority from whom 
 this quotation was taken as opening on a gallery from which access might be 
 had to the upper storeys. 
 
 As neither the Bible, nor the Talmud, nor Josephus has left us any 
 intelligible account of how these chambers were reached, we are left very much 
 to our own skill and ingenuity to devise such means as seem reasonable and 
 appropriate, and which at the same time do not contradict, even if they do not 
 explain, such hints as we find in our usual authorities. So far as I understand 
 the matter, the principal ascent was in one or both of the towers which formed 
 the extension of the fayade beyond the width of the porch ; and, as it seems to 
 have been remarkable for its ingenuity and magnificence, 1 I presume it occupied 
 the whole area of the tower, and in that case must have been by an inclined 
 plane till at least it reached the level of the upper storey of chambers. Its 
 being so, is what seems to have misled the Rabbis into the idea that it extended 
 all round the house, instead of being only round a chamber in the interior of 
 the tower. On each storey it seems to have opened into a gallery. This the 
 Talmud and Ezekiel would lead us to suppose was closed, externally, by a solid 
 wall, but this is so contrary to commonsense and architectural propriety that I 
 have represented it — as was done in describing Ezekiel’s Temple ( ante , page 60) 
 — as an open verandah. Both for convenience and for beauty this would be so 
 
 1 Josephus, Ant. viii. 3, 2. This course applies 
 in strictness only to Solomon's Temple, hut we are 
 never sure when Josephus is speaking of Solomon’s 
 
 Temple that he is not describing Herod’s, and, vice 
 versa, in speaking of Herod’s that he is not raking up 
 some tradition that belongs to the earlier Temple. 
 
128 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 infinitely preferable tliat I cannot fancy the architect of the Temple would be 
 so unskilful as not to adopt it. But whether this is the true explanation or not, 
 the arrangement shown on the plan is the one which, so far as I can form an 
 opinion, most nearly meets all the exigencies of the case as at present known, 
 and may consequently be allowed to stand till some better is suggested. 
 
 At one time I was inclined to believe that the ascent existed only in one of 
 these towers, that on the north-east ; and if it were wanted only to give access to 
 the little chambers, that would have been ample. But if there was an important 
 upper chamber to the Temple — and, as we shall presently see, that hardly admits 
 of being doubted — the existence of ascents in both towers seems almost indis- 
 pensable, while at the same time it is difficult to account for the existence of 
 these shoulders or wings unless they were intended to contain them. 
 
 If this were so, there would, of course, be no difficulty in communicating 
 with the little chambers in the north and south, and even with those in the west, 
 without making them thoroughfares. It also gets over a difficulty in the earlier 
 Temples, which otherwise it is not easy to explain. If, as hinted above, it is 
 probable there were no chambers at the west end of Ezekiel’s or Zerubbabel’s 
 Temple, the inclined plane of the Babbis becomes impossible, and access could 
 only be obtained by two staircases. At the same time we know, from the 
 minuteness with which the dimensions of the Temple east and west are specified 
 in the Middoth, that no gallery existed at the west end, even in Herod’s Temple. 
 To introduce it there, it would be necessary to extend the dimensions of the 
 Temple beyond 100 cubits, which, it need hardly be said, is impossible. The 
 conclusion, consequently, seems inevitable, that there were ascents in both 
 the wings, and that they gave access not only to the little chambers by their 
 gallery or verandah, but also to the upper room, or Alijah, which, as we shall 
 presently see, formed, in all probability, one of the most important parts of the 
 Temple. 
 
Chap. VII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE IN ELEVATION. 
 
 129 
 
 24. — Section of Herod’s Temple. 
 (Scale, 25 feet to 1 inch.) 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE IN ELEVATION. 
 
 Plates III. and IV. 
 
 When from the ground plan and its dimensions we turn to the elevation and 
 the height of the Temple we find a far less satisfactory state of affairs, and 
 fewer means of testing the evidence that is put before us. Indeed, so contra- 
 dictory and improbable are many of the statements regarding the height, that 
 any one might feel perfectly justified in rejecting them altogether, and assuming 
 that a restoration is impossible from existing data. Except the height of the 
 two original apartments of the old Temple — the Holy of Holies and the Holy 
 
 s 
 
130 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Pakt II. 
 
 Place — there are no statements of height that may not he disputed or against 
 which plausible arguments may not he advanced, in perfect good faith. Still, 
 I believe that the general dimensions and the appearance of this celebrated 
 building can be made out with fairly approximate certainty. At all events, it 
 is well worth trying to do so ; for its interest is unsurpassed, by that of any 
 building in the world, and if it can be done, a restoration of it settles many 
 curious problems which have occupied enquirers for a long time past. 
 
 Even the Old Testament hardly helps us here, for it has been, and may be, 
 argued with great show of reason that the figures representing heights in the 
 2nd Book of Chronicles, are mere duplications of those in the corresponding 
 passages in the Book of Kings, 1 and it seems as if they were purposely made 
 so by the compiler of the Chronicles, after the Captivity, when the memory 
 of the old Temple had nearly passed away, in order to elevate the priesthood 
 and their Temple in the eyes of the people, which has been advanced as one at 
 least of the main objects of his compilation. 2 
 
 It certainly is most improbable that Solomon’s Temple should have been 
 120 cubits high with the other dimensions given, and there is nothing 
 whatever in the dimensions of the Tabernacle to warrant such a height. We 
 may, however, probably feel sure that the dimensions at least of the fa£ade 
 of the Temple as rebuilt by Zerubbabel were 60 cubits in width and 60 cubits 
 in height. 3 And, as pointed out above (page 30), it seems a perfectly fair 
 inference that these were the dimensions of the facade of Solomon’s Temple, 
 and also, if there was an upper room to it, that the ridge of its roof also 
 attained the height of 60 cubits, as shown on the right-hand side of woodcut 
 No. 5. If this is so, we may also conclude that, when the dimensions of the 
 facade were extended to 100 cubits in width, as they were in Herod’s time, 
 that the height too should be equally augmented. Anything, indeed, less than 
 this for a frontispiece would have looked squat and out of proportion. 
 Whether the body of the building could or could not be stretched to the 
 same extent is a question we shall presently have to discuss. At present it is 
 sufficient to state that it does not seem either possible or necessary. 
 
 Neither do I think any stress can be laid on Josephus’ assertion that 
 Solomon’s Temple was 120 cubits in height. That building had been destroyed 
 600 years before he wrote, and practically he had no more means of knowing what 
 it was like than we have ; indeed, his whole description of it, in the 8th book of 
 his ‘ Antiquities ’ is characterised by exaggeration and misstatements to a greater 
 extent than almost any other part of his work. When, however, he comes to 
 describe what was said and done by Herod, he is speaking of what was fairly within 
 his own cognisance, and there is an amount of detail, in what he rejiorts of Herod’s 
 
 1 2 Chron. iii. 4, 15; 1 Kings vii. 3, 15. 2 Speaker’s Commentary, Introduction to Book of Chronicles. 
 
 3 Ezra vi. 3, 4 ; 1 Esdras vi. 25. 
 
Chap. VII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE IN ELEVATION. 
 
 131 
 
 speech, 1 the results of which he himself was familiar with, that looks very like 
 evidence, that could not well be put aside, unless by his own default. Notwith- 
 standing this, in his description of the Temple in the ‘Wars of the Jews,’ he 
 makes some statements with regard to height which would invalidate his evidence 
 in any court of law. He there states that “ around the lower part of the 
 Temple there were a number of small houses, in three storeys, the combined 
 height of which amounted to 60 cubits, but the upper part of the Temple had no 
 such little houses, because it was there narrower and 40 cubits higher.” “ Thus,’ 
 he adds, “ we gather that the whole height, including the 60 cubits from the floor, 
 amounted to 100 cubits.” 2 Now, it need hardly be pointed out that a chamber 
 which, according to Josephus, was only 5 or 6 cubits square on the floor, yet 
 20 cubits in height, is a monstrosity that never, so far as I know, was committed. 
 Besides this, in that situation it not only would have blocked up the clerestory 
 windows of the Holy Place, but extended 20 or 30 cubits in front of the upper 
 chamber, and prevented its having windows, except above that height. The truth 
 of the matter seems to be, clearly, that the three storeys of little chambers were 
 20 cubits high, in the aggregate, and why Josephus should have multiplied this 
 number by three is inconceivable. He knew the place, and must have known 
 that it was only the frontispiece that reached the height of 100 or 120 cubits. As 
 the Rabbis express it, “The sanctuary was narrow (and low) behind and broad in 
 front, like a lion ; ” 3 and, knowing this, it seems strange they should be guilty of 
 such a misrepresentation, unless it was to make it appear that the back of the 
 house was of the same height as the front. It is evident from this statement 
 that Josephus believed some part was of that height, but how he could have 
 forgotten which, and what was the real form of the house, is one of those puzzles 
 we may never be able to solve. Whatever form the restoration may take, it 
 seems perfectly certain that Josephus was wrong in saying that the height of these 
 three storeys of chambers, and consequently that of the lower house, was 60 cubits. 
 We may say we know certainly that it was only half that, or 30 cubits — the 
 height, in fact, of the Holy of Holies- — and consequently that the Talmud is 
 correct when it gives the height of the three storeys of chambers as 20 cubits 
 (5 + 6 + 7, 4 plus the thickness of the two intermediate floors, say, 2 cubits). 
 If it was, as we understand it, that there was a frontispiece 100 or 120 cubits 
 high, with a lower building behind it, why could not Josephus say so ? He 
 knew the building, and knew its proportions, and its glory was as great in 
 the one form as in the other. He apparently thought it would sound grander 
 if he represented the whole as attaining the extreme dimension lie gives, and 
 he consequently falsified the real dimensions to the extent just stated. 
 
 As the Talmudists never saw the building, and, as I have frequently had 
 occasion to remark before, had no plan or section, and were incapable of preparing 
 
 2 B. J. v. 5 , 3. 
 
 1 Ant. xv. 11, 3. 
 
 3 Middoth iv. 7. 
 
 4 Middoth iv. 4. 
 
132 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 one, we need not wonder that they blundered as to heights. They knew, or at 
 least believed, that the Temple was 100 cubits wide, 100 high, and 100 long, but, 
 as is expressed in the passage just quoted, they knew that the first two dimensions 
 applied only to the facade, and were aware that it was narrower behind, though it 
 strangely did not occur to them that it might also be lower there also. It did not, 
 however, and they consequently set to work to make out the height as explained 
 in the 4th chapter of the Middoth and the 6th section, thus : — 
 
 Lower Storey. 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 Upper Storey. 
 
 Cubits. 
 
 The foundation . 
 
 6 
 
 Upper storey 
 
 . 40 
 
 The wall 
 
 . 40 
 
 String course 
 
 1 
 
 The string course 
 
 1 
 
 Rain channel 
 
 2 
 
 The rain channel 
 
 2 
 
 Beam 
 
 1 
 
 The heam .... 
 
 1 
 
 Plaster 
 
 1 
 
 The covering plaster 
 
 1 
 
 Battlements .... 
 
 3 
 
 51 
 
 49 
 
 100 cubits. 
 
 Scarecrow .... 
 
 1 
 
 49 cubits. 
 
 From this it will be perceived that the one storey is merely an ill-understood 
 duplication of the other, the thickness of the roof supplying what is required to 
 be added in order to balance the foundations in the other. But even then it 
 cannot for one moment be tolerated that the Holy Place should be made 40 cubits 
 instead of 30, which we may feel assured was its true dimension. Still less can 
 it be admitted that the upper chamber, assuming there was one, should be 
 40 cubits in height while its width was only 20 cubits. Though not quite so gross 
 an exaggeration as that of Josephus with respect to the little chambers, it is so 
 bad that it cannot be admitted. 
 
 From the above it seems tolerably evident that none of our three authorities 
 are likely to be of much use to us in our attempts to recover the dimensions of 
 the elevation of the Temple. There is only one point on which they are all 
 agreed, which is that the Temple, or some part of it at least, was 100 or 120 
 cubits in height ; and the problem that is consequently left to us, is to try if we 
 can construct an elevation which shall provide in a reasonable manner for all the 
 parts of the Temple as known to us, and at the same time be consonant with 
 the principles of the style of architecture then practised in Judtea, and without 
 being offensive or extravagant, though it may turn out to have been strange and 
 unlike any other building we are acquainted with in antiquity. 
 
 As said above, my impression is that it can be done, or, at all events, that it is 
 worth trying to do it, for its interest is extreme, and we have now probably all 
 the data for this attempt in as complete a state as they are likely ever to be 
 available for the purpose. 
 
Chap. VII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE IN ELEVATION. 
 
 133 
 
 Alijah, or Upper Room. 
 
 Among the various questions that a restoration of the Temple, when fairly 
 grappled with, gives rise to, few have been so much overlooked and neglected as 
 those connected with the Alijah, or upper room, which certainly existed over the 
 two lower apartments of the Temple, properly so called. No architectural 
 restoration that I am acquainted with introduces this feature in an intelligible 
 manner, and in no treatise that I have come across is there any attempt made 
 to explain the uses to which it might be applied. Both architects and authors 
 have, in fact, shirked the question, indeed, so far as I can gather, have ignored 
 even its existence. Yet there seems to be no doubt that such a chamber did 
 exist, and it was not put there without some very good reason for its 
 introduction, whatever that may have been. 
 
 No synonym for such a feature did or could exist in the Tabernacle, and only 
 one allusion to it, so far as I know, is found in the Old Testament, where it is said 
 that Solomon “ overlaid the upper chambers ” (of the Temple) “ with gold.” 1 
 This cannot, of course, refer to the upper storey of the small houses that surrounded 
 the Temple on three sides ; there was no possible reason why they should be 
 so adorned ; and, besides, the context shows that it was not to them that the 
 chronicler was alluding, but to something at least nearly equal in dignity and 
 importance to the holy house itself, described in the preceding verses. 
 
 One perplexing circumstance is that it is not alluded to by Ezekiel, as we 
 might expect it would be if it formed an essential part of Solomon’s Temple ; but 
 such evidence is too negative in its character to be of much weight in determining 
 a question of this sort. On the other hand, Josephus is quite distinct on this 
 point, though his evidence as regards Solomon’s Temple must be received with very 
 considerable caution. He first describes the lower Temple as 60 cubits in length, 
 20 cubits in breadth, while its height was equal to its length, or 60 cubits. 
 As usual, he is quite correct in plan, but his height is also, as usually, an 
 exaggeration by duplication. He then proceeds to state that there was another 
 building erected over it of the same dimensions, so that the entire altitude was 
 120 cubits, 2 which there is every reason for supposing is also a duplication, the 
 probable height being, as above explained in woodcut No. 5, equal to 60 cubits, 
 including the upper room. In the ‘Wars of the Jews,’ he is more moderate. 
 Still, however, making the lower apartment double its true height, or 60 cubits, 
 he allows only 40 cubits for the upper room, making the whole height 100 cubits. 3 
 The real height from the floor of the lower Temple to the roof of the upper 
 room, I believe to have been 50 cubits, as shown in the section woodcut No. 24, 
 or just half that height ; but of this hereafter. 
 
 The Middoth is quite distinct as to the existence of this room, but makes its 
 
 1 2 Chronicles iii. 9. 
 
 2 Ant. viii. 3, 2. 
 
 3 B. J. v. 5, 5. 
 
134 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 height 40 cubits, or identical with that of the lower apartments ; but the Rabbis 
 were so evidently trying to eke out the whole height of 100 cubits by adding 
 together external and internal measures, and doubling, when necessary, those 
 which are still too small, that no reliance can be placed on their details. 1 
 
 In the Middoth there is, however, an unconscious testimony to the correctness 
 of these views, all the more valuable because it is unconscious. If the Holy of 
 Holies was only 20 cubits in height, and the Holy Place 30 cubits, it is evident 
 that, if a level floor were carried east and west over the whole 60 cubits, there 
 would be left a void or entresol some 10 cubits in height over the Sanctuary, to 
 which access could only be obtained, either from the Holy of Holies itself or 
 from the Holy Place, by ladders, which would enable workmen ascending them 
 to look into the most holy place over the screen in front of it. As this could not 
 possibly have been tolerated, the Middoth tells us that means of access were 
 provided by trap-doors in the floor of the Alijah, through which the workmen 
 were let down in chests. 2 From this it seems clear that, if this level floor had 
 not been made, this useless void would not have existed, and the trap-doors 
 would have had no meaning. 
 
 Although, therefore, there seems no reasonable doubt of the existence of such 
 a chamber, certainly in Herod’s Temple, and most probably in Solomon’s also, it 
 is very difficult to ascertain to what use it could have been applied. This 
 uncertainty, I fancy, in a great measure arises from the fact that none of the 
 learned Rabbis who, at least in modern times, have devoted themselves to the 
 study of the subject, have had the fact of its existence brought prominently before 
 them. The subject has, by common consent, been put aside, and no one has 
 consequently looked for any explanation that may exist in the Talmud or 
 elsewhere. Perhaps none is to be found ; but even then this would be no argument 
 against the fact of its existence ; for, by a parity of reasoning, no one doubts the 
 existence of the little chambers surrounding the house itself, though none of our 
 usual authorities hint at the use to which they were applied. Notwithstanding 
 this, it seems hardly open to doubt that they were the residences of the Levites 
 or priests, whose special duty it was to attend to the Temple and its services ; 
 and if this were so, one suggestion, at least, seems to be, that the upper room 
 may have been the coenaculum, or great hall of the monastery, where the quasi- 
 monks met for social or liturgical purposes. 
 
 In studying attentively the arrangements of the Temple, there is nothing 
 more remarkable than the total absence of any hall or covered place that could be 
 used for synagogal or congregational purposes. The Holy Place was too crowded 
 with other objects, and had, besides, no bema and no desks, or any fittings suited 
 for the reading of the law, the chanting of the Psalms, or any liturgical purpose 
 whatever. Yet we cannot but believe that some sort of daily service was 
 
 1 Middoth iv. 6. 
 
 2 Middoth iv. 5. 
 
Chap. YII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE IN ELEVATION. 
 
 135 
 
 performed in the Temple, which afterwards was modified into that used in the 
 provincial synagogues at a subsequent period, and it is as difficult to believe that 
 all the Temple services were performed in the open air. Besides this, it seems 
 generally to be admitted that there was a great synagogue — the “ great con- 
 gregation” of the Book of Maccabees 1 — “consisting of the priests, and people, 
 the rulers of the nation and elders of the country,” and that they had their 
 meeting-place in the Temple ; but where they met, no one yet has pointed out. 
 It was not, apparently, in the room Grazith, as some have supposed ; 2 that was 
 appropriated to the use of the Sanhedrim, and, so far as I can gather, used for no 
 other purpose ; hut if there was a Temple-synagogue, or anything of that nature 
 holding its meetings in the Temple, no place could be so appropriate as this 
 Alijah. This will, of course, be met by the objection of the Rabbis, that no one 
 was allowed to sit in the courts of the Temple unless he were “ one of the Kings 
 of the House of David.” 3 Like many of the statements, however, of the Talmud, 
 this must be received with caution. Numbers of priests and Levites slept in the 
 Temple every night, and if the small chambers round the Temple were really 
 residences, which seems almost certain, their occupants not only sat, but slept, 
 and in fact lived, in these cells ; and where men may live, others may surely meet 
 and deliberate, even sitting. Be this as it may, the suggestion that this Alijah 
 was the meeting hall of the great synagogue, 4 consisting of 120 persons or more, 
 seems to me to meet the exigencies of the case more than any other ; but I 
 merely offer it as a suggestion which may be left for future investigation. 
 Meanwhile, what would assist us most in our enquiries would be the discovery 
 of some temple, or group of temples, having little cells and arrangements 
 somewhat similar to those at Jerusalem. Except the Birs Nimroud, however, 
 no temple is known having cells in two or three storeys ; but the other 
 arrangements of that temple 5 — at least, so far as we know them — are so unlike 
 those at Jerusalem that very little assistance is to be obtained from that 
 source. The buildings most like the Jewish Temple are probably the Buddhist 
 viharas of India. These consist of large halls surrounded by cells in from 
 one to seven and even a greater number of storeys in height. The central 
 halls seem always to have been used as the places of liturgical assembly of 
 the monks, to the exclusion, probably, of the laity, and in more modern times 
 became image halls or places of idolatrous worship, though in earlier days seem 
 to have been wholly adapted to synagogal purposes. It may, at first sight, seem 
 absurd to compare things so far apart, and, in some respects, so dissimilar ; but it 
 must be borne in mind that no two sects, both in their tenets and their practices, 
 were more similar to one another than the Buddhists and the Essenes, and that 
 
 1 Maccabees xiv. 28. 
 
 2 Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. pp. 
 
 380 et seqq. Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Life, 
 
 chap. xvi. p. 249 et seqq. 3 Lightfoot, p. 338. 
 
 4 Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. pp. 
 380 et seqq. 
 
 6 See my History of Architecture, vol. i. p. 153, wood- 
 cuts 48, 49. 
 
136 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEKOD. 
 
 Pakt II. 
 
 the latter, with the Pharisees and Sadducees, made up the hierarchy of the 
 Jewish priesthood at the time of the rebuilding of the Temple by Herod. 
 
 An objection is sure to occur to most people, that none but priests could 
 enter the inner court of the Temple, and consequently that the Alijah was 
 unsuitable for synagogal purposes. In order to meet this I have provided a 
 small door in the basement of the south tower, by which access could be obtained 
 to it from the Court of the Men of Israel without entering that of the priests at 
 all. 1 At one time I drew it with an important entrance above the basement, and 
 with a flight of twelve steps leading up to it ; and I do not feel at all sure now 
 that this is not the correct view to take of it ; but as no mention of these steps 
 or of this entrance is made anywhere, I have refrained from introducing it in 
 the illustrations. The mode, however, in which this tower and its entrance are 
 centred on the central, and consequently principal, entrance into the inner 
 Temple, from the Court of the Gentiles, justifies, even if it does not demand, 
 such an arrangement. An entrance is certainly wanted here to satisfy the 
 architectural exigencies of the design. Whether or not it should be more 
 important than that I have drawn, may be left for future consideration. 
 
 Roof. 
 
 The next feature in this restoration, which consists in covering the Temple 
 with a steep roof 20 cubits in height, is one which will probably give rise to 
 
 more adverse criticism than any other part of the design ; 
 yet I do not see how it can be avoided. In the first place, 
 it gets rid of a difficulty which no one has yet fairly faced. 
 In his description of the building, Josephus says, “ On its 
 top it had spikes with sharp points to prevent any pol- 
 lution of it by birds sitting upon it.” 2 That this was not 
 a mere random assertion is proved by the fact that in 
 the last days of the siege it is narrated that the priests 
 who had taken refuge in the Temple “ plucked up the 
 spikes that were upon it with their bases, which were of 
 lead, and hurled them at the Romans instead of darts” 3 
 — a piece of incidental evidence that appears quite 
 sufficient to confirm the former statement. Assuming this, 
 therefore, to be the case, let any one try to cover a whole 
 flat roof with spikes, so that the birds shall not settle upon it. Supposing they 
 are placed 6 inches apart, it would be a perfect paradise for sparrows and little 
 birds and even pigeons to build their nests in. All the dust and leaves that 
 
 25. — Spikes on Ridge and 
 Cornices of Temple. 
 
 1 Frontispiece and Plan, c. 21. 
 
 2 B. J. v. 5, 6. 
 
 3 B. J. vi. 5, 1. 
 
Chap. VII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE IN ELEVATION. 
 
 137 
 
 were blown about in high winds would settle there, while no one could get upon it 
 to sweep or clean it. Along a ridge or a parapet spikes of a pyramidal form, say 
 6 or 9 inches wide at base, and a cubit or more in height, might prevent birds 
 settling there ; but on a flat roof it seems impossible to arrange them so as to 
 afford the required protection. Nothing, however, is more probable, from what 
 we know of their love of ceremonial purity, than that the Jews should desire 
 this protection ; but I, at least, do not know of any means by which they could 
 attain it, except by making the roof so steep that birds could not rest upon it. 
 
 The Rabbis seem to have been aware that the roof of the Temple was not 
 flat, though they had no idea, apparently, that it was so steep as shown in the 
 illustrations (woodcut No. 24, and Plates III. and IY.). Constantine l’Empereur 
 quotes a Rabbi, Schemeja, as saying that the roof was inclined upwards till 
 its crest equalled the height of the parapet. 1 It was, according to him, 
 what Yitruvius calls depluviatum , and he brings forward a considerable amount 
 of evidence to prove the existence of a ridge, though he understood this, 
 apparently, to be only such as might exist in any classical temple. There 
 is, however, a passage in Josephus which seems very nearly to settle the 
 question. When Herod undertook to rebuild the Temple, he is reported “ to 
 have taken away the old foundations, and to have erected a temple 100 cubits in 
 length and 20 additional cubits in height, which 20 on the sinking of their 
 foundations fell down, and this it was we determined to replace in the time 
 of Nero.” 2 The passage seems corrupt, and difficult to translate literally ; but 
 the above appears to be what is meant, and as such has hitherto formed a 
 stumbling-block to all commentators. It seems impossible, in the first place, 
 to understand how the foundations of a building standing on the natural rock 
 could sink ; and if they did, why the whole building, and not only the “ 20 
 additional cubits,” should require re-erection. The solution of the mystery is, 
 I believe, to be found in a passage farther on, where it is narrated “ that 
 John abused the sacred materials, and employed them in the construction of 
 his engines of war. For the people and the priests had determined to shore 
 up the Temple and raise it 20 cubits higher, for King Agrippa had, at a very 
 great expense, brought together such materials as were proper for such a 
 purpose, being pieces of timber very well worth seeing for their straightness 
 and largeness,” &c. 3 From this it would appear that it was a wooden roof or 
 tower of 20 cubits height that failed, not one of stone, and therefore wood only 
 was required for its reconstruction. Taken literally, it would appear as if it 
 were only the roofs of the towers of the fa£ade to which this description would 
 apply, and it may be so ; but these are too insignificant, and would be so easily 
 repaired that it is not likely they would be mentioned twice and in such detail. 
 It must have been for the repairs of the main roof of the building, that such 
 
 1 L’Empereur, p. 162. 
 
 2 Ant. xv. 11, 3. 
 
 3 B. J. v. 1, 5. 
 
 T 
 
138 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEBOD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 extensive preparations were made ; but in most of Josephus’ statements about 
 the holy house there is a degree of confusion difficult to understand. All, 
 therefore, that can well be contended for here is that these twenty additional 
 cubits refer to the wooden structure of a roof ; and if this is so, there is no 
 a priori improbability in the suggestion here put forward. In so far, at least, 
 as I can form an opinion on the subject, this plan meets the difficulties of the 
 case more completely than any other I am acquainted with. 
 
 With all this, however, we only reach 80 cubits in height for the main 
 body of the building, which is an impossible halting-place. It would have 
 been better to stop at 60, but if we must go on to 100 or 120, it is obviously 
 only in the frontispiece or fa£ade that this can be effected, and there it 
 does not seem difficult. In the first place, the 20-cubit roof, just described, 
 must butt against something. I have suggested an open gallery, not only 
 because it is the only architectural feature that, it seems to me, would be 
 appropriate here, but because there are some events connected with the 
 destruction of the Temple which are difficult of explanation without some such 
 arrangement as this. 
 
 Towards the end of the siege, when the Temple was taken, and its courts fully 
 occupied by Roman soldiers, Josephus relates that the priests took refuge in a 
 place which he calls “ the wall ” (eVi rov tol^ov), and which he describes as 8 cubits 
 broad. That it was near the roof is certain, because from it they plucked the 
 spikes, as above mentioned, and threw them down on the Roman soldiers, and also 
 because, when the Temple itself was in flames, two of their number, whose names 
 are given, threw themselves down into the flames ; the remainder holding out for 
 five days, till, pressed by hunger, they were forced to surrender, and were put to 
 death by Titus’ order. 1 It was during this time that a boy was allowed by the 
 soldiers, who pitied his youth, to come down and get a drink, and escaped back to 
 his friends with a can of water, before the soldiers could overtake him. 2 
 
 From these circumstances, it seems evident that there was a gallery in the 
 propylon, where the priests could hold out for five days after the Temple itself 
 was reduced to ashes ; and I presume it was open in front, not only because the 
 architectural ordinance appears to demand this, but because there are in Syria a 
 considerable number of churches which seem to be reminiscences of some forgotten 
 buildings or styles. The most typical of these, so far as we know it, is that 
 at Tourmanim. 3 It is true that, according to De Yogiie, this church belongs to 
 the sixth century, but there are others, such as Babouda, in the fifth century, or 
 Kalb Louzeh, 4 which, I fancy, are earlier, which show the same tendency, and, 
 moreover, this type occurs so generally in the East, in subsequent ages, that 
 it seems as if it must have been invented at an early age. 
 
 2 B. J. vi. 6, 1. 3 De Vogiie', Syrie Centrale, pi. 130-136. 
 
 4 De Vogiie, Syrie Centrale, pi. 122-129. 
 
 1 B. J. vi. 5, 1. 
 
Chap. VII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE IN ELEVATION. 
 
 139 
 
 It is true, Josephus calls the place “ a wall,” and says it was 8 cubits broad, 
 but there was no wall, as far as can be made out, of that width in the Temple, 
 and this gallery must have been 1 1 cubits wide, if we may trust the Talmud ; 
 but Josephus’ narrative of events is in all instances so much more trustworthy 
 than his statements of facts, that I do not think this discrepancy of much 
 importance in the present instance. 
 
 26. — FAgADE of Church at Tourmanim. (From De Vogue.) 
 
 From these elements the elevations of the Temple have been compiled which 
 are shown in Plates III. and IV., and, in perspective, on the frontispiece of this 
 work. The result wa,s unexpected by me, and probably will be to most who 
 look upon it for the first time ; but it appears, nevertheless, to be in strict 
 conformity with the various passages I have quoted, and with such local 
 indications as are available. It seems also to afford a reasonable answer to all 
 the questions raised in the preceding discussion. Whether it is the answer, 
 and the only one that can be given, remains to be decided ; but this must be 
 done by others who have studied the question from some other point of view, 
 so as to afford a means of comparison between two different designs. 
 
140 
 
 THE TEMPLE OP HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 FAQADE. 
 
 Before attempting to restore the architectural features of the fa9ade, it may be 
 as well first to describe in some detail the features of several buildings in Syria 
 the remains of which throw some light on the subject, and may enable us to 
 realise, to some extent at least, the forms we are attempting to reproduce. 
 
 Of all those yet brought to light, the small temple of Baalzamin at Siah, 
 in the Hainan, illustrated by De Vogue in his ‘ Syrie Centrale,’ 1 2 and partially 
 
 27. — Plan of Temple of Baalzamin. (From De VogiD.) 2 
 
 described by him in the ‘ Recovery of Jerusalem,’ 3 but more completely in the 
 text of his own work, would, if slightly more perfect, throw more light on the 
 architecture of the Temple at Jerusalem than any other known building. It bears 
 the same relation to its prototype that a medireval parish church does to its 
 metropolitan cathedral. From inscriptions upon it, it has been ascertained to be 
 of nearly, at least, the same age, Herod’s name and that of the early Agrippas 
 being mentioned in them. 4 It stood at the back of a square court, surrounded by a 
 colonnade which was entered from the east by one gateway of great magnificence, 
 placed unsymmetrically to the main building. Having been used as a fortress at 
 
 1 Syrie Centrale, pi. 2, 3. 
 
 2 In the plan in woodcut No. 27, the parts black are 
 taken from De Vogue’s plate. The parts in outline are 
 
 suggestions of my own, for which there is no direct 
 authority. The restoration of this facade given by 
 De Vogiie, p. 33 of his recently published text, is 
 
 wholly inadmissible, viewed either from a constructive 
 
 or an archaeological point of view; the substructure 
 would not support the second storey. It is far too weak 
 for that purpose ; and the architectural ordinance accords 
 neither with the existing remains, nor with what we 
 know of the style of the day. 
 
 8 Recovery of Jerusalem, pp. 419 et seqq. 
 
 4 Syrie Centrale, pp. 35, 36. 
 
Chap. VIII. 
 
 FACADE. 
 
 * 
 
 141 
 
 some time, the plan of its interior cannot now be well made out ; further than that, 
 the fat^ade was flanked by two square tower-like masses, measuring more than 
 17 feet each way, between which was a deeply recessed pronaos, with two pillars 
 between the towers, which seem to have sujjported a gallery. It is certain, 
 says De Vogue, that “the sanctuary was of two storeys, if not over the whole 
 surface, at least over the fayade ” ; 1 and my impression is, though of course it is 
 difficult to restore a ruined building you have never seen, that the two towers 
 were connected by an open gallery behind the present pillars, which are too 
 
 ! 1 ! ! L 
 
 scale: or r£c r 
 
 28. — Details of Facade of Temple of Baalzamin. 
 
 weak and too widely spaced to bear any such superstructure. The ornamentation 
 consists principally of a vine spread over the surface, as, we shall presently see, 
 was the case at Jerusalem ; but, curiously enough, there is an eagle, with 
 outstretched wings, under one of the architraves, which recalls the one in Herod’s 
 Temple which led to the disturbance that occurred during his last illness. 2 The 
 bases, too, of the pillars have a curious resemblance to what we find at 
 Jerusalem, as they are really inverted capitals, with alternate acanthus and water 
 leaves, very similar to the capital of the monolith in the Huldah Gateway, 
 which formed the southern entrance to the Temple. Altogether, this building, 
 both in its arrangement and its decoration, is so completely a miniature 
 
 1 Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 420,. 
 
 2 Ant. xvii. 6, 3. 
 
142 
 
 THE TEMPLE OP HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 reproduction of the Temple at Jerusalem that whatever is found in it may 
 safely be repeated in the other, the only cause of regret being that so little 
 of it is left standing. 
 
 Besides this interesting little building, there is a group of monuments 
 opposite the Temple in the valley of Jehoshaphat, the study of which may afford 
 us some hints for our restoration. The two principal ones are known popularly 
 as the tombs of Absalom and Zacharias, and are monoliths cut out of the rock. 
 
 29. — Tomb of Zacharias, Valley of Jehoshaphat. (From a photograph.) 
 
 The southern one, shown in the annexed woodcut, retains apparently its original 
 form unchanged, and consists of a cubical base ornamented with three-quarter 
 Ionic columns on each face, and is surmounted by a plain pyramid, the section of 
 which is an equilateral triangle . 1 The other, the so-called tomb of Absalom, 
 appears to have been originally identical in form, but as the rock was not 
 
 1 A building very like this is represented in Renan’s 
 Mission de Phenicie, p. 118. It is two storeys in 
 height, adorned with pilasters at the corners in the 
 lower storey, but with four in each face in the upper 
 
 one, and the pyramidal roof seems identical with that of 
 these monoliths. Other buildings with similar pyramidal 
 roofs, some even taller than those at Jerusalem, will be 
 found in plate's xvi., xvii. and xxxv. of the same work. 
 
Chap. YIII. 
 
 FACADE. 
 
 143 
 
 sufficiently high here to furnish the requisite pyramid in the same stone, this 
 was added structurally. The consequence was that at some subsequent period — 
 probably in Byzantine times — the pyramid was removed, a sepulchral chamber 
 excavated in the base, and the present, curiously designed terminal added, 
 instead of the simpler form which it replaced. Between these two is a third, of 
 a totally different design, known as the Tomb of St. James, or the Retreat of 
 the Apostles. For whatever purpose it was originally designed, it certainly is 
 now a sepulchre of the usual type found in first-class tombs about Jerusalem, and, 
 like many of these, has an open facade composed of two Doric pillars in Antis. 
 
 At the north end of its fa<jade there is a curious tower-like mass cut in the 
 rock, the use and intention of which have never been explained . 1 
 
 30. — Tomb of St. James, Valley of Jehoshaphat. (From a photograph.) 
 
 The age of the last tomb was ascertained by De Vogue, from an inscription 
 upon it, to be of the time of Herod , 2 which, indeed, we gather from its 
 architecture, as well as from that of the two others. They could not possibly 
 be before the time of Pompey. As a matter of fact, no trace of stone 
 architecture has yet been found in Syria earlier than the advent of the Romans ; 
 and from the style of the so-called Tomb of Jehoshaphat, behind the Pillar of 
 Absalom, and consequently more modern, we may safely assume that, at latest, 
 they belong to the first half — probably the first years — of the first century of 
 our era. They may be earlier, but not later. 
 
 The reasons for believing that this group of monuments is somehow or other 
 
 1 1 need hardly say I reject entirely, as purely imaginary, the restorations of these tombs proposed by Las 
 
 Cassas, and repeated in Munk’s Palestine, and elsewhere. ~ 2 Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 46. 
 
144 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 connected with the Temple are, first, the negative one, that the monoliths were 
 not originally tombs, while it is difficult to conceive what they were, unless 
 some such purpose as this is assigned to them. 
 
 The second is that, if the two monoliths are connected by a line perpendicular 
 to their faces, it will run behind the one and in front of the other, and if that 
 line is bisected, and the bisecting line produced at right angles to the original 
 line, it will cut the centre of the Altar. They were not placed exactly in front 
 of the Temple, because apparently there was no suitable mass of rock there, but 
 they were made to face it as nearly as possible. 1 
 
 31. — Position op Tombs in Valley op Jehoshaphat. (From Ordnance Survey.) 
 
 A third reason is that the distance between the centres of the two monoliths 
 is exactly double that of the two towers of the Temple. 
 
 The Tomb of St. James faces more to the south, but if a line be produced 
 perpendicular to the face of the tower on its northern end, this line would fall 
 exactly on the projecting stone which has been assumed to be the beginning of 
 a bridge at 90 feet from the south-east angle of the Haram area. 2 Certainly, 
 
 1 The map from which the woodcut in the text is 
 
 taken is on so small a scale, l-2500ths, that the thick- 
 ness of a line may make a deviation in the direction 
 of several feet or even yards. The woodcut can only 
 therefore be considered as a diagram explanatory of the 
 
 text. It would require special observation on the spot 
 to verify the statements here made, if the indications 
 were thought of sufficient importance to warrant the 
 trouble. 
 
 2 Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 151. 
 
Chap. VIII. 
 
 FACADE. 
 
 145 
 
 if there is any trace of the Bed Heifer Bridge to he found, it is this. If it be, 
 it was in wood, and must have sloped downwards at a considerable angle; but 
 this, if we may trust Lightfoot, is no objection. 1 Quoting Maimonides, Lightfoot 
 repeats that the arched causeway by which the red heifer was taken across the 
 valley of the Kidron to where she was burnt was called “ Ivebesh,” the name 
 applied to the sloping ascent to the Altar on its south side. In support of this 
 view, it may be remarked that the rectangular sinking in the centre of the 
 tower, near its base, is not and never was intended to be a window. Like one 
 directly below it in the rock, it is a countersinking perfectly adapted for the 
 reception of the end of a wooden beam of a trussed bridge ; but if not made 
 for this purpose, it is difficult to guess for what it was intended. The most 
 serious objection to this theory that I am aware of is that the bridge would 
 pass over graves if this excavation was originally filled with loculi , as it now 
 
 is, and the priest could hardly escape ceremonial pollution in passing over 
 them. It may, however, have been that, like the Pillar of Absalom, it was 
 not originally intended to be used as a tomb, and further that these niceties 
 of ceremonial pollution are the invention of a later age, or other means may 
 be found of explaining this. Be this as it may, these coincidences seem so 
 remarkable that they convince me that there was some connexion between 
 these monuments in the valley of Jehoshaphat and the Temple opposite, and 
 though it looks like reasoning in a bad circle, I cannot help believing that 
 these two pinnacles with a colonnade between were somehow or other intended 
 as a reflex of what was found on the western side of this valley. 
 
 If this is thought fanciful, it is open to any one to reject it. It seems to 
 me to explain what otherwise is mysterious, but I by no means insist upon 
 
 it. All I do contend for is, that we have here a group of contemporary monu- 
 ments, the details of which we are perfectly justified in copying for our 
 restoration of the Temple, even if we cannot prove that they are parts of the 
 same design. 
 
 With these new elements, we may now proceed a little further in our 
 restoration of the fa9ade with some confidence. If we could depend on Josephus’ 
 dimensions of the internal width of porch — 50 cubits 2 — the towers would of 
 course he each 25 cubits square, but the other dimensions he quotes with this — 
 20 cubits for the breadth and 90 cubits for the height internally — are so 
 extravagant that they must be rejected, and little confidence can consequently 
 be placed on the remaining one. By protraction I make it 48 cubits, and 
 the towers consequently 26 cubits each. I willingly would make them project 
 4 cubits or even 5 cubits beyond the face, not only for the architectural effect, 
 but also to make their faces flush with that of the Toran, or screen; but it is 
 evident the projection can only be 2 cubits, because it seems indispensable that 
 
 1 Lightfoot, p. 394. 
 
 2 B. J. v. 5, 4. 
 
146 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 the centre of the towers should be in the centre of the court, and opposite the 
 central gateways on either side. Thus, if to the space behind the Temple — 
 11 cubits — we add the Temple — 100 cubits— with a projection of 2 cubits, the 
 sum is 113 cubits, from which, if we deduct half the width of the towers, we 
 get 100 cubits, which is the exact sum we require : 26 cubits is also the exact 
 width of the double gateway that led up to this tower from the south. 
 
 Admitting these elements, the roof of the central gallery would carry us 
 up to the desiderated height of 100 cubits, and would also get over a difficulty 
 in Josephus’ description, not otherwise easy of explanation. He says: — “The 
 outward face of the Temple was covered over with plates of gold, and at the first 
 rising of the sun reflected hack a fiery splendour that caused those who looked 
 upon it to turn away.” 1 To say that the whole front was so covered, or that 
 even all the “ white stone,” of which he says it was built, was also gilded, 
 seems absurd. It is, however, reasonable to assume that such roofs as are 
 shown in this design, with the capitals of the pillars, which were probably in 
 metal, may have been gilded, and that such an amount of gilding would justify 
 his rhetorical expressions, and be in perfect accordance with what we may safely 
 believe the splendour of this Temple to have been. 
 
 If to these towers we add pyramidal roofs copied from those existing in the 
 valley of Jehoshaphat, we arrive naturally, and, it appears to me, gracefully, 
 at the extreme height — 120 cubits — demanded by two at least of our three 
 authorities. It is true the building so designed has more the look of a late 
 Byzantine or medigeval building than anything we would expect at so early 
 an age. We must not, however, run away with the idea that pyramidal roofs 
 or tall buildings were unusual in that age in Syria. In De Vogue’s work 
 alone there are five or six examples given, ranging from the fourth to the sixth 
 centuries, 2 some two-storeyed and generally with pyramidal roofs much steejier 
 than those in the valley of Jehoshaphat. Indeed, my own impression is that 
 the tomb at Soudeideli, which he gives as the oldest building in Syria (first 
 century), had a pyramidal roof like the others. Like the pyramids of Egypt, it 
 is now apparently in steps, but, like them, may originally have had a straight- 
 lined facing. Whether this was so or not, enough remains to show that in the 
 early ages of Christianity such pyramidal terminations were not uncommon, and 
 may very probably have been used in this position. 
 
 Though taller than might at first sight be expected, it appears to me that 
 such a design is far from being ungraceful. With the fixed dimensions of 
 100 cubits in width I have drawn and re-drawn it with a height first of 80 cubits 
 and then 100 cubits, but the result has always been so squat and unpleasing that 
 I. have been obliged to abandon these proportions. By introducing flat roofs, and 
 breaking the facade into two masses like the pylons of an Egyptian temple, 
 
 1 B. J. v. 5, 6. 
 
 2 Syne Centrale, pi. 70, 74, 75, 77. 
 
Chap. VIII. 
 
 FACADE. 
 
 147 
 
 something might be done in that direction which woidd not be offensive. The 
 difficulties, however, of making such a design agree with the elements we have, 
 appear to me insuperable ; besides that, we have no authority for supposing that 
 in Herod’s time the Jews would go to the hanks of the Nile for their inspiration, 
 rather than to the quasi-classical styles which the Romans were spreading over 
 the length and breadth of their empire, and which, as we see at Petra and 
 elsewhere, always affected height and many-storeyed magnificence. 
 
 Another reason why 120 cubits should be preferred as the total height of 
 this facade, instead of 100 cubits, is that it is so much more consistent with the 
 Jewish system of duplication, so frequently insisted upon in the preceding pages ; 
 and from which all the dimensions of Herod’s Temple were practically obtained. 
 Thus, it will be recollected that the total height of the Tabernacle was 15 cubits, 
 and this doubled, or 30 cubits, became consequently the height of the Holy 
 Place. This doubled again, or 60 cubits, became the height and width of the 
 
 fagade, and, possibly, also of the Temple itself in Solomon’s time. It seems, 
 
 therefore, more than probable that the architects should aim at doubling this 
 height again in the fagade of the last and greatest of their temples. 1 To be quite 
 logical, they ought to have extended the width also to 120 cubits; but as 
 they were restricted, not only by the nature of the locality, but by divine 
 
 ordinance, to a depth east and west of 100 cubits, such an extension north and 
 
 south would not only have been useless, but have thrown the whole design out 
 of harmony. Under these circumstances, 100 cubits to the ridge of the roof, 
 and 120 cubits to the summit of the towers, seems such a compromise as 
 Herod's architects were likely to hit upon, and to have been considered by them 
 as carrying out the true principles of their art, and at the same time satisfying 
 the requirements of the divinely ordained dimensions of the Temple. 
 
 It must be left to others to decide whether the above is a sufficient solution 
 of the difficulties as to height which have been found so perplexing in the 
 
 1 The most remarkable attempt that has been made 
 since its destruction to realise the forms or dimensions of 
 the Temple at Jerusalem was by a Cavaliere Antonelli, 
 in a synagogue which he was employed a few years 
 ago to erect in the city of Turin. Not content, how- 
 ever, with the unusual height to which Herod had 
 already carried the facade of his Temple, he resolved 
 to do for it, what Solomon had done for the Taber- 
 nacle, and to double or quadruple the dimensions 
 throughout. The 120 cubits of Herod he increased 
 to 240 cubits, or 360 feet, and has already carried the 
 building to two-thirds of that height, and it now 
 only wants 120 feet to complete it. In like manner, the 
 length of the Holy Place in Solomon’s as in Herod’s 
 Temple was 40 by 20 cubits. He made it 80 cubits 
 square, and, instead of the 40 cubits which, we learn 
 from Josephus and the Talmud, was the reputed height 
 
 of the Alijah, which his chamber was intended to 
 reproduce, he made it 160 cubits, or four times as much ! 
 He did not, of course, dare to attempt to reproduce the 
 Holy of Holies, nor, as I understand it, the Holy Place. 
 His synagogue is an exaggerated Alijah, with dimensions 
 copied and multiplied from the Jerusalem Temple. As 
 such, it shows a knowledge of the subject that has 
 never been exhibited anywhere else. All this is com- 
 bined with a degree of artistic feeling very rare in 
 modern Italian architect's, and an amount of construc- 
 tive skill which, so far as I know, is unrivalled by 
 that to be found in any existing building in the whole 
 world. 
 
 These particulars are all obtained from a paper by 
 R. P. Pullan, communicated to the Architect, October 6, 
 1877, accompanied by plans, sections, and elevations. 
 
148 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 restoration of this building. I am far from supposing that it is the only one that 
 can be proposed, but I feel certain that it is a solution that meets fairly all 
 conditions of the problem known to us, and as such it may, like other suggestions 
 offered in the preceding pages, be allowed to stand till at least a better is 
 brought forward. 
 
 If this is so, it is hardly worth while to point out certain exaggerations that 
 Josephus puts forward in describing the interior of the building ; as, for instance, 
 when he says that the doorway into the Holy Place was 55 cubits in height, and 
 that the vestibule, as just mentioned, was 90 cubits high internally. 1 He seems, 
 as before pointed out, to have been possessed with the idea that the Holy Place 
 was 60 cubits high, and consequently a doorway 5 cubits less would not be 
 inappropriate and as the front was 100 cubits high externally, an internal 
 dimension of 90 cubits would or might be required. A German author of the 
 name of Unruh has taken them all literally, and protracted them to scale, 2 and 
 such a reductio ad absurdum is quite sufficient to prove their impossibility even 
 if other evidence were not available for their correction. The difficulty is to 
 conceive the state of mind or of memory in a man like Josephus who knew 
 the building, and could write down things he must have known were incorrect. 
 It is true the building was destroyed when he wrote, and no one could prove 
 he was wrong, and he may have thought that simple but consistent exaggera- 
 tions in height were more likely to impress his readers with the magnificence of 
 the building than the enumeration of a number of small and complex parts. 
 Whatever the motive, this at least seems clear, either it is that he is hopelessly 
 wrong in his statements of internal dimensions, or we are utterly incapable of 
 forming any opinion as to what the internal arrangements of the Temple were ; 
 and if it is decided that Josephus must be right, I, for one at least, withdraw 
 from the contest. 
 
 Turning meanwhile from these inconceivable dimensions, it is pleasant to 
 find the Middoth describing the door of the Temple as 20 cubits in height by 10 
 cubits in width, and with a smaller door or wicket on each side, one of which was 
 permanently closed, the other in ordinary use. This is so exactly what we would 
 expect that it may be adopted without hesitation. I have restored the central 
 doorway with a semicircular lunette over it, as such would be useful for 
 lighting the interior, and is a feature commonly introduced in buildings of 
 that age or of times slightly subsequent to the building of the Temple. 3 An 
 illustration of one from the synagogue at Kefr Beirim is given farther on. It is 
 appropriate, not only as belonging to a Jewish building, but as having the vine 
 sculptured on the lintel, which could only be a reminiscence of the golden vine of 
 the Temple described in the next section. 
 
 2 Das alte Jerusalem und seine Bauwerke, by Gustav Unruh ; Langensalza, 1861. 
 
 3 De Vogiid, Syrie Centrale, pi. 9, 21, 23. 65, 69, 123, 132, 111, &c. 
 
 1 B. J. v. 5, 4. 
 
Chap. VIII. 
 
 FACADE. 
 
 149 
 
 I have also introduced a solid floor in the vestibule on the level of the 
 floor of the upper chamber, thoug’li there is no direct authority for it, and 
 perhaps an open internal gallery may have been employed instead. It seems to 
 me, however, that it would be paying the architects of Herod’s Temple a very 
 bad compliment to suppose that, having been called upon — as, I believe, they 
 certainly were — to provide an upper chamber and stairs leading to it in one 
 or both of the wing towers, they could not provide convenient and dignified 
 access to it, and one that would be consonant with commonsense and archi- 
 tectural propriety. Above this, I have introduced a solid vault, because, if I am 
 correct in assuming that it was in the open gallery, above this, that the priests 
 took refuge while the Temple was burning, and found shelter after it was 
 burnt (as pointed out above, page 138), it is clear that it must have been 
 practically fireproof; and this would necessitate the arrangements shown in the 
 section, Plate IV., or something at least very similar. 
 
 As hinted above, I look on it as nearly certain that Josephus considered 
 Solomon’s Temple as practically identical with Herod’s, and that nine-tenths of 
 what he says of the older applies in reality to the more modern structure. There 
 may have been — I believe were — upper chambers in both, but his knowledge of 
 the means of access and the arrangements he describes in his 8th book — which 
 have been already commented upon in speaking of Solomon’s Temple — were all 
 derived from the Temple which he knew, not from that one he never saw. It 
 is to this one, consequently, that all there said, ought in strictness to be applied ; 
 the one essential difference being that in Solomon’s Temple, owing to the more 
 confined space, the ascent must have been wholly by steps ; in Herod’s, on the 
 other hand, it must have been by an inclined plane up to the level of the gallery 
 of the third storey of little chambers. Above this, the ascent probably was by 
 stairs, but these would have been of appropriate dignity and easily lighted. 
 When this defect of critical acumen on Josephus’ part is borne in mind, and his 
 manifest exaggeration put on one side, it appears to me to result from his 
 description that the Temple must have been arranged as conveniently and 
 appropriately, in the interior, as it was magnificent on its exterior face, and 
 altogether made up such an edifice as to justify all that has been, or could be, 
 said in its praise. 
 
 It would be tedious, as well as unprofitable, to attempt to follow the 
 Rabbis in all their minute specifications for the storing and keeping of the sacred 
 utensils to be used in the services of the Temple, though, where there is so much 
 room to spare, it would be easy to do so, if worth while, and to a certain extent 
 it is done, in the restoration now proposed. I have, for instance, provided a 
 room, 10 feet square, in what may be called the newel of the northern staircase, 
 which is ample for the storage of the twenty-four sets of butchering instruments 
 used in the twenty-four courses. There is also abundant space for the ninety-six 
 
150 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 closets in which the various garments of the priests were kept , 1 in the two ranges 
 of low buildings which, I believe, extended from the projecting wings of the 
 fagade to the wall of the court towards the west. These would serve not only 
 for the convenience of the priests residing in the Temple, but also as a 
 barrier to the “ separate place,” to prevent the laity from approaching too 
 near to the holy house itself. The towers themselves, and probably the porch, 
 as things added in Herod’s time, may not have been considered so sacred as 
 to be defiled by the touch of the men of Israel. But the Temple itself was 
 accessible only to priests and Levites, and must have been protected by some 
 such arrangement as this from the contact of the laity. 
 
 Although there is practically so little in the New Testament that assists us 
 much in our attempts to understand the structure of the Temple, there is one 
 passage that occurs in two Gospels 2 which seems only explicable on some such 
 theory of restoration as that now proposed. After taking Christ to “a high 
 mountain,” it is narrated that Satan “ setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,” 
 and defied him to cast himself down therefrom. It may of course be argued that 
 the expression is merely figurative, but it is just such an incident as no one 
 acquainted with Jerusalem would have imagined, had not the pinnacle of the 
 Temple been an unusually high place, and consequently appropriate for such a 
 temptation scene. It may also be remarked that, as an indefinite article is 
 employed, the fair inference is, that there was more than one pinnacle, though 
 it is difficult to imagine how there could be more than two. This restoration, 
 therefore, seems to suit the incident with as much exactness as is compatible 
 with the vagueness of such an indication. 
 
 1 Middoth iv. 7 ; Lightfoot’s Prospect of the Temple, p. 274. 
 
 2 Matthew iv. 5 ; Luke iv. 9. 
 
Chap. IX. 
 
 THE TORAH. 
 
 151 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE TOBAN. 
 
 There still remains one feature of this facade to be described, and though it 
 is an important one, neither did I nor apparently anyone else suspect its exist- 
 ence till quite recently. I have already alluded to it under the Indian name 
 of Toran, as that is the name by which such structures are distinguished in 
 the East. They are not, however, known in the West, and we consequently have 
 no European term we can apply to them. 
 
 The passages in Josephus and the Talmud describing this feature are the 
 following : — “ The Temple had doors at the entrance with lintels above, extending 
 to a height equal to that of the Temple. They were adorned with coloured veils 
 or curtains, on which purple flowers with trellis work were embroidered. Upon 
 this, but lower than the crowning moulding of the wall, a golden vine was spread 
 out, with its branches hanging down from a great height, and executed with such 
 a profusion of material as to strike the spectator with astonishment as well from 
 the art displayed as from its magnitude.” 1 
 
 The corresponding paragraph in the ‘Wars of the Jews’ is as follows : — “ The 
 first gate of the Temple was 70 cubits high by 25 broad, 2 but this gate had no 
 doors, for it symbolised the heavens, everywhere open and everywhere visible. 
 Its front was covered with gold all over, and through it the first part of the house 
 itself, which was the largest, was everywhere visible ; as well as those parts about 
 the inner doors which were also covered with gold .... But the gate of 
 this Temple, as already mentioned, was all covered with gold, as was the whole 
 wall about it. It also had golden vines upon it, from which clusters of grapes 
 hung down, equal in height to that of a man.” 3 
 
 These passages are too rhetorical for the purposes of a restoration, and the 
 heights, as usual with Josephus, are very much exaggerated. The Talmud is, in 
 this instance at least, more exact and detailed. Its description is as follows : — 
 “ The gates of the propylon were 40 cubits in height and 20 cubits broad, and 
 above these were five richly carved beams of ash or oak. The lowest of these 
 extended 1 cubit either way beyond the pillars of the doorway, while the one 
 next above this was 1 cubit longer either way than that below it, so that the 
 
 1 Antiquities of the Jews, xv. 3. 
 
 2 Both these numbers seem duplications of those given in 1 Kings vii. 15 and 2 Chron. iii. 15. 
 
 3 Bell. Jud. v. 5, 4. 
 
152 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Paet II. 
 
 upper beam of all extended to 30 cubits. Between each beam there was a row, 
 or course of stones/’ 
 
 “ Transverse beams [ melathra ] of cedar” (in the Venetian edition of the 
 Talmud it is said “of stone”) “were carried from the wall of the Temple to this 
 portico or propylon to support it” — literally, that it might not start from the 
 perpendicular. “ Golden chains were hung to the beams of the portico, by 
 which the candidates for the priesthood went up to see the crowns, because it is 
 said by Zechariah, vi. 14, ‘ And the crowns shall be to Helem,’ &c. ‘ for a 
 memorial in the temple of the Lord.’ ” 
 
 “ A golden vine was spread over this gateway of the Temple, and was 
 carried upon the supporting beams. Whoever vowed a leaf, or grape, or bunch 
 of grapes, brought and suspended it from it (the vine). Eliezer, the son of Zadok, 
 says, it thus happened the 300 priests were told off as necessary on occasions 
 when it had to be removed.” 1 
 
 It was only when trying to realise the meaning of these passages, and their 
 application to the facade of the Temple, that I became aware that a gate (Trvkrj) 
 with no doors (Ovpa ?), but through which the front part of the Temple could 
 be seen, and which “ symbolised the heavens everywhere open, and visible ” was 
 not an entrance to the interior of the building ; and the more it is studied, the 
 more it becomes evident that it was no part of the structure of the Temple. 
 Even then, it would have been difficult to give shape to the description, were it 
 not that, of late years, we have become familiar with a form of propylon used 
 in the East for the last 2000 years at least, and still existing everywhere in 
 China and Japan. 2 The four examples at Sanchi, erected in the first century of 
 the Christian era, have been described in detail in my ‘ Tree and Serpent 
 Worship,’ and their similarity to this pointed out in an appendix to that work. 
 One of these is represented in the woodcut opposite, and, though perhaps not 
 the one that might be selected as most like the Jerusalem example, is sufficiently 
 near it for purposes of illustration. It is also curious as being in a great 
 
 measure devoted to tree worship, the central bar being 
 wholly devoted to it ; the upper has alternately trees and 
 dagobas. Whether this has or has not any affinity with 
 the honour paid to the Vine at Jerusalem is a question 
 others must determine ; it is hardly worth while attempting 
 to discuss it here. 
 
 That such forms were not unknown in the West 
 seems evident from many Greek coins representing the 
 temple of Venus in Cyprus, which was adorned by a pylon 
 so like those at Sanchi that, making allowance for the necessary imperfection of 
 numismatic representations, it is hardly possible to mistake their being intended 
 
 1 Middoth iii. 7, 8. 
 
 2 Vide ante, page 126, for Japanese example. 
 
X 
 
Chap. IX. 
 
 THE TORAN. 
 
 155 
 
 for the same object. Those at Sanchi and elsewhere in India are wholly in stone, 
 though evidently, like the Lycian tombs, copied fiom wooden originals. dhe 
 Cyprian example looks almost as wooden as the Pailoos of China, but the example 
 
 34. — Vine-bearing Toran in Front op Herod’s Temple. 
 
 at Jerusalem was apparently partly in wood and partly in stone. The pillars 
 were almost certainly in the latter material ; but the beams were in wood, and it 
 is not clear from our authorities whether the buttresses and transverse beams 
 
156 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 supporting it, and joining it to the fac^ade, were in the one material or the other. 
 It makes no difference in the design nor in the application, whichever they were ; 
 so this question may he left for future enquiry. What we now want to know 
 is what was the form of this screen, and if we may trust the Talmud or our 
 Eastern analogies, it does not seem it can be very different from that here 
 rejwesented, and its purpose certainly was to support the golden vine, which 
 was the principal ornament of the fa9ade. Why this was so is by no means 
 clear. It may have been, as Dean Stanley expresses it, that “ the vine 
 was the earliest and the latest symbol of Judah,'’ and “both in prophetical 
 and evangelical records represents the kingdom of that name .” 1 Whether 
 this was so or not, it was with an earlier example of the same emblem 
 that Aristobulus sought to purchase the friendship of Pompey. The one he 
 presented to him was valued at five hundred talents, and was apparently torn 
 from the Temple of the Jews, to be deposited in that of Jupiter Capitolinus 
 at Pome, where it was seen, long afterwards, by Strabo of Cappadocia, with an 
 inscription to the effect that it was presented by the king of the Jews . 2 Its 
 successor is described by Tacitus as so important a feature as to induce some 
 to believe that the Temple at Jerusalem was dedicated to Bacchus . 3 
 
 The argument in favour of the existence of this curious screen that will, 
 probably, have most weight with the majority of readers is that, if this did not 
 exist as here represented, there is nothing in Herod’s Temple any way analogous 
 to the Jachin and Boaz of Solomon’s. These two pillars seem to have been 
 so important a feature in the early Temple that it is extremely difficult to 
 believe some attempt would not be made to reproduce them in the new ; yet 
 without this screen, with its vine, there is absolutely no analogue for the pillars 
 with their pomegranates and other ornaments. It is unfortunately only too 
 true that, though hundreds have wasted both time and ingenuity upon them, no 
 one has succeeded in producing a restoration of these two celebrated pillars 
 that is generally acceptable. In speaking of Solomon’s Temple, I have above 
 attempted to explain that it seems absurd to suppose that they were merely 
 pillars of bronze set up like Egyptian obelisks in front of the temples of that 
 country. Such a supposition is to misunderstand the use of the Egyptian 
 examples, and to defy analogy. No such pillars of bronze existed anywhere 
 else that we know of, with their enormously exaggerated capitals, and par- 
 ticularly with their superabundant ornaments, which it seems impossible to 
 crowd into the space allotted to them. 
 
 If, however, we may assume that, from the description of this vine-bearing 
 screen, in Josephus and the Talmud, compared with our Indian examples, we 
 
 1 Sinai and Palestine, p. 164. 
 
 2 Josephus, Ant. xiv. 3, 1. 
 
 3 “ Vitisque aurea templo reperta Liberum patrem 
 
 coli, domitorem orientis, quidem arbitrati sunt.” Tacitus 
 Hist. v. 5 ; Plutarch, 1. iv. Sympos. 
 
Chap. IX. 
 
 THE TORAN. 
 
 157 
 
 have realised even approximately the form of the Toran, we may now be in 
 a position to attain clearer ideas of the pillars cast by Hiram than has hitherto 
 been possible. At all events, the subject is so interesting that it is worth 
 while making the attempt ; and though I am far from flattering myself that 
 I have been successful, I beg leave to submit the diagram below as, at least, 
 a partial solution of some of its mysteries. 
 
 The first difficulty that arises in trying to do this is the disproportionate 
 massiveness of these two pillars for work in metal. If a line of 12 cubits 
 
 35. — Rough Diagram explanatory of the Screen supported by the Pillars of Jachin and Boaz in 
 
 Front of Solomon’s Temple. 
 
 really encompassed “either of them about,” 1 their height being 18 cubits, 
 this would give a proportion of only 4^ diameters, or nearly that of the 
 pillars of the Parthenon, which, though perfectly appropriate in stonework, 
 would be absurd in metal. Josephus says 12 dactyles 2 (SaKTvXcov), and the 
 Septuagint has 14 cubits, showing that there is at least some uncertainty in 
 the matter. My own impression is that what was meant was that a line of 
 12 or 14 cubits, stretched across, encompassed both pillars, as one of 20 cubits did 
 that of their copies in Herod’s Temple. This, at least, would be a pleasing and 
 
 1 Kings vii. 15. 
 
 2 Ant. viii. 3, 4. 
 
158 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Paet II- 
 
 proper proportion, though whether it is what the Bible meant is by no means 
 so dear. 
 
 From a second description in the Book of Kings, we learn that the capitals 
 were of “ three cubits 1 but all our authorities are agreed that the chapiters 
 were of 5 cubits in height, and that they were adorned with wreaths and chains 
 and network and pomegranates 400 in number ; and the difficulty has been to 
 find room for all these things on a capital 5 cubits high, by, say, 12 cubits in 
 circumference, and, more than this, to find anything at all analogous to this in 
 any art or any architecture of the world. I quite admit that this is what, not 
 only the Book of Kings 2 and Chronicles, 3 hut also the allusion to this feature 
 in Jeremiah, 4 would lead us to suppose they intended to express, and there is 
 nothing in Josephus to contradict it ; 5 all I would urge is that, if it is so, the 
 problem appears to me to he insoluble. If, however, we may assume that the 
 two chapiters of 5 cubits each, which were placed on the pillars, were beams or 
 frames of bronze extending from one to the other, as in the vine-hearing trellis 
 of Herod’s Temple, the whole becomes clear and intelligible. To bring this, 
 however, into accord with our texts, it would be necessary that all those 
 expressions which mean “ round about ” in speaking of the chapiters should be 
 either annulled or modified ; and more than this, it would be necessary to assume 
 that some at least of the descriptions were written by persons who had no 
 personal knowledge or no distinct idea of the object they were describing. This 
 is so large a demand on the tolerance of enquiry that I hardly care to argue it, 
 and merely put it forward as a suggestion to be taken for what it is worth. It 
 may, consequently, suffice briefly to state what I believe the form of the 
 monument to have been, leaving it to others to reject or adopt my views as they 
 think best. My impression is that the frontispiece prepared by Hiram for 
 Solomon’s Temple consisted of two pillars of bronze placed 12 or 14 cubits apart, 
 and probably not more than 1 cubit in diameter. They had capitals 3 cubits in 
 height, and on them were placed two beams or frames of bronze each 5 cubits in 
 height. The Septuagint calls them eVi^quara, which cannot by any means 
 be construed as capitals, but the term may very reasonably be applied 
 to such a beam as is here suggested. These were apparently separated from 
 one another by a transverse beam or buttress extending back 4 cubits to the 
 porch, as was the case in Herod’s Temple, to support the framework where 
 most needed. The word employed in the Septuagint (peXaOpov) is translated, 
 in our best lexicons, as “ a beam projecting from the wall of a house.” 
 Generally, it must be admitted as the support of a roof or projecting cornice, 
 but it is as applicable for the use here suggested. It is stated to have been 
 adorned with “ lily work,” which I presume may mean, with a honeysuckle 
 
 1 2 Kings xxv. 17. 2 1 Kings vii. 15-21. 3 2 Chron. iii. 15-17. 
 
 4 Jeremiah lii. 21. 5 Ant. viii. 3, 4. 
 
Chap. IX. 
 
 THE TORAN. 
 
 159 
 
 ornament carved upon it, in contradistinction to the net and pensile work of 
 the epithemata. It is, of course, arbitrary to assume that, because this 
 melatliron was 4 cubits long, it must have been equal to that in height. I am 
 inclined to this, however, because these measures together make up 35 cubits, 
 which looks very like as if the writer in the Chronicles had adopted the whole 
 height of that screen for the height of the pillars only. 1 
 
 The first great advantage we obtain from the scheme just suggested is, 
 that we obtain abundant space for “ network,” and “ chains,” and “ pensile 
 work,” either on the epithemata, or hanging from them, and also for the four 
 hundred pomegranates in four rows, which were the principal ornaments in 
 Solomon’s, as the vine was in Herod’s, Temple. Even then, however, when 
 drawn out to scale, it is extremely difficult to find room for more than twenty- 
 four or twenty-five pomegranates in a row, even on an epithema 20 cubits 
 long, if of the proper size, to he effective at that distance from the eye, and 
 if properly spaced for ornamental purposes. I consequently believe that they 
 hung behind as well as before — “round about the chapiters,” in fact — and 
 probably twenty-four in each row, ninety-six in each epithema, as mentioned 
 by Jeremiah. There may also have been two at each end. 
 
 I am far from contending that this suggestion removes all the difficulties 
 connected with this celebrated work of Hiram’s, but it seems to me to be 
 nearer the true solution than any other I am acquainted with. It is hardly, 
 however, worth while pursuing the subject further at this stage of the 
 enquiry, as without more knowledge of Hebrew than I possess, or without the 
 assistance of some scholar competent to supply my deficiencies, it is impossible 
 for any one to feel sure that he knows all the conditions of the problem he 
 is trying to solve. It may, therefore, be as well to leave it till others have 
 expressed their opinions regarding it, when it may be taken up again and 
 treated as a separate subject. 2 One great difficulty for its general acceptance 
 is, no doubt, that the form so proposed is even less familiar to the general 
 public than the obeliscal one usually suggested ; but any one who has been in 
 the East, and knows how frequent these torans are in front ol the doorways 
 of temples from India to Japan, would rather look for, and expect to find, 
 something of the sort at Jerusalem, and feel disappointed if any other form 
 were adopted. My own impression certainly is that in Solomon's Temple 
 Jaehin and Boaz supported a screen with two beams or epithemata, but there 
 
 1 It is not a little curious, as well as significant, that 
 Josephus makes the whole height of the vine-bearing 
 screen 70 cub.ts (B. J. v. 5, 4), or just twice the 
 thirty-five cubi-s of the Book of Chronicles. To me 
 this appears the strongest testimony we have of the 
 correctness of the dimensions there given. 
 
 2 I have drawn out this Jaehin and Boaz screen to 
 scale for my own satisfaction, and with such orna- 
 
 mentation as seems to me appropriate and sufficient 
 to make the foundation of a very beautiful work of 
 art in metal work. I do not, however, feel so con- 
 fident in the correctness of my principles as to think 
 it worth while publishing it, and prefer leaving it 
 in the state of the rude diagram shown in woodcut 
 No. 35, till it is seen how far scholars will assent to 
 its theory. 
 
160 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 I must leave it. It is not essential to our restoration, and it is not necessary 
 or expedient to press wliat avowedly cannot be proved. 
 
 As regards Herod’s Temple, however, I feel very little doubt but that the 
 woodcut No. 34 1 fairly represents the form the screen took as erected about 
 the time of the Christian era ; in the first place, because I do not think that 
 the passages above quoted from Josephus and the Middoth can bear any other 
 interpretation than that I have pat upon them, and also because the form 
 was so common in the East at that time that I see no a priori improbability 
 in its being adopted by Herod, even if nothing of an exactly similar nature 
 had existed in the previous Temples. 
 
 The oldest example now known to exist in the East is that at Bharhut, not 
 yet published, 2 but known to be at least two centuries older than the Jerusalem 
 example. It is wholly in stone. So also are the four at Sanchi, which all 
 belong to the first century of our era ; 3 while the representations of them, both 
 at Sanchi and Amravati, are so frequent that their employment may be said to 
 be universal ; but generally, apparently, they were in wood. Some years ago 
 this could hardly have been employed as an argument, but recent discoveries — 
 especially in architecture — have shown the communications between the East and 
 the West to have been so much more frequent, and intimate, than was previously 
 suspected, as to remove all taint of improbability from the argument, even if 
 they are not sufficient to show that it must or might have been so. Perhaps 
 when others come to investigate the subject, some new light may be thrown on 
 the matter ; but meanwhile it is a new and interesting feature added to our 
 history of the architecture of the Temple, and one that seems likely, when 
 properly investigated, to throw a flood of light on the mystery of the Jachin 
 and Boaz pillars, as also on various problems involved in the mutual influence 
 on one another of Eastern and Western architectural art. 
 
 1 In order to show the construction, the golden leaves 
 have been omitted from this diagram, as well as from 
 
 Plates III. and IV. They are partially introduced in 
 the perspective view, forming the frontispiece, and, if 
 
 the scale were large enough, ought to be introduced 
 
 everywhere, as they. were the principal ornaments of 
 the composition. 
 
 2 Partially illustrated by me, in my History of Indian 
 Architecture, p. 88, woodcut 27. 
 
 3 Tree and Serpent Worship, pp. 99 et seq. 
 
Chap. X. 
 
 ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 161 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 Tombs. 
 
 In addition to the buildings above alluded to as illustrating the style of 
 architecture in which the Temple of Herod was built, there are several others 
 in Judfea well worthy of attentive study, as bearing on the same subject. None, 
 of course, can bear so directly upon it as the vestibule of the Huldah Gateway, 
 which was part of the Temple itself, or as the monoliths of the valley of 
 Jehoshaphat, as these were connected with it in some mysterious way, or as 
 the Temple of Baalsamin, which is a contemporary copy of it on a small scale. 
 Besides these, however, we have in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem numerous 
 tombs which are certainly not earlier than Herod’s time, nor later than the age 
 of Titus, and all which have features which enable us to understand, to some 
 extent at least, the architecture of the first century in and about Jerusalem. 
 
 Of these, one of the most remarkable is the Herodium, or, as it is generally 
 called, “ the Tombs of the Kings,” on the north of the city. Josephus mentions 
 it once as “ the monuments of Herod,” 1 a second time, with the same name in the 
 singular, 2 and a third time, as the “ sepulchral caverns of the kings,” 3 by which 
 name it is now known. That it was excavated by Herod would probably never 
 have been doubted, had not Josephus’ account of his funeral been obscure and 
 contradictory to a greater extent than is usual even with him. Herod, he says, 
 died at Jericho, 4 and in the ‘ Wars of the Jews,’ it is said “ they carried his 
 body 200 stadia to the Herodium, and there buried him,” 5 while in the 
 ‘ Antiquities,’ on the other hand, it is stated, “ they went 8 stadia to the 
 Herodium, and there, by his own command, buried him.” 6 The usual mode 
 of reconciling these differences is to assume that the Herodium in the first 
 passage applies to the Jebel Fureidis, which also bore that name, but which 
 never — so far as I know — was a sepulchre or intended for one. For the second, 
 
 1 B. J. V. 3, 2. 
 
 2 B. J. v. 12, 2. 
 
 3 B. J. v. 4, 2. 
 
 4 There can be no doubt that the statement of 
 
 Josephus is, that Herod died at Jericho, hut the men- 
 
 tion of the Hippodrome, the presence of the nobles and 
 of all the parties concerned, in fact all the circum- 
 
 stances connected with his last illness, would lead to 
 the supposition that he died at Jerusalem. I cannot 
 help fancying that the true solution is, that the historian 
 either forgot or omitted to mention that he had been 
 removed there before his death. 
 
 6 B. J. i. 33, 9. 
 
 6 Ant. xvii. 8, 3. 
 
 Y 
 
162 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 it is assumed they marched 8 furlongs, or one mile, per day, for twenty-five 
 days, till they reached the place, for which hypothesis there is, however, no 
 shadow of authority, so far as I can see, while it is in itself a most improbable 
 rate of locomotion. The distance of Jerusalem from Jericho is 12 miles, or 96 
 stadia, as the crow flies, from Jebel Fureidis 15 miles, or 120 stadia, so that 
 neither of these will make up the 200 stadia required ; so there is little to choose 
 between them. The real solution, I believe, lies in adhering to the account in 
 the ‘ Antiquities,’ and assuming that after his death his body was brought to 
 Jerusalem, and after lying in state, the procession which Josephus describes 
 was formed there, and marched 8 stadia from the Palace in the city to the 
 Tombs of the Kings, this being the exact distance on the Ordnance Survey. 
 
 Against this view, it must not be forgotten that in the fourth century the 
 tradition had got blurred, and that both Eusebius 1 and Jerome 2 considered these 
 caves as the celebrated Tombs of Helena of Adiabene. These, however, were 
 certainly structural pyramids, 3 probably, in form like the so-called Tomb of 
 Zacharias, represented in woodcut No. 29, and were at a greater distance 
 from Jerusalem than these caverns; 4 while it need hardly be added that a 
 memory being obscured, or a tradition altered, in three centuries, is the rule 
 rather than the exception at Jerusalem. 
 
 This may be considered a digression, but hardly an irrelevant one, for these 
 sepulchral caverns of the kings form a landmark of the utmost value in the 
 history of the architecture of Jerusalem so that it is most important to fix their 
 date if possible, while it does not appear to me doubtful that they were 
 excavated by Herod for the burialplace of his family and himself. Even if 
 the historical incidents just alluded to did not suffice for this purpose, the 
 architectural features would, I conceive, prove it beyond doubt. Their archi- 
 tectural arrangements are the same as those of the Tomb of St. James, in 
 the valley of Jehoshaphat (woodcut No. 30), the order being the same debased 
 Roman Doric prevalent in Syria about the Christian era. The facade of the 
 Herodium, however, is overloaded with ornaments to a greater extent than 
 anv other I am acquainted with, and must, before it was ruined, have been 
 a wonderful example of barbaric splendour. 
 
 It was in this tomb that De Saulcy found the sarcophagus which is now in 
 the Louvre, and which he so strangely mistook for that of one of the early 
 kings of Judah. If the theory just enunciated, that this was the Herodian 
 familv sepulchre, is correct, it hardly admits of doubt that it was fashioned by 
 Herod to contain his own remains. At the same time, its ornamentation is so 
 nearly identical with that of the roof of the vestibule of the Huldah Gate 
 of the Temple that, with those of the fai^ade of the tomb, they together make 
 
 1 Hist. Eccl. ii. 12. 
 
 2 Epit. ad Eustach. ix. 1, describing the journey of Sta. Paula. 
 
 3 Ant. xx. 4, 3. 4 Ant. xx. 4, 3. 
 
CHAP. X. 
 
 ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 163 
 
 up a mass of material for restoring the fat^ade of the Temple which will nearly 
 suffice when properly reproduced. In all, it need hardly be repeated, the vine 
 and bunches of grapes form the staple of the decoration . 1 
 
 36. — Portion of the Lid of Herod’s Sarcophagus. (From a drawing by De Saulcy.) 2 
 
 The so-called Tombs of the Judges are of a slightly more modern date, 
 but still anterior to the destruction of the city by Titus. The ornament 
 there consists principally of a singularly sharp, spicated acanthus leaf, common 
 in these parts down to the time of Constantine, indeed till the employment 
 of classical architecture ceased altogether. A similar style of decoration is 
 found on a frontispiece above a doorway behind the Pillar of Absalom, which 
 
 1 The same wreath of olive leaves that forms the 
 principal ornament of this sarcophagus occurs in almost 
 all the copper coins of the Asmonean period. The 
 
 annexed illustration is from one of Judas Maccabieus, 
 but it occurs also on those of Hyrcanus and others. 
 See article “Money,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the 
 
 
 37. — Copper Coin of Judas Maccabeus. 
 
 Bible, from which the woodcut is borrowed. 
 
 2 This beautiful sarcophagus is now in the Palestine 
 Chamber, in the Louvre, but, strange to say, thrust into 
 
 a dark corner, where it can with difficulty be found, or 
 seen when discovered ; the place of honour, in the centre, 
 being assigned to one of far inferior importance. 
 
164 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 is consequently more modern than the pillar itself. It leads to a group of 
 chambers called the Tomb of Jehoshaphat, which is certainly not a tomb, 
 but more probably a rock-cut vihara, or monastery — so at least it would be 
 called in India ; here it may have been the residence of an anchorite. In all 
 
 38. — Doorway op Tombs op Judges. 39.— Entrance to Tomb near Jerusalem. 
 
 (From a photograph.) (From Salzmann.) 
 
 these examples, indeed in all the rock-cut tombs of this age around Jerusalem, 
 the most marked peculiarity is a tendency to exaggerate the height of the 
 tympana. In some cases they nearly approach to the height of an equilateral 
 triangle, but do not, so far as I know, ever quite reach that form. They do 
 so, however, sufficiently nearly to diminish considerably the improbability that 
 the Temple had a roof of such a section. 
 
 Synagogues. 
 
 Another fruitful source of hints for the restoration of the Temple , at 
 Jerusalem may be found among the synagogues of Northern Syria — the 
 Tiberiad — or rather will be found when they have been properly surveyed and 
 their details published. At present our knowledge of them is confined to a 
 short paper of half-a-dozen pages with one plate, inserted in 1869 by Captain 
 (now Major) Wilson in the Second Quarterly Report of the Palestine 
 Exploration Fund; and this, though clear and accurate, like everything done 
 by him, is not, even with the photographs that accompany it, sufficient to 
 enable us to understand them, if, indeed, they can be understood at all ; but 
 they are generally so ruined that even this is doubtful. 1 
 
 1 As all the statements made regarding these synagogues are based on this short paper, it will not be necessary 
 to refer to it each time it is mentioned. 
 
Chap. X. 
 
 ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 165 
 
 Their first and most striking peculiarity is the number of pillars that 
 crowd their floors. With one exception, the nine which Major Wilson 
 examined were divided into five aisles by four rows of pillars like that at Tell 
 Hum (Capernaum), shown in the annexed woodcut ; and this, too, though its 
 internal dimensions were only 74 feet 9 inches by 56 feet 9 inches. Another 
 peculiarity is that the centre aisle is the narrowest — under 7 feet clear — the 
 next a little wider, the outer 11 feet 6 inches. Such an arrangement seems 
 so utterly unsuited to any congregational or ceremonial purposes, that there 
 
 O 25 50 Ft 
 
 - 1 i 
 
 40.— Synagogue at Tell Hum. (By Major Wilson.) 
 
 must have been some other cause for it ; and the only one that occurs to me 
 is that what we have here is only the lower storey of a building of which the 
 upper chamber was really the ceremonial or meeting room. It seems absurd 
 to suppose that in a country where they could construct the roof of a Stoa 
 Basilica 105 feet in width, with only two rows of internal pillars, making 
 three aisles, it would have required four rows and five aisles for the roof of 
 a room only 56 feet wide. The objection to this theory, of course, is that no 
 trace of a staircase has been found anywhere, but this, in their generally 
 
166 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEKOD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 ruined state, is liardly to be wondered at. Two of them, however — Meiron 
 and Irbid — seem to be notched out of the hillside, as if for the purpose of 
 giving access to their roofs or upper storeys from the outside, and at Tell 
 Hum, as shown in the plan, there is an annex, in which the staircase may 
 have been accommodated. 
 
 The exceptional synagogue above alluded to is the smaller one at Kefr 
 Beirim, which, being only 35 feet 6 inches in width internally, had only two 
 rows of pillars in its interior, dividing it into three aisles. 
 
 It would of course be absurd to argue that these synagogues were literal 
 copies, in any sense, of the Temple. But the places of worship of the same 
 people, and some at least of them — that at Capernaum, for instance — being 
 probably contemporary, there must have existed similarities which would throw 
 light on the peculiarities of the others, were either ascertainable. If there 
 was an upper room to the Temple, which seems proved from what has been 
 said above, there is no improbability that a similar apartment existed in the 
 synagogues ; or, on the other hand, if it could be demonstrated that the 
 synagogues had such an upper room, it would be another and a strong 
 argument in favour of the upper chamber said to have existed in the Temple. 
 The presence also of such a number of pillars on the floors of the synagogues 
 invalidates all reasoning based on the fact of the improbability of their 
 existence on the floor of the Temple, where they can he shown to have been 
 indispensable for constructive purposes. 
 
 In trying to understand the relation between the two classes of buildings, it 
 must also be borne in mind, as before mentioned, that the lower storey of the 
 Temple was not used for any great ceremonial or congregational purposes or 
 worship, in the sense in which we understand these terms. The Holy of Holies 
 was only entered by the most privileged priests on the rarest possible 
 occasions and the Holy Place was used more for the deposit of the Table of 
 Shewbread, the Golden Candlesticks, and all the wonderful articles of furniture 
 which Hiram cast for Solomon, which, no doubt, had their representatives in 
 Herod’s Temple. The reading of the Law, the putting up of prayer, the 
 chanting of the Psalms, if these took place at all except in the open air, must, 
 as before suggested, have taken place in this upper room of the Temple. This 
 may have been the case also in the synagogue, and its lower floor may have 
 been occupied by some passive form of worship or by offerings; for which 
 the crowded state of the floor, from the number of pillars, would not have 
 been objectionable. 1 
 
 1 It may of course be suggested that this took place 
 in the court of the Temple, and in the open air. r Ihat 
 occasional services or great festivals took place there, is, 
 1 believe, quite certain, but I cannot believe that in 
 such a climate as that of Jerusalem the ordinary daily 
 
 services could have been performed out of doors. 
 Neither Christian nor Moslem have found such a 
 practice feasible, nor do I believe the Jews could have 
 done so either. 
 
Chap. X. 
 
 ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 167 
 
 The synagogues are generally so ruined, most of them completely thrown 
 down, that they do not afford us much assistance in restoring the external 
 architecture of the Temple. There is, however, a doorway in the larger 
 synagogue of Kefr Beirim which is so exactly, mutatis mutandis , what I believe 
 the doorway of the Temple to have been that it is worth quoting. It is more 
 modern, of course, but how much, it is impossible to say, from the information 
 available ; but its mouldings are so classical that it may easily belong to the- 
 first century of our era. On its lintel, on either side of an open flower, two 
 lambs were sculptured, apparently intended for the Paschal lambs, but which a 
 
 41. — Doorway of Synagogue at Kefr Beirim. (From a photograph.) 
 
 stricter sect have afterwards attempted to erase. Above this is the inevitable 
 vine with its bunches of grapes, and over that the discharging arch, which is so 
 common in Syria at this age. The vine with its grapes occurs also at Tell Hum. 
 and probably elsewhere, but lying buried in the ruins of the building it once 
 adorned. 
 
 Among the ruins of the synagogue at Kerazeh (Chorazin) are found the 
 fragments of several niche heads, not in themselves of any remarkable beauty, 
 but of great interest to us here, as their design and the style of their ornaments 
 are — allowing for their being slightly more modern — almost identical with the 
 
168 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEKOD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 ornaments of one of the domes in the roof of the vestibule of the gate Huldah of 
 the Temple (woodcut No. 18). The wreath of olive leaves occurs also round 
 the base of this niche, though more coarsely executed than that round the other 
 dome of the Huldah Grateway (woodcut No. 19), or than that shown on Herod’s 
 sarcophagus (woodcut No. 36), but still unmistakably the same. As there is no 
 mistake about the synagogue being after the Christian era, all this is sufficient 
 to prove — if proof were wanted — that that gateway did not belong to Solomon’s, 
 
 42. — Ruined Niche in Synagogue at Choeazin. (From a photograph.) 
 
 as De Saulcy and others have supposed, hut to Herod’s Temple. A still more 
 apposite and perfect illustration of this class of decoration is found in the apse 
 of the prgetorium at Mousmieh, which De Yoglie ascertained was erected 160-169 
 a.d. 1 From photographs, it appears that it has in its details considerable 
 resemblances with those of the Huldah vaults, but the Chorazin niche, though 
 much more coarsely executed, and therefore, probably, much more modern, 
 shows more distinct evidence of being a direct cojiy of those in Jerusalem. 
 
 Palaces. 
 
 The palace at Mashita near Hesbon is the last building 1 shall have occasion 
 to mention before leaving this branch of the subject. The date (614-627) 2 is 
 much too modern, of course, for it to have any direct reference to the Temple 
 
 1 Syrie Centrale, pi. 7, p. 45. 
 
 2 I have already published what I have to say about 
 this date, and generally about this building, in an 
 appendix to Dr. Tristram’s Land of Moab, pp. 367-385, 
 
 together with a restoration of it as the frontispiece to 
 that work ; it is therefore unnecessary to go over the 
 argument again. The reader who desires further infor- 
 mation regarding it can refer to Dr. Tristram’s work. 
 
Chap. X. 
 
 ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 169 
 
 at Jerusalem, but it worthily closes a chapter of architectural history of which 
 that celebrated building was the first example, and this the last ; and it is 
 
 43. — Compartment of Western Octagon Towep. of the Persian Palace at Mashita. 
 
 only by putting the whole together, and reading it from the beginning to 
 
 the end, that we can fully understand 
 
 1 This style is so distinct in itself that it would be 
 extremely convenient if any one could invent a name 
 to distinguish it clearly from other styles without being 
 pedantic. I should like to call it “ vine architecture,” 
 
 its meaning . 1 
 
 from its most marked characteristic; but vine is not 
 an adjective, and “ vitic ” or “ vinous ” would not only 
 be wrong, but ridiculous ; so I must leave the task to 
 others. “ Ampellic” would be unintelligible. 
 
 Z 
 
170 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 The principal motivo of the decoration of the palace at Mashita is a series 
 of triangular pediments extending across the whole front. These are all 
 equilateral in form, and the two sloping sides are adorned by quasi-cornices 
 of acanthus leaves, evidently a reminiscence of a classical form, but far 
 removed, as might be expected, from it in detail, the acanthus, especially, 
 having the sharp, spicated form found in Justinian’s time, but scarcely earlier. 
 These triangles are generally filled with sculptured ornaments of great beauty 
 and variety, but the principal ones, as shown in the woodcut, by vines 
 growing out of vases, and bearing a profusion of fruit. The treatment of the 
 vine here is full of vigorous conventionalism — very unlike the timid realism 
 of Herod’s Temple — and birds and beasts are introduced in a manner that 
 would shock an adherent of the Second Commandment ; but the changes are 
 not greater than might be expected from their difference in date. Many, 
 indeed, will be rather inclined to believe that any similarity that may exist 
 must be accidental, and that no such forms could be preserved by tradition 
 through so long a period of time. Yet architectural forms in true styles 
 change slowly, and if any one will only remember how like the Corinthian 
 order of the monument of Lysicrates at Athens, of the age of Alexander, 
 is to that of the capitals of Diocletian’s buildings at Spalatro, or to those of 
 Constantine, he will not feel surprise at any persistence of form in countries 
 maintaining a continuous civilisation. 
 
 Be this as it may, I feel convinced that between the time of Herod and 
 Chosroes there existed the tradition, if not the continuous practice, of a style of 
 tall-roofed, vine-adorned buildings, which eventually resulted in what now 
 appears to us the unique and exceptional ornamentation of the jialace at 
 Mashita. It is unfortunately only too probable that sufficient fragments do 
 not now remain to enable us to make out the story of the style in a 
 full and satisfactory manner ; but fragments do exist , 1 and the subject is so 
 interesting that it is well worth while looking for them and trying to piece 
 them together. 
 
 It would be quite out of place to attempt such a monograph here, though, if 
 it were done, it would add a most interesting chapter to the general history of 
 architecture. All that is here wanted is to point out that there exist in Syria 
 a great many fragments of architectural art which, when gathered together, 
 enable us to realise the style in which the Temple of Jerusalem was adorned 
 when rebuilt by Herod. Others must judge how far they have been successfully 
 combined in the plates that accompany this restoration. It would not be 
 difficult to carry the elaboration of these details to a much greater extent than 
 lias been attempted at present; but till the main features of the restoration 
 
 1 A number of fragments, torn probably from a desecrated building in this style in Syria, now form the 
 principal adornment of the apse of the church of Murano near Venice. 
 
Chap. X. 
 
 ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 171 
 
 are accepted, it is not only confusing, but a waste of labour, to spend time 
 on accessories. The internal fittings of the Temple were in all ages of wood, 
 and for these, of course, no illustrative examples now exist ; and I have, 
 consequently, been obliged to borrow from Persepolis the forms I fancy were 
 probably nearest in style. In the external design, however, no form has been 
 adopted for which an authority cannot be quoted among existing remains in 
 Syria, and they are put together so as to reproduce, as nearly as I can realise 
 them, from the description of Josephus and others, the form and appearance of 
 that once celebrated building ; with what measure of success, others must be 
 left to decide. 
 
172 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE TOWER ANTONIA. 
 
 Notwithstanding recent explorations on the spot, the form and arrangement of 
 this important fortress of tire Temple still remain matters of more or less 
 uncertainty. The first step in the right direction was made by Major Wilson 
 in 1865, when lie discovered the arch bearing his name at a distance of about 
 600 feet from the south- west angle of the Haram area. This was afterwards 
 followed up by Captain Warren with his usual misdirected zeal and energy, and 
 resulted in the discovery of a series of vaulted chambers of various ages, 
 extending westward across the valley to about 260 feet from the Haram wall. 
 I cannot gather from his writings, that Captain Warren formed even a theory 
 as to what the vaults represented, or to what building they belonged ; but he 
 resolutely set his face against their being parts of the Antonia, because, 
 according to his views of the Temple, its fortress was situated 800 or 900 feet 
 farther north than these vaults. Having no clue to guide him, he seems 
 to have groped on from apartment to apartment, without knowing what to 
 look for, or understanding what he had found ; and, what is worse, his 
 discoveries are published only in so fragmentary and unscientific a manner 
 that it is extremely difficult to others to make any use of them, 1 and I by 
 no means feel confident that I have in all instances rightly apprehended what 
 really was found on the spot. The great difficulty, however, in utilising these 
 researches is that in no instance did Captain Warren find — indeed, he does 
 not seem to have looked for — an external wall ; all, consequently, that he 
 discovered is a series of irregular chambers, sometimes in one, sometimes in 
 two storeys ; some ancient, others rebuilt in modern times, and certainly 
 connected with the Haram area, though at what spot and in what manner 
 remains to be determined. The one point that seems perfectly certain is, that, 
 if my restoration of the Temple is correct, these must be the foundations of 
 buildings belonging to the fortress Antonia. Either all that is said above 
 
 1 Major Wilson informs me that he has found it 
 impossible to protract Captain Warren’s data in such 
 a manner as to make them agree with the Ordnance 
 Survey. The explanation of the discrepancy, as I 
 understand it, is that Captain Warren only jotted down 
 in a hurried manner his discoveries as he made them, 
 
 intending to go over the whole with the sappers, when 
 they were complete, and make a careful survey' of them. 
 On his return from Jericho, however, he found the 
 vaults closed by order of the pasha, and he was never 
 able afterwards to obtain access to them. 
 
Chap. XI. 
 
 THE TOWER ANTONIA. 
 
 173 
 
 about the size and disposition of the Temple falls to the ground or the Antonia 
 stood where it is marked on the plan in the annexed woodcut, and included 
 all the ground on which these chambers are situated. It would, therefore, be 
 extremely interesting if the explorations were sufficiently complete to enable us 
 to restore them as they existed at the time when Pilate resided in this fortress ; 
 but nothing really depends on our being able to do so. It is sufficient for all 
 historical and topographical purposes to know that they belonged to the Antonia ; 
 their exact form is of comparatively little consequence, at present at least. 
 
 0 
 
 so 
 
 100 
 
 200 
 
 300 FI 
 
 44. — Plan op the Antonia according to Josephus. 
 
 In consequence of the failure of these explorations to afford us the information 
 requisite for a complete restoration, we are still left mainly to rely on Josephus 
 for what we know of the Antonia ; and as all, or nearly all, he says about it is 
 contained in one short chapter, 1 it may add to the clearness of what follows if we 
 make a short abstract of it. 
 
 “ The Antonia is situated at that angle of the Temple where the northern 
 and western porticos of the outer Temple meet. It stands on a rock 50 cubits in 
 height, and everywhere steep. This rock, however ” — he goes on to explain — “ was 
 
 1 B. J. v. 5, 8. 
 
174 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 everywhere cased in stone, not only for ornament, but to render it more defensible. 
 On this rock or terrace there was a wall or parapet 3 cubits in height, within 
 which the area of the Antonia was covered with buildings 40 cubits in height 
 internally, having the form and grandeur of a palace. This was again subdivided 
 into rooms and all manner of conveniences, such as courts, baths, spacious 
 barracks, and all the things that were necessary or useful for cities, but having 
 the appearance of a palace. Besides the central block, there were four towers at 
 the four angles, three of which were 50 cubits in height, but that at the south* 
 eastern angle, where it joined the porticos of the Temple, was 70 cubits high, and 
 had passages leading down to these porticos by which the Roman garrison that 
 always occupied the tower had at all times access to the Temple.” 
 
 For its dimensions we have nothing beyond the impression we gain from the 
 above, except the expression that the Temple, with the Antonia, measured 6 stadia 
 in circumference, 1 and consequently it must have been a quadrangular figure, 
 measuring from 300 to 400 feet on each face, according as it may be determined 
 how far the one building overlapped the other. We know from the incidents 
 of the war that it did not cover the whole of the northern face of the Temple, 
 because Titus erected banks there with the intention of storming the Temple long 
 before he had obtained possession of the Antonia ; 2 and the question is, Did 
 Josephus consider the Temple was a building, as he says, measuring 4 stadia, one 
 stadium on each side, and the Antonia one of 300 feet on each face, and add the 
 two together as making 6 stadia, or did he allow for the overlap and measure 
 carefully 3600 feet of wall on the perimeter of the two? Such exactitude is 
 extremely improbable, but it is between 3400 and 3600 feet that the limits of 
 deviation lie, and the difference is unimportant, for present purposes at least. 
 
 The position of the Antonia relatively to the Temple is defined as clearly 
 by Josephus as anything can be done by words. The tower at the south-eastern 
 angle of the Antonia stood inside the north-western angle of the Temple, and 
 was what prevented the Temple being an exact square, and its destruction was 
 consequently necessary to fulfil the prophecy that, when the Temple became 
 four square, the city would be destroyed. 3 This is even more clear from the 
 events of the siege, for after the Romans had obtained possession of the Antonia, 
 the Jews cut off 20 cubits from the northern and as much from the western 
 portico, in order to detach them from the tower, so that the Romans might 
 not have access to their roofs and so command the Court of the Gentiles, from 
 which they were at that time attacking the inner court of the Temple. 4 The 
 dimensions of this angle-tower in plan are unfortunately not given to us. I 
 have drawn it as 96 feet square, which represents as nearly as may be the 
 dimensions of the White Tower in the Tower of London (96 by 116 feet), the 
 height of both being about the same (70 cubits). The dimensions of the other 
 
 1 B. J. v. 5, 2. 
 
 2 B. J. V. 7, 2. 
 
 • 3 B. J. vi. 5, 4. 
 
 4 B. J. vi. 2, 9 ; vi. 3, 2 ; vi. 4, 1. 
 
Chap. XI. 
 
 THE TOWER ANTONIA. 
 
 175 
 
 three towers in plan were probably smaller in the same proportion to their 
 height, which was only 50 cubits, and their position cannot he determined 
 with the same absolute precision as that of the great tower. Still, that at the 
 south-western angle may, I fancy, be fixed with very tolerable certainty. 
 
 At a distance of a little more than 200 feet westward from the Haram area, 
 there is a group of three chambers, so disposed that they look like the interior 
 of such a tower as we are looking for. The lowest of the chambers has a 
 postern 1 (woodcut No. 45) which is of precisely the same class of masonry as that 
 of the Gate of the Prophet of the Temple, and 
 of the original part of the Huldah Gateway (wood- 
 cut No. 47), and is nearly on the same level. We 
 may, consequently, assume with considerable con- 
 fidence that all three were built by Herod, and 
 are parts of the same design, and if this is so, this 
 one could hardly be anything but a part of the 
 Antonia. Till, however, we get a glimpse of the 
 outside walls that enclosed these chambers, we 
 must pause. As before mentioned, it never seems 
 to have occurred to Captain Warren that it was 
 the outside and not the inside of this labyrinth of 
 chambers which was all essential for determining 
 their use and extent. This deficiency could, however, be easily supplied, in so 
 far as this angle is concerned, and when this is done, we shall have at least 
 one element for settling this most interesting question of topography. 
 
 The northern limit I have fixed, for the present, at the Cotton Bazaar ; but 
 this is merely a guess. It looks like a causeway that might and would be 
 built on a wall, but whether this is so or not depends on an examination, on the 
 spot, by some one who knows what is old, what new, and who examines the place 
 with the intention of finding this out. If it should turn out that this is so, the 
 two northern towers would be situated one at each end of the bazaar, the western 
 one in the street Elwad, the eastern one in the Haram area, at such a distance 
 inwards as would accord with the position of the eastern wall of the Antonia, 
 wherever that may be fixed, hereafter. For the present I have assumed this to be 
 that of the terrace wall of the platform of the Dome of the Rock, in the same 
 manner as I believe the southern wall of that platform was almost certainly 
 the northern boundary of the Temple. I cannot, however, quite divest myself 
 at times of the idea that the western wall of the Haram may be the eastern wall 
 of the Antonia. That that wall was the second wall of Jerusalem, I proved, 
 or attempted to prove, when I first wrote on the topography of Jerusalem, 2 and 
 I have seen or heard nothing since to shake my faith in that determination ; but 
 
 45. — Arch in South-western Tower of 
 the Antonia. 
 
 (From a sketch by Captain Warren.) 
 
 Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 93. 
 
 2 Ancient Topography of Jerusalem, p. 41, pi. iii. 
 
176 
 
 THE TEMPLE OP HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 how much of the old wall may have been utilised in building the Antonia, or 
 enclosed in it, are questions that I fear must be left for future investigations. 
 
 Starting from these data, and correcting them by such local indications as 
 exist, I fancy the external dimensions of the Temple with the Antonia must 
 
 be very nearly as follows : — 
 
 Feet. 
 
 South face of Antonia 260 
 
 West face of Antonia 400 
 
 North face of Antonia. 400 
 
 East side of Antonia . 300 
 
 1360 
 
 Adding to this 4 stadia as the perimeter of the Temple . 2400 
 
 We have in round numbers 3760 
 
 But from this we must deduct for the overlap . . . 160 
 
 Leaving exactly the 6 stadia or 3600 feet; 
 
 which Josephus states as the perimeter of the two. This minute accuracy is, 
 of course, only a coincidence, and is stated as such ; but, after admitting all 
 reasonable rectifications, the result is so nearly the same as to afford a fair 
 presumption that this is what Josephus really meant to express. 1 
 
 The height of the rock on which Josephus said the tower stood (50 cubits) 
 need not astonish us, inasmuch as Captain Warren found the Haram wall, alongside 
 Wilson’s arch, to be founded on the rock at a depth of 84 feet below the level of 
 the Temple area, and as the rock in the Haram must be very near the surface, and 
 within 400 feet of that spot rises to 20 feet above it, it looks very much as if there 
 was a cliff here such as Josephus describes. Indeed, the more carefully the 
 question is examined, the more probable does it appear that the western face of 
 the rocky Zion, before it was covered with masonry, was a cliff, on the western 
 edge of which the Holy of Holies was situated. 
 
 Among the chambers discovered by Captain Warren on the site of the 
 Antonia is one which he called the Masonic Hall, and which, he states, “ has every 
 appearance of being the oldest piece of masonry visible in Jerusalem, with the 
 exception of the sanctuary walls, and perhaps as old as they.” 2 From the 
 appearance of the capital, of which he gives a drawing, I should feel inclined to 
 agree with the verdict. If the drawing is to be depended upon, it cannot be later 
 than the time of Herod, and may be very much earlier. The most interesting 
 peculiarity of this chamber is that on its floor stands a truncated column, no part 
 of the construction, for the chamber is vaulted above the pillar, but just such a 
 pillar as criminals would be tied to to be scourged. Such an arrangement, in such a 
 dungeon, if it occurred in a German mediaeval castle, would excite no other remark 
 
 1 The evidence is conflicting ; but I cannot help sometimes suspecting that the Acra and the Antonia are one 
 
 and the same place. 2 Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 89. 
 
Chap. XL 
 
 THE TOWER ANTONIA. 
 
 177 
 
 than that its existence is a curious confirmation of what we know of the manners 
 and customs of the times when the fortress was erected. I by no means intend to 
 assert that this is the identical column to which Christ was bound. It may be 
 that, when Constantine built the Dome of the Rock, he thought it necessary to 
 identify, on the spot, all the scenes of the Passion, as the Crusaders did afterwards, 
 and placed a column in one of the dungeons of the Antonia for that purpose ; and 
 this may be his work. Be this as it may, I look upon it as quite certain that this 
 so-called Masonic Hall was one of the prison cells of the Antonia ; that the 
 
 LEVEL OF 
 HA RAM AREA 
 
 LOOP. LINE OF-PASSACE'AW'"" 
 
 VAUL.T RUNNING EAST & 
 WEST IM/TH AQUEDUCT. 
 
 ENTRANCE^ 
 
 MASONIC HALL 
 
 '*NC R O 
 
 ki O WERiRA SSA GeMm 
 
 FAL LEN ARCH 
 
 GALlktii 
 
 
 2366-S 
 
 ‘'OUSSO//1S , 
 0 ST OAJ/zS 
 
 BOTTOM OF SHAFT 1 —' 2360 
 ' ' NO ROCK 
 
 WATER MET WITH 
 
 ROAD TO BAB AS S/iS/iF 
 
 SCALE OF FEET 
 
 46. — Section, East and West, through Wilson’s Arch and the Adjoining Chambers. 
 (From an unpublished plate by Major Wilson. 1 ) 
 
 Antonia was the Prsetorium of the Romans, and the residence of Pilate ; and that 
 it was on its pavement , 2 and in its halls and cells, that the principal events of the 
 Passion took place ; and consequently, that if this is not the actual cell in which 
 the pillar stood to which Christ was bound, it must have been in a very similar 
 one, close at hand. 
 
 One of the most important discoveries which Captain Warren made in this 
 
 2 John xix. 13. 
 
 2 
 
 A 
 
 See also Recovery of Jerusalem, plate facing page 81. 
 
178 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 neighbourhood was that of a secret underground passage extending across the 
 valley from the city to the Temple. It is described in detail in the ‘ Recovery of 
 Jerusalem,’ page 90, and shown in section in the last woodcut, No. 46. To me it 
 does not appear doubtful that this is the secret passage mentioned by Josephus in 
 the 15th book of his ‘Antiquities,’ on finishing the description of the Temple 
 as rebuilt by Herod. 
 
 As that passage is usually read, it is understood to state that this passage led 
 from the Antonia to the eastern gate of the inner Temple (the gate Nicanor), 
 and that Herod was allowed by the Jews to build a tower over that gateway in 
 which he and his Gentile successors might take refuge in the event of any emeute. 
 Such a translation hears its refutation on its very face, when we recollect that, at 
 a later period, when the Jews discovered that Agrippa could look into the courts 
 of the Temple from the new room he had erected in his palace in the city over 
 the Xystus, they raised the western wall of the Temple 1 so as to prevent this 
 profanation, though he could not see either the altar or any of the most 
 sacred parts of the precincts from the spot where the palace was situated, 
 however high it might be raised. Besides this, in the next preceding para- 
 graph, 2 we are told that Herod was not allowed to enter the inner courts of 
 the Temple, even when they were in course of erection, when his presence and 
 assistance might have been useful. To pretend under these circumstances that he 
 was allowed to build a tower to which he had secret access into the very middle 
 of the inner Temple, and whence he could see all that passed inside, and even look 
 into the Holy Place, is something too absurd to be for one moment entertained. 
 Besides, why should he seek to fly from the Antonia, which was the strongest 
 place in Jerusalem, to a gate of the Temple which, though it might be safe against 
 external assaults, was certainly the last place in Jerusalem where a Gentile king 
 would seek refuge against an insurrection of the Jewish priesthood or laity ? 
 Commonsense tells us that what he really did was to construct a secret means 
 of communication between the Palace in the city, which was unfortified, 
 and where he was in great danger in the event of any rising of the people, 
 to the Antonia, which was the citadel wherein he would be in safety, if 
 anywhere, in Jerusalem. The passage in Josephus is contorted and clumsily 
 expressed, but will, I believe, bear the following interpretation : — “ And there 
 was also made for the king, a secret passage leading from the Antonia (to the 
 palace), extending as far as the inner Temple by its eastern door, upon or 
 over which (door) he also constructed a tower for himself, that he might be 
 able to get up into it, through the underground passage, in order to guard 
 against any sedition that might he made by the people against their kings.” 3 
 
 1 Ant. xx. 8, 11. 
 
 2 Ant. xv. 11, 5. 
 
Chap. XI. 
 
 THE TOWER ANTONIA. 
 
 179 
 
 This translation, which has been revised by a good Greek scholar, I believe 
 represents the meaning of the text better than any other that has yet been 
 proposed. 
 
 In the last woodcut (No. 46) the passage is represented as terminating 
 eastward in the archway next preceding to Wilson’s arch. At one time I had in 
 consequence drawn these arches as included in, and, in fact, forming part of the 
 basement of, the great south-eastern tower of the Antonia, placing it astride on 
 the Temple wall ; but I am assured that such a position is untenable, otherwise 
 the marks of the southern wall of the tower must have been discovered by the 
 excavations that were made there by Captain Warren. It seems, however, 
 that all the explorations at this angle were made at haphazard, no one knowing 
 what to look for ; and till these are systematically resumed, with a distinct 
 purpose, on the spot, it is idle to speculate on details from such materials as 
 we possess. Be this as it may, I look upon it as quite certain that the south- 
 eastern tower of the Antonia stood at this angle of the Temple, partly in it, 
 partly outside, and that Wilson’s arch so called was either a part of it or at 
 least attached to it. I also look upon it as nearly as certain that the secret 
 passage discovered by Captain Warren is that mentioned by Josejdms as 
 connecting the palace with the tower over the eastern doorway of the Antonia 
 which led into the Temple itself. Its existence here is another testimony, if 
 any were wanted, to the correctness of the position assigned by me to the 
 Antonia, and, within certain limits, also to its form, as shown in the plan 
 given in woodcut No. 44. 
 
 Within the limits of the Antonia, as above defined, there is a passage of 
 ancient masonry 125 feet north of Wilson’s arch, which, when examined with 
 more care and delineated, may get us out of a topographical difficulty, and 
 vindicate the correctness of Josephus in a manner which would be highly satis- 
 factory. At page 85 it was pointed out that Josephus describes four gates as 
 leading from the Temple to the city, while we are only able to identify three. 
 If this or the corresponding opening in the outer wall of the Antonia can be 
 made out to be one of the two gates leading to the suburbs, the whole will be 
 clear. There is nothing in Josephus’ description to lead us to suppose he 
 enumerated them from north to south, or vice versa. The two Parbar gates 
 might be anywhere. That leading to the Asmonean palace was certainly the 
 one now known as the Gate of the Chain ; that with the steps was the one 
 which led across the valley to the Stoa Basilica, while there is nothing in 
 his text to indicate the position of the other two. At the same time, it is quite 
 clear that Josephus considered the Antonia as a part of the Temple. Its 
 description as such is included in the 5th chapter of his 5th book, which is 
 exclusively devoted to the Temple, and, throughout, they are spoken of as one 
 and the same place, and included in the same perimeter of 6 stadia. A gate 
 
180 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 of the Antonia may therefore have been described by him a gate of the Temple, 
 they being considered as one and the same place. 
 
 Whether the plan of the Antonia given in woodcut No. 44 is or is not quite 
 correct can only be ascertained when explorations are carried out on the spot 
 with the special intent of investigating its boundaries. Meanwhile, however, it 
 enables us to understand certain operations of the siege, which hitherto have 
 seemed inexplicable. 
 
 When Titus had mastered the first wall — that of Agrippa — and was 
 encamped within its precincts, it became indispensable for him to get possession 
 of the second wall, which formed, as it were, a curtain connecting the north- 
 western bastions of the city and the Antonia. The position and length of this 
 wall, I consider as perfectly ascertained. It extended from the gate of Gennath, 
 which was situated to the eastward of the Hippicus, now known as the Kasr 
 Jalud, past the Damascus Gate, which belonged to it, and thence trended 
 southward, forming what is now the western boundary of the northern part 
 of the Haram area, till it met the Antonia 1 at its north-eastern angle. It 
 was consequently not until he had obtained possession of this second wall that 
 Titus was in a position to attack the northern face of the Antonia. At the 
 same time, it is not quite clear why he did not attack its eastern face. It 
 may have been that there was a ditch there, now filled up, 2 or some obstacle we 
 do not now see ; or it may have been that any operations he undertook against 
 that face would have been exposed to attacks on their flank from the defenders 
 of the north wall of the Temple. Be this as it may, he erected two banks against 
 the northern face of the Antonia, and two against the corresponding face of the 
 Temple. 3 John, however, was able from the inside of the Antonia to 
 undermine the two that had been erected against its northern face, and to burn 
 them, to the great discouragement of the Romans. A second attempt at the same 
 place was, however, successful, 4 and the Romans penetrated into the interior of 
 the Antonia, but were very much disgusted at finding a second wall, which 
 Josephus represents as run up in haste by John and his faction during the 
 siege. This, however, can hardly be quite correct. A besieged garrison may 
 throw up earthworks during an investment, but to build defensive walls of stone 
 is an operation that would be very difficult, to say the least of it ; unless, indeed, 
 some foundation or structure previously existed on the spot, which could be 
 converted into a temporary defence. Feeling this to be the case, I have drawn 
 it running north and south, where I think it extremely probable a terrace wall 
 existed anteriorly ; but if it is thought more probable that it ran east and west 
 
 1 B. J. v. 4, 2. Now that my stupid mistake of 
 
 reading 40 instead of 14, as the number of towers in 
 this wall, is found out, there seems no difficulty whatever 
 
 about it. It must have been as shown in my plan of 
 
 the city, in my Topography of Jerusalem, and in the 
 
 Dictionary of the Bible, with the slightest possible 
 deviation either way. 
 
 2 B. J. v. 4, 2. 
 
 3 B. J. iv. 12, 4. 
 
 4 B. J. vi. 1, 4. 
 
Chap. XI. 
 
 THE TOWER ANTONIA. 
 
 181 
 
 facing the attack, there is nothing now known to contradict such an hypothesis. 
 When this second wall was taken by stratagem in a night attack , 1 it is easy to see 
 how its possession gave the Romans access to the south-eastern tower, which was 
 the keep of the fortress, by which they seem to have entered pell-mell with the 
 Jews, and thus consequently gained access to the Temple, to which all their 
 subsequent operations were confined. The plan also makes it easy to understand 
 how Titus, being in possession of the second wall, was enabled to bring up the 
 supports through the breach which had been made in the northern wall of the 
 Antonia by the mining operations of John, and to follow the retreating Jews 
 into the Temple itself . 2 
 
 It would be easy to extend these descriptions of the siege operations to a 
 much greater length, were this the place for doing so. All, however, that seems 
 to he required here is to explain that the plan of the Antonia now proposed 
 does reconcile the descriptions of Josephus with his narrative of the events of the 
 siege in a most satisfactory manner. There may be other plans or other means 
 by which this may be done, but I am not aware of any one that will stand the 
 test of serious examination . 3 After all, as said before, it is the spade that 
 must decide the question, but, meanwhile, this plan of the Antonia may probably 
 be accepted as meeting all the local and written exigencies of the case, as at 
 present known. 
 
 It is to be hoped, however, that these investigations on the spot will be 
 resumed and carried out on a systematic plan, for, if I am correct in assuming 
 that Wilson’s arch and the underground chambers to the westward of it are 
 
 O 
 
 parts of the substructures of the Antonia, there are few spots in Jerusalem 
 more full of interest to the Christian topographer. No one, I believe, doubts 
 that the Antonia was the Prastorium of the Romans and the residence of Pontius 
 Pilate ; and it consequently was within its precincts that some of the most 
 pathetic and important concluding scenes of the Passion took place, and if the 
 localities can be recognised, this will add much to the clearness of the narrative. 
 It may be difficult to accomplish this, as the place has been so frequently rebuilt 
 and repaired that it may not be easy to recognise its ancient arrangements. The 
 locality, however, is not now sacred ; so no difficulty would be experienced on 
 that account ; and if I am not mistaken, it is to us one of the most interesting 
 of all the sacred localities to be found within the walls of Jerusalem. 
 
 1 B. J. vi. 1, 7. 
 
 2 B. J. vi. 1, 7. 
 
 3 Mr. Lewin’s (Sketch of Jerusalem, pp. 198 et seqq.) 
 is the most careful and judicious analysis I am ac- 
 
 quainted with, but his detaching the Antonia wholly 
 from the Temple, and placing an interval of 250 feet 
 between them, seems to me quite fatal to his hypothesis 
 and all the reasoning based upon it. 
 
182 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE TEMPLE AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 
 
 Although it is literally true that not one stone of all the great and glorious 
 buildings described in the preceding pages now remains standing upon another 
 above ground, yet it was long before the prophecy was fulfilled so fully as it now 
 is. Indeed, down to the time when the Saracens, by building the mosque El 
 Aksa in a.d. 688, successfully accomplished what Julian failed in attempting, the 
 ruins of the Temple seem to have been so extensive as to be easily recognisable, 
 and no one seems to have had any doubt or hesitation regarding them. It would, 
 indeed, have been strange had it been otherwise. The buildings of the Temple 
 were of the most massive description, far more so than most of the peristylar 
 temples of the Romans ; and had Jerusalem not continued to be an inhabited city, 
 and a religious capital from the days of Hadrian downwards, there is no practical 
 reason why the ruins of the Temple should not now be as distinct as those of the 
 temples of Baalbec or Gerash, and of many other cities of Palestine. When 
 once the Temple was burnt and desecrated, and the Jews banished from Jerusalem, 
 there was no special reason why the Romans should have taken any great pains 
 to clear away the ruins ; nor did they undertake any such buildings in Jerusalem 
 as might require them to have recourse to them as a convenient quarry for their 
 constructions. Till Hadrian’s time at least, the city seems to have been left 
 absolutely desolate, and though a Roman garrison was left there, it w r as mainly 
 for the purpose of keeping it so, by preventing the Jews from returning to their 
 ancient abodes. Hadrian seems to have erected the place into a Roman colony, 
 with the name of iElia Capitolina, but chiefly to keep the Jews in check, and, 
 if we may trust the Bordeaux Pilgrim, erected a statue of himself on the site of 
 the Temple, apparently to symbolise the supremacy of the Roman secular power 
 over that of the Jewish theocracy. 
 
 Had the Christians been then in power, the case might have been different. 
 Owing to the solemn malediction pronounced against the Temple by Christ, 1 they 
 always looked on it as accursed, and not only never built anything within its 
 precincts, but might have done a good deal to hasten the fulfilment of a prophecy 
 which they were impatient to see accomplished. St. Chrysostom, about the year 
 400 a.d., exclaims, “ There shall not remain one stone upon another. How then 
 
 1 Matthew xxiv. 2 ; Mark xiii. 2 ; Luke xix. 44. 
 
Chap. XII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 
 
 183 
 
 did it remain ? one may say. But what is this ? For neither has the prediction 
 fallen to the ground. For he said these things, either indicating its entire 
 desolation or at that spot where he was.” And he adds, “ There are parts of it 
 destroyed unto the foundations,” thus clearly indicating that there were other 
 parts which at his day were still standing and easily recognisable . 1 A little 
 earlier, Cyril speculates on the time “ when the prophecy shall be fulfilled, either 
 through decay of time, or a demolition for the use of new buildings, or as 
 ensuing from other causes .” 2 But besides these rhetorical flourishes, we have 
 the distinct and prosaic description of things as they were in the time of Con- 
 stantine, when the Bordeaux Pilgrim visited Jerusalem. Everything he says 
 about the Temple not only indicates that the ruins were perfectly distinct 
 in his day, but his account of them is such that we are able to recognise 
 without difficulty all the features he describes ; and as his is the only account 
 we have, written between the time of Titus and that of Constantine, it is 
 of more than usual interest . 3 
 
 There can be very little doubt that the tower he first mentions is that which 
 still exists at the south-east angle of the Haram area, and as it was not then, in 
 all probability, buried with rubbish nearly to the extent it now is, it might very 
 well, as the highest building then existing in Jerusalem, be taken for the pinnacle 
 of the Temple mentioned in the Temptation scene. The tradition that Solomon’s 
 palace was there is both curious and instructive. Some vestiges of it must have 
 remained, or it w T ould hardly have been recognised, as history is so singularly 
 silent regarding it, after its destruction at the Captivity. 
 
 The two statues of Hadrian must apparently be two statues by Hadrian, 
 inasmuch as at a subsequent period St. Jerome distinctly states — and no one 
 knew better than he did — that, where the Temple was, a statue of Hadrian and an 
 image of Jupiter were standing in his day . 4 As it is scarcely probable that a 
 statue of Jupiter would be left in the open air, exposed to all the inclemency of 
 the weather, the presumption is that Hadrian so far restored the Temple as to 
 render it suitable for the reception of this image and appropriate to the worship 
 of the principal deity of his Pantheon. 
 
 The most interesting particular, however, mentioned by the Pilgrim is the 
 “ Lapis Pertusus,” which was then the Wailing Place of the Jews, and afterwards 
 
 1 Horn, in Matt. iii. p. 994 ; Migne, vol. lviii. 685, 
 686 . 
 
 2 Cat. Lect. xv. 15, 890. 
 
 3 “ Ibi est angulus turris excelsissimas, ubi Dominus 
 ascendit et dixit ei qui tentabat eum : Si filius Dei es, 
 mitte te deorsum. Ibi est lapis angularis magnus de 
 quo dictum est, Lapidem quem reprobaverunt sedificantes 
 ille factus est ad caput anguli. Et sub pinna turris 
 ipsius sunt cubicula plurima, ubi Salomon palatium 
 habebat. . . . Et in aede ipsa, ubi Templum fuit, quod 
 
 Salomon aedificavit, in marmore, ante aram, sanguinem 
 
 Zacbariae dicunt bodie fusum ; etiam parent vestigia 
 clavorum militum qui eum occiderunt, per totam aream 
 ut putes in cera esse fixam. Sunt ibi et status; duae 
 Hadriani et non longe de statuis, lapis pertusus, ad 
 quem veniunt Judab singulis annis et unguunt eum, 
 et lamentant se cum gemitu, et vestimenta sua scindunt, 
 et sic recedunt.” Tobler, Palsestinte Descriptiones, 
 pp. 3, 4. 
 
 4 “Ubi quondam erat Templum et religio Dei, ibi 
 Hadriani statua et Jovis idolum collocatum est.” 
 Hieron. Com. in Isaiam ; Valesius, vol. iv. p. 37. 
 
184 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 became the Sakhra of the Saracens, and the memory of which still plays so 
 important a part in the history of the Haram area. 
 
 At the time of Constantine the persecution of the Jews seems to have died 
 out, and they were apparently allowed free access to Jerusalem and the Temple 
 area ; and as it appears that the buildings were still sufficiently entire for every 
 part to be recognisable, it is evident there would be only two stones in the area 
 for which the Jews could feel any particular reverence : one, the stone of 
 foundation, on which the Ark is said to have stood in the Holy of Holies ; the 
 other some stone or stones representing the Altar. It could hardly have been 
 the former, which is not mentioned in the Bible, while so little importance is 
 attached to it, either in the Talmud or elsewhere, that even its existence is 
 doubtful ; 1 and still more so because there is no reason why it should be per- 
 tusus, and no tradition that it ever was so. On the other hand, there certainly 
 was at the principal angle of the Altar— -the south-western — a stone bored 
 with two holes as two thin nostrils, 2 and which played a most important part in 
 the service of the Altar. Whatever may have been the case with the upper part 
 of the Altar, here certainly was a stone which had not escaped “ the curse of 
 iron,” and was not only hewn but pierced, and, from its position as at that angle 
 of the Altar nearest the Temple which could be seen from the Court of Israel, 
 must always have been both conspicuous and important. It was, consequently, 
 of all the stones of the Temple, the one most likely for the Jews to fix upon 
 as the representative of the Altar of their God ; and, as we shall presently see, 
 there seems little doubt that this corner-stone of the Altar was the Sakhra not 
 only of the Jews, but at one time of the Saracens also. 
 
 We have no means of knowing to what extent Constantine may have 
 utilised the materials of the Temple for his buildings in the Haram area. It is 
 hardly probable that he would employ the stones of the Temple itself for his 
 churches, but there seems no reason why the pillars of the outer porticos or 
 external walls of the courts might not be so employed. If we had any remains 
 of his Basilica, we might probably answer these questions without difficulty. 
 The internal decorations, however, of the Anastasis were on too small a scale to 
 enable its builders to utilise any parts of the porticos that are described by 
 Josephus ; and from the various remodellings that have since taken place, it 
 is, and always must be, extremely difficult to follow any particular feature 
 to its final resting-place. 
 
 The attempt of Julian the Apostate to rebuild the Temple in the year 363, 
 and the miraculous manner in which this design is said to have been defeated, is 
 one of the most curious episodes in the whole history of the building. Had 
 
 1 On this subject, see a paper in the Quarterly 
 
 Reports, P. E. F. 1876, p. 23, by Dr. Chaplin, and 
 another in the same, on p. 62, by Captain Warren. 
 
 The reasoning in these papers appears to me so singu- 
 larly vague and inconclusive as hardly to affect the 
 question. 2 Middoth iii. 2. 
 
Chap. XII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 
 
 185 
 
 Julian lived six months or a year longer, it would no doubt have altered con- 
 siderably the whole conditions of the problem. The subject was taken up by him 
 with enthusiasm, and, as Gibbon says, “ In this propitious moment men forgot 
 their avarice, and women their delicacy. Every purse was opened, and every 
 hand claimed a share in the pious labour; ” 1 and had this continued any time, all 
 trace of the old Temple would have disappeared, and a new one been erected in 
 its stead, which might have been more perplexing to future enquirers than the 
 desolation that now reigns on the site. As it is, the only trace of Julian’s 
 handiwork we now find on the spot is a fragment of a frontispiece attached 
 to the Herodian work of the Huldah Gateway externally. To judge from its 
 style, we may feel confident that it is nearly of the same age as the archi- 
 tecture of the Golden Gateway, but slightly 
 more modern ; while the imperfect mode 
 in which it is attached, so that daylight 
 can be seen between it and the wall, shows 
 that it is part of some restoration at- 
 tempted about his time. It is probably, 
 also, to the same attempt that we owe the 
 four pillars now standing in the gate- 
 way below, and some of the alterations 
 in the domed hall beneath ; but there is 
 nothing above-ground ascribable to Julian’s 
 age. Indeed, it is probable, from the short 
 time the work was in hand, that more 
 was done in clearing away the ruins and 
 in collecting materials than in any rebuild- 
 ing. At all events, it is quite evident that 
 there was no doubt in the minds of those 
 who undertook it, either as to the site or 
 the form of the building the restoration of 
 which they had undertaken. At least, not 
 one hint of any such hesitation is to be 
 found in any writer of that ag:e. 
 
 It is not necessary here to attempt to investigate the true nature of the 
 frightful globes of fire and other supernatural phenomena which interrupted the 
 operations and drove the labourers in terror from the works . 2 For our present 
 purpose it is enough to observe that the exultation with which the news was 
 received by the whole Christian world, and the implicit belief in a Divine 
 interposition, are sufficient to prove how utterly accursed the Temple of the 
 Jews was held to have been, and how great a blow to Christianity its 
 
 47. — Julian’s Affix to the Huldah Gateavay. 
 (From a photograph.) 
 
 1 History of Decline and Fall, vol. iii. p. 166. 
 
 2 Ammianus Marcell, xxiii. 1. 
 
 2 
 
 E 
 
18G 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 rebuilding would have been considered. By Divine interference this impious 
 attempt was defeated, and all the Christian world rejoiced at its victory. 
 
 Shortly after this, in the beginning of the fifth century, a Christian 
 Roman poet sings : — 
 
 “ Porta manet Templi speciosam qnam vocitarunt, 
 
 Egregium Salomonis opus, seel ms jus in ilia 
 Christi opus emicuit ; nam claudus surgere jussus 
 Ore Petri stupuit damnatos currere gressus.” 1 
 
 That this refers to the gate Nicanor of the Talmud, the Beautiful Gate of the 
 Bible, does not seem to admit of any doubt ; and if it was standing at that time, 
 and the statue of Jupiter was still erect in his day, as St. Jerome would lead 
 us to believe, in the Temple, or at least on its site, there could in the fifth 
 century be no doubt as to site or limits of the Jewish Temple. 
 
 One other author before the time of the Moslem invasion mentions the 
 Temple in a manner that would lead us to suppose that its parts were all well 
 known at the time he wrote. Antoninus Martyrus visited Jerusalem shortly after 
 the buildings undertaken by Justinian in the Haram area had been completed, in 
 or about the year 570, 2 “We prayed,” he says, “in the PrEetorium where our 
 Lord was heard, which now is the Basilica of Santa Sophia. Before the ruins of 
 the Temple of Solomon water runs down below the platform to the fountain of 
 Siloam (by the Water Gate). Alongside of the portico of Solomon in the Basilica 
 is the seat on which Pilate sat when he heard our Lord,” 3 which he describes as 
 still exhibiting the impression of his feet, and other particulars that do not 
 interest us here. Except that he appears mistaken in the historical fact that the 
 Prsetorium was the Antonia, and not the Palace of Solomon, all this seems distinct 
 and clear, and perfectly in accord with what we know of the localities. It is 
 satisfactory to find that the old judgment-seat of Solomon “ alongside of his portico ” 
 was still known and correctly described in the sixth century ; and the water 
 running down from the Water Gate is also exactly what we would expect, and 
 what, curiously enough, we find mentioned even in the Talmud, where it is said 
 the Water Gate was so called because “through it the water returned out, and in 
 future it will issue from under the threshold of the house.” 4 The importance of 
 all this, however, will be more apparent presently, when we come to speak of the 
 acts and words of the Saracens, who, not long after Justinian’s time, appeared 
 on the scene, and successfully accomplished what Julian had attempted in vain. 
 
 1 Aurelius Prudentius, Diptychon, xlvi. The poet was 
 born in Spain a.d. 348, and came to Rome a.d. 407. It 
 was apparently after that date that the poem was'written. 
 
 2 I follow the edition of this author published by 
 Dr. T. Tobler, St. Gallen, 1863. 
 
 3 “ Oravimus in Prastorio ubi auditus est Dominus, et 
 
 rnodo est Basilica sanct® Sophi®, ante ruinas templi 
 
 Salomonis, sub platea aqua decurrit ad fontem Siloam. 
 Secus porticum Salomonis in ipsa basilica est sedes, in 
 qua sedit Pilatus quando Dominum audivit. Petra 
 autem ibi est quadrangula, qu® stabat in medio pr®- 
 torio, ad quam reus levabatur qui audiebatur,” &c. 
 Tobler, De locis sanctis St. Gallen, 1863, p. 25. 
 
 4 Middoth ii. 6. 
 
Chap. XII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 
 
 i 87 
 
 Saracenic Conquest. 
 
 The last scene of all that “ ends this strange eventful history ” is the rebuilding 
 of the Temple by Abd-el-Malek, between the years 66 and 73 of the Hegira 
 (a.d. 685-692) ; but before coming to this, it may be necessary to say a few 
 words regarding some of the events that occurred at the conquest of Jerusalem 
 by Omar, in the year 15 of the Hegira (a.d. 636), in order to explain what was 
 then known of the Temple and its site. Unfortunately, the works in which these 
 events are recorded do not come within the range of the ordinary reading of 
 even learned Englishmen, and it is consequently easy for those who either form 
 theories of the Temple at the shortest possible notice or refute those of others 
 without notice at all, either to ignore them altogether or to make the most daring 
 assertions regarding them. 1 It seems to me, however, impossible that any one 
 can read the account of these events ‘as narrated by the Patriarch Eutychius, 2 
 and afterwards by Jelal-ed-Din 3 and Mejr-ed-Din, without perceiving that the 
 church in which the Patriarch Sophronius received Omar, when entering the city 
 from the Mount of Olives, was the present Dome of the Rock, and that the church 
 on the steps of which, facing the east, Omar did pray was the Basilica of 
 Constantine, and that the exact spot was just inside the Golden Gateway. Had 
 he received him in the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre — which is the only 
 alternative — it seems impossible that any uncertainty could have existed as to 
 whether that was the Temple of David or not ; but the Patriarch may very well 
 have dreaded the idea of a Mahomedan mosque being erected on the Temple site 
 in such immediate proximity to the sacred places of the Christians, and have tried 
 to explain to the Khalif that the whole area was already occupied by the Christians. 
 When, however, he was defeated in this attempt by the local knowledge of Omar, 
 who still claimed a place on which to build his mosque, the Patriarch replied, 
 “I give to the Commander of the Faithful a place where he may build a Temple, 
 which the Grecian emperors were unable to build” (alluding, apparently, to 
 Julian’s unsuccessful attempt). “The rock on which God spoke to Jacob, which 
 Jacob called the Gate of Heaven, the Israelites the Holy of Holies. But, on one 
 condition, that you will give me a rescript that you will build no other place 
 of prayer within Jerusalem except that one,” which Omar having written 
 delivered it to the Patriarch. As there is no complaint of this treaty ever 
 
 1 As I have already quoted these authorities in my 
 
 Topography of Jerusalem, pp. 130 et seqq., to a sufficient 
 extent to enable any one to understand their bearing, 1 
 
 may he excused going over the subject again. Since I 
 wrote in 1848 nothing new has been published on this 
 special subject, so far as I am aware, except a translation 
 of the work of Mejr-ed-Din, by Sauvaire, Paris, 1876. 
 It is satisfactory, but adds very little to our previous 
 knowledge. 
 
 2 Annales. Interprete Ed. Pococltio. 2 vols. Oxon, 
 1658. He wrote, apparently, about a.d. 870. 
 
 3 Fundgruhen des Orients, vol. ii. pp. 83 et seqq. 
 and vol. iv. pp. 158 et seqq. He wrote about 900 of the 
 Hegira, say a.d. 1525. See also translation by Sauvaire, 
 Paris, 1876. 
 
 4 History of the Temple at Jerusalem, translated by 
 James Reynolds for the Oriental Translation Fund, 
 1826. 
 
188 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 having been violated, it is one proof at least that both the Aksa and the Dome of 
 the Rock were not built by the Moslems. Eutychius, writing about a hundred 
 years after these events, then goes on to say, “For when the Romans embraced 
 Christianity, and Helena, the mother of Constantine, built churches in Jerusalem 
 the place of the rock (Sakhra) and those adjacent to it were laid waste and so 
 left ; and they threw dust on the rock, so that a large dunghill was heaped upon 
 it, and the Romans did not reverence it as the Jews had done, nor did they erect 
 any church upon it, because the Lord had said, 4 Behold, your house shall be left 
 unto you desolate,’ and again, ‘ There shall not be left one stone upon another 
 that shall not be cast down and laid waste.’ ” 1 
 
 Apparently there was not at that time any means of access to the Temple 
 area from the north. The old wall of the Temple, or one in its place, seems to 
 have been kept up as a barrier to divide the holy places of the Christians 
 from the accursed locality of the Jews. On the east, access — if any — could only 
 have been through the buildings of Justinian, and this may not have been 
 convenient. The Patriarch, consequently, led Omar round to the gate Huldah, 
 and though it was blocked up with rubbish, they penetrated through it, creeping 
 on their hands and knees till they came to a plain place, “ when Omar, looking 
 to the right and left, exclaimed, ‘ God is great : by him who holds my soul in 
 his hands, this is the Temple of David, from which the Prophet told me he 
 had made the night journey .’ 2 There they found the Sakhra they were looking 
 for, covered with dung, which the Greeks had thrown there in contempt of the 
 Jews.” This Omar and his companions proceeded at once to remove with 
 their hands, and in their cloaks, and having thrown it into the valley of 
 Hinnorn, cleared the place of defilement. They then proceeded to discuss how 
 it should be utilised, when Kaab suggested that the mosque should be turned 
 towards the Sakhra, but Omar replied, “ That is the direction of the Jews ; it 
 would be better to build it before the Rock (Sakhra) that those who pray 
 there may have before them the Kiblah of Mecca, and not that of Jerusalem,” 
 and, in effect, Omar did build the small mosque that still bears his name, 
 exactly in the situation indicated, overhanging the southern wall at the south- 
 east angle of the Mosque El Aksa. 
 
 So long as it was an open question whether the Sakhra was “the Stone 
 of Foundation” in the Holy of Holies or the corner-stone of the Altar, it was 
 also doubtful whether it was by the Prophet’s Gate, or the gate Huldah 
 that Omar penetrated to the Temple area. With the almost absolute certainty 
 that we now have, that it was the latter, we arrive at a similar conviction that 
 it was by the Water Gate that they crept in. Indeed, what Mejr-ed-Din says 
 about “ water running down the steps ,” 3 coupled with the assertion of 
 
 1 Eutychii Annales, Arab, et Lat. Oxon, 1658, vol. ii. p. 284. 
 
 2 Mejr-ed-Din, Paris, 1876, p. 42. 3 Fundgruben des Orients, vol. iv. p. 160. 
 
Chap. XII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 
 
 ] 89 
 
 Antoninus Martyrus and the passage from the Middoth just quoted, renders 
 this nearly certain. The truth of the matter is, Omar and all those about him 
 knew exactly what they wanted, and where to look for it; and they went to 
 their object direct and without hesitation, and with the knowledge we now have 
 of the localities, we can follow them step by step without fail. If, on the 
 contrary, we try to apply the narratives of the Mahomedan historians to the 
 Sakhra, which now is under the Dome of the Rock, there is hardly a word 
 in their descriptions which is intelligible. There are no underground passages 
 by which Omar and his companions could creep up on hands and knees to find 
 a great rock standing out “ erect and alone,” the highest part of a hill. Besides 
 this, to hide with a dung-heap a rock 60 feet square, and from 10 to 20 feet in 
 height, is more than the Christians are likely to have undertaken, whatever 
 their contempt for the Jews may have been ; and if it had been done, it would 
 have required carts and horses for weeks to remove it, not the labour of a 
 few men for a few hours with their hands and cloaks. If the Sakhra was a 
 stone 4 or 5 feet square, and 18 inches high, all that we are told of it in these 
 narratives is clear and intelligible. If it was the hill-top under the Dome of the 
 Rock, not one word seems applicable. So Omar thought, when Sophronius tried 
 to persuade him that the present Sakhra was identical with the old one ; and 
 though it would not now be considered polite to express oneself so strongly as 
 he did on the subject, it now seems certain that any one who, after reading all 
 the evidence, would still assert their identity would have no right to complain 
 of almost any epithet that could be applied to him. 
 
 The first century of the Hegira is not one in which the Moslems indulged in 
 any architectural magnificence in any part of the world, and Omar’s little 
 mosque, which he built behind the Sakhra, was probably more than sufficient 
 for the religious requirements of the city of Jerusalem, which was then more 
 essentially Christian than the town of Bethlehem now is. It may also have 
 been that the Moslems felt themselves hampered by that clause in the capitula- 
 tion which restricted them to one place of worship. They may, too, have felt 
 unwilling to spend much money on a spot overlooked — on two sides at least — by 
 Christian buildings of a magnificence they could not hope to rival, but the 
 presence of which in that locality must have been gall and wormwood to the 
 followers of the Prophet. Had the Jews adopted the new religion, as it was 
 at one time hoped, during the life of Mahomet, they might have been induced 
 to do, the case would have been widely different. Had they done so, there 
 seems little doubt that the Lapis Pertusus of their Altar would have taken the 
 place now occupied by the Black Stone of the Kaaba, and Jerusalem would 
 have supplanted Mecca as the sacred city of the new faith. To accomplish 
 this, however, it would have been necessary to obtain possession of the city 
 and expel its Christian inhabitants. That the Arabs, without at least the aid 
 
190 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part. II. 
 
 of the Jews, were not able to accomplish during the life of the Prophet, 
 and by the time of Omar it was too late ; Mecca was then the acknow- 
 ledged Kiblah, and this could not be changed. The possession of the site 
 of Solomon’s Temple was, notwithstanding, still an object of ambition, not 
 only because it was the spot from which Mahomet started on his famous night 
 journey to Paradise, but also because its possession, with that of Hebron, served 
 to connect the new religion with the traditions of the old one from Abraham 
 and David downwards, and give it at once that antiquity so essential to stability 
 in matters of faith. 
 
 Be this as it may, it is certain that the buildings in the Temple area 
 remained pretty much in the state in which Omar had left them, till Abdulla- 
 ibn-Zobeir seized on Mecca, and either interrupted the pilgrimages or levied 
 taxes on them for his own benefit. In consequence of this, Abd-el-Malek 
 ibn-Merwan, a Khalif of the house of Ommiah, reigning at Damascus, revived 
 the idea of making Jerusalem a place of pilgrimage — whether the only one 
 or not, is not quite clear — and, in order to do this, determined on rebuilding 
 the Temple of Solomon on its original site. This time, however, it was not 
 to conciliate the Jews, and consequently, though he centred his mosque on the 
 Altar of David, and placed it at about the same distance from it, he did not 
 attempt to restore the original Temple. On the contrary, he placed his 
 mosque to the southward of the Altar instead of the west, and turned its 
 Kiblah towards the sacred cities of the Prophet, thus combining the two 
 Kiblahs into one, as Kaab had recommended Omar to do, half a century 
 before that time. 
 
 Though obviously centred on the altar of the Jewish Temple, there is a 
 peculiarity in the position of the mosque which for a long time seemed to me 
 inexplicable. If we assume that the position of the Altar was known, nothing 
 would have been so easy or so obvious for Abd-el-Malek as to have constructed 
 the central nave of his mosque over the centre of the passage leading from the 
 Huldah Gateway, and so, practically, to have incorporated that part of the old 
 Temple symmetrically with his. This, however, was not done but at the 
 expense of considerable constructive difficulty, the whole was pushed some 
 twenty feet or more westward, evidently, as it now appears, to centre his 
 nave, not on the centre of the Altar, but on the Lapis Pertusus or Sakhra 
 at its south-western angle, which then represented the Altar of the Jews. It 
 seems at least difficult to suggest any other motive for this curious change in 
 the centre-line of the mosque, which could hardly have been accidental . 1 
 
 In describing the addition Abd-el-Malek made to the modest building 
 erected by Omar, two at least of the historians make use of an expression which, 
 if applied to the present Sakhra, seems simple nonsense. It is said he so increased 
 
 1 See plan of Aksa, Plate I. 
 
Chap. XII. 
 
 THE TEMPLE AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM. 
 
 191 
 
 the Temple (mosque) as to include the Sakhra within the sanctuary. 1 The present 
 Sakhra is, and always was, in the centre of the building that contains it, and no 
 possible augmentation could alter that fact. But if Abd-el-Malek is understood 
 to have appropriated or enclosed the whole, or the greater part, of the Jewish 
 Temple in his mosque, it may fairly be said that he brought the Jewish Altar 
 within its limits. This might not be exactly true of a church or a temple as we 
 usually understand the term, but a mosque is by no means necessarily a covered 
 space, and, as at Mecca, the most holy objects and places are in the centre of an 
 open court, and so it certainly seems to have been with the Sakhra here. 
 
 This, we learn with certainty, was the case at Jerusalem, from the historians 
 of the Crusades. John of Wurzburg, for instance, writing about the year 1170, 
 states that, “ at the Altar in the Temple, which is outside under the terrace, at a 
 distance of more than 100 feet” (from the Templum Domini, or Dome of the 
 Rock), “ Zacharias was slain.” “ On the Altar,” he adds, “ in the time of the Old 
 Testament, the Jews were accustomed to offer turtle-doves and pigeons, but 
 afterwards the Saracens converted the Altar into a dial, which now exists 
 there, towards the south, where many Saracens, even at this day, turn to 
 prayer as is their habit to do, facing southwards.” 2 There is in this no 
 mention, it is true, of its being pertusus , though it would be difficult to 
 describe more accurately its position, or the veneration in which it had always 
 been held by the Moslems. Fortunately, the omitted reference to its being 
 pierced is supplied by his companion Theodoricus. He describes it as situated 
 between the eastern and southern boundaries of the external court, and 
 mentions two theories regarding it ; first, that it was the opening into the 
 cisterns existing there, or that it was the place where Zacharias was slain. 3 
 
 From all this it seems perfectly certain that the Lapis Pertusus of the 
 Bordeaux Pilgrim, the Sakhra of Omar, and the Altar-stone of the Crusaders are 
 one and the same thing, and nearly as certain that it was the corner-stone of the 
 Altar of the Jews which was “pierced with two holes like nostrils.” 4 The 
 Saracens at least — if we may trust John of Wurzburg — knew this jierfectly, down 
 to the end of the twelfth century. 5 So it could only have been after the 
 
 1 “ Auxit ita Templum ut petram inferret in Templi 
 adytum.” Eutychii Annales, ii. p. 364. El Macinus, 
 Opera, studio Espenii, Lugd. 1G25, p. 69. 
 
 2 “In templo ad altare quod extra erat, sub clivo 
 
 remotum a templo plus quam xx passus, Zacharias 
 
 filius Bara chi a: Martyr occubuit. Supra quod in veteri 
 testamento Judaei turtures et columbas sacrifacere 
 
 consueverant. Sed postea a Saracenis mutatum est 
 altare illud in horologium, quod adhuc videri et notari 
 potest, cum plures Saraceni etiam hodie, orandi causa, 
 ad ipsum versus meridiem depositum, ad quern meridiem 
 ipsi orare solent, veniunt.” Pezii Thesaurus Anec- 
 dotorum novissimus, vol. i. pars iii. p. 495. 
 
 3 “ Inter Templum quoque et duo latera atrii exte- 
 rioris, orientale scilicet et meridianum, lapis magnus 
 situs est in modum altaris, qui secuudum quorundam 
 traditiones os est piscinarum ibidem consistentium, 
 secundum aliorum vero opinionem Zachariam Baruchise 
 filium ibidem peremtum fuisse designat.” Theodoricus, 
 Libellus de Locis sanctis. Tobler, p. 37. 
 
 4 Middoth iii. 2. 
 
 6 It is curious that all the authors, from the Bordeaux 
 Pilgrim down at least to John of Wurzburg, who 
 mention the Altar of the Jews also notice the slaughter 
 of Zacharias, and seem at least to point to the traces of 
 that event as still visible on the spot. 
 
192 
 
 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. 
 
 Part II. 
 
 Crusades, in the time probably of Saladin, that they adopted from the Christians 
 the theory that the great Sakhra was the site of the Jewish Altar, and intro- 
 duced all that mass of fables and incongruities that have since so perplexed all 
 who have attempted to investigate the question. 
 
 From the time of the Crusades, the true Sakhra disappears from history, and 
 the Jews have been forced to seek a wailing-place outside the Temple walls. 
 They have, however, naturally selected that spot where they could approach 
 most nearly to the Holy of Holies of their once loved Temple, and to the stone 
 of that Altar which had been an object of their adoration since the days of 
 Solomon. 
 
 To most of these points we shall have occasion to revert again when 
 speaking of the buildings which Constantine and Justinian erected in the Haram 
 area, but must conclude this branch of the subject by quoting the words of the 
 last Christian author who, so far as I know, speaks of any other ruins of 
 Solomon’s Temple, except this one altar-stone, as existing in his day. The 
 French bishop Arculfus was at Jerusalem in or before the year 795, when 
 Abd-el-Malek was busy erecting the Aksa. “ In that famous place,” he says, 
 “ where once the glorious Temple stood, near the eastern wall, the Saracens are 
 now erecting upon some ruins a square house of prayer, which would contain 
 about three thousand persons.” 1 The ruins here alluded to could only be those 
 of the Temple itself, and with the attendant circumstances describe with absolute 
 accuracy the position of things as we know from other authorities they existed 
 in his day. 
 
 Although the Saracens respected the locality, it is hardly probable that they 
 would have much or any respect for the buildings of the Jews, or the materials 
 out of which they were constructed. It, consequently, probably was with the 
 building of the Aksa that the great clearance of the Temple ruins was com- 
 menced. Constantine and Justinian may have taken materials from the same 
 quarry, but it probably was in the eighth and subsequent centuries that the 
 clearance of the Temple area was really effected : thus the prophecy, that not 
 one stone should be left on another, was literally fulfilled, and our description of 
 the Temple, and its history, consequently brought to its natural termination. 
 
 1 “ Ceterum in illo famoso loco ubi quondam Templum 
 magnifice constructum fuerat, invicinia muri ab oriente 
 locatum, nunc Saraceni quadrangularem orationis do- 
 mum, quam subrectis tabulis et magnis trabibus super 
 
 quasdam ruinarum reliquias vili fabricati sunt opere, 
 ipsi frequentant, quas utique domus tria hominum 
 millia ut fertur capere potest.” Acta Sanct. ssec. iii. 
 pars 2, p. 524. 
 
Part III. 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTKODUCTOEY. 
 
 As the evidence now stands, or as it stood thirty years ago, there is no pro- 
 position connected with the topography of Jerusalem that, to my mind, is so 
 clear and indisputable as that the buildings, popularly known as the Mosque of 
 Omar — more correctly as the Dome of the Rock — and the Golden Gateway, are 
 two of those described by Eusebius 1 as being erected by Constantine in honour of 
 the death and resurrection of the Founder of the Christian religion. 
 
 I have no intention of again going over, for a third or fourth time, the 
 evidence on which this conclusion is based. It has been already stated in detail 
 in my ‘Topography of Jerusalem,’ in 1847, and a second time in a little work 
 entitled ‘ Notes on Site of the Holy Sepulchre and the Temple at Jerusalem,’ in 
 1861, and a third time in another work on ‘ The Holy Sepulchre and the Temple 
 at Jerusalem,’ in 1865, besides letters innumerable in the ‘ Athengeum ’ and other 
 publications. I have nothing, on that point, to unsay of what I then advanced, 
 and the argument was then, to my mind, so complete and irrefragable that those 
 who were not convinced by it then will hardly be moved from their unbelief by 
 hearing it repeated over again once more. Either it is, that they are too ignorant 
 of the value of the architectural evidence, from which these conclusions were prin- 
 cipally drawn, to appreciate its importance, or they have motives — some will, no 
 doubt, think, highly respectable — for resisting what may be the truth, fearing 
 that it would unsettle the faith of the multitude in certain traditions, to which 
 they cling with a tenacity worthy of a better cause. It is not, therefore, intended 
 on the present occasion to repeat what has already been said in sufficient detail, 
 but only to add such new pieces of evidence as have been brought to light 
 by recent researches or explorations on the spot. They are not, perhaps, in 
 themselves, sufficiently distinct to convert those who were not convinced before ; 
 
 2 c 
 
 Vita Constantini, iii. 26 et seqq. 
 
194 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 but, as they all tend in the same direction, they may serve to confirm the faith of 
 those who had sufficient knowledge to understand the meaning of the arguments 
 as first stated. Before doing this, however, it may make what follows clearer 
 if I state, in as few words as possible, what were the principal grounds on which 
 the original conclusions were based. 
 
 In the first place, the so-called Mosque of Omar is not a mosque at all. 
 Everyone who has lived in Mahomedan countries knows, that practically, a 
 mosque is a wall built at right angles to the direction of Mecca ; its object 
 being to enable the faithful to obey the precept of the Koran, which enjoins 
 them to turn to the Kaaba at Mecca when they pray. No provision of this sort 
 exists in the Dome of the Rock. On the contrary, the principal entrance is on 
 the south ; and the worshipper, consequently, on entering turns his back on 
 Mecca, a piece of irreverence which does not occur, so far as I know, in any 
 place of prayer, of the Moslems, in any part of the world. 
 
 Secondly. Whether built by Moslem or Christian, the Dome of the Rock is 
 essentially a tomb-house. Between Rome and Delhi, there are some thousands 
 of similar buildings ; some square, others octagonal, sometimes, but rarely, 
 circular, nearly all surmounted by domes, and having entrances generally on 
 four sides. In Christian countries they are sometimes called baptisteries, because 
 they originally were used for both purposes ; and in the early ages of Christianity 
 they were used also as churches, before they were superseded by the final adoption 
 of the basilican forms. In the East, though with exceptions in the early ages of 
 the Church, they are tombs. 
 
 Thirdly. The architecture of the Dome of the Rock belongs, undoubtedly, 
 to an age anterior to the Hegira (a.d. 622). Without going beyond the limits 
 of the Haram area, we have there another building called the Aksa, built by 
 Abcl-el-Malek, 66 to 73 h. (a.d. 685-692) ; and I feel confident that no competent 
 person can compare the two without arriving at the conclusion that two or 
 three centuries at least must have elapsed between their erection. The one 
 retains a great deal of the elegance of classical art ; the other is “ vili fabricata 
 opere,” as Arculfus tells us, with pointed arches, and altogether in a far more 
 modern style. Their relative position in the history of art is certain, and it 
 is impossible they should have been built by the same person or in the same 
 age. 
 
 Fourthly. If the Saracens built the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem, they 
 might be expected to have built some other building in the same style in some 
 other place. None such, however, is known ; and no one has yet pointed out 
 any, or ventured to assert that any such existed. 
 
 Lastly, turning to the building itself. No one who knows anything of 
 the architecture of that age will hesitate to admit that the Dome of the Rock 
 was erected subsequently to the octagonal building, now known as the Temple 
 of Jupiter, which Diocletian erected in his palace of Spalatro as a tomb-house for 
 
Chap. I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 195 
 
 himself in or about the year 300 a.d. On the other hand, a man must be 
 curiously ignorant of the history of the style who does not perceive that it is 
 anterior — long anterior indeed — to the building of San Vitale at Ravenna, which 
 was completed in a.d. 547, and which, though smaller, is more like it in plan 
 and arrangement than any other building of the class. Architecturally, in fact, 
 it belongs to the age of Constantine ; and the question then arises, What church 
 did Constantine or any one of about his age erect in Jerusalem, over a great 
 rock, occupjdng, practically, the whole of its central space, rising 8 or 10 feet 
 above its floor, and having a great cavern in its centre, but the Church of the 
 Holy Sepulchre ? 
 
 No answer has yet been vouchsafed to this or, indeed, to any of these 
 questions. The late Mr. Lewin, indeed, after stoutly maintaining that it was 
 absolutely impossible that the Home of the Rock could have been built by 
 Constantine, admits that “the Mosque,” as he calls it, “may have been built by 
 Constantine’s successors, still in the first half of the fourth century.” 1 To him, 
 as to a writer in the ‘ Edinburgh Review,’ as, indeed, to most Englishmen, “ Its 
 architectural character remains at most only a strange and perplexing difficulty.” 2 
 He, however, wholly omits to notice the second, which is the important part of 
 the proposition. Constantine’s successors built many churches, no doubt ; but 
 there is only one in the whole world, so far as I know, the floor of which is 
 occupied by such a rock as this, and on the existence of this rock hangs the 
 whole question. The other controversionalists simply evade the question, and 
 trust that the ignorance of their readers will be sufficient to prevent their 
 perceiving the omission. 
 
 With regard to the Golden Gateway, the case is even stronger. Though 
 placed in the city wall, it is not a city gate. It is not fortified, nor capable of 
 defence. It is, in fact, a festal portal, leading to some sacred or secular building, 
 and forming a part of some grand architectural arrangement. It is a beautiful 
 and very richly ornamented building, in the same style as the Dome of the Rock ; 
 what little difference there is, may easily be accounted for from the greater con 
 servatism always maintained in sacred as compared with secular or quasi-secular 
 buildings like this one. The question here, therefore, is, Why was this festal 
 portal placed where we find it, and by whom ? No Englishman, so far as I 
 know, has ever attempted to answer this question ; they simply evade it. 
 The Count de Vogue, alone, has fairly faced it. He admits that it was built by 
 Christians between the fourth and sixth centuries ; and his explanation is that it 
 was erected by some person or persons unknown, who, believing it to be the 
 Porta Speciosa — the Beautiful Gate — of the Temple, re-erected it as such, because 
 St. Peter and St. John had therein cured the lame man. 3 
 
 1 A Sketch of Jerusalem, p. 150. 
 
 2 Edinburgh Review, October_1860. 
 
 3 Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 64, 
 
196 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Pakt III. 
 
 If anyone likes to accept sucli an explanation, lie is welcome. To me 
 the hypothesis seems so obviously untenable that I decline to enter upon it 
 here, hut prefer relegating my reasons for rejecting it to the Appendix, where 
 they will be found in my examination of the Count de Vogue’s theory of the 
 Haram area. 
 
 It would be paying the late Professor Willis a very bad compliment to say 
 he did not know that the architecture of the gate was of the age of Constantine. 
 He never said it was not, but as his admitting this would have been fatal to 
 all his views regarding the Holy Sepulchre, he took refuge in a passage in 
 Eusebius, which saved his conscience, and, he thought, justified him in asserting 
 that my views were “ ludicrously impossible.” 1 It is said by that author that the 
 gateway of the Basilica opened on a broad agora — £77’ avrrjs gecrg<5 7 r\aTeia 9 
 ayopas. It now opens externally on a cemetery, and, as may be admitted, where 
 there is now no room for a broad agora. 
 
 The great American, Dr. Edward Robinson, improves on this, and proves 
 at once the absurdity of my views by inserting two definite articles into the 
 text of Eusebius, and, consequently, making him say that the Propylosa opened 
 on the Street of the Bazaars. 2 3 He knew, of course, that he was stating what 
 was not true when he put these words into the mouth of Eusebius, and it 
 seems all the more strange that he should have condescended to this as he had 
 not even the excuse of religous zeal to justify the misrepresentation. Like most 
 of the better class of topographers who have written about Jerusalem, he had 
 felt constrained to admit that the present sepulchre in the town could not be the 
 true one, and that it was, consequently, a manifest imposture. 
 
 As it now turns out, the answer to these objections is twofold. In the first 
 place, Captain Warren discovered a terrace wall at a distance of more than 
 50 feet in front of the Golden Gateway, which he traced some way north and 
 south, but could not penetrate. 4 It was, from its style, as early as, if not earlier 
 than, the wall on either side of the gateway, and, a fortiori, than the gateway 
 itself, and may, consequently, have supported the market-place of which the 
 historian speaks. But this is not, I believe, the true explanation ; for, as we 
 shall presently see, the gateway opened inwards, not outwards on the “ broad 
 agora,” for which there was ample space and to spare. I am, nevertheless, 
 quite prepared to admit that this was a difficulty, though a very small one, when 
 weighed against the evidence on the other side. At best it was merely negative, 
 and such as might very well wait for further examination, while the architecture 
 gave a positive testimony patent to all who could read its language, and which 
 could not be altered and gainsaid. However, as even this small objection has 
 
 1 Holy Sepulchre, 1849, p. 122. 
 
 2 Later Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1852, p. 263. 
 
 3 Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. ii. p. 80. 
 
 4 Recovery of Jerusalem, pp. 157 et seqq. Quarterly 
 Reports, P. E. F. 1869, pjp. 104 et seq. 
 
Chap. I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 197 
 
 now been removed, there is nothing, so far as I was then, or am now, aware of, 
 to prevent us admitting at once that the Dome of the Bock and the Golden 
 Gateway were erected in the age of Constantine, and if this is admitted, the 
 result seems inevitable. They must be what I have always stated they were, 
 the Anastasis and the Propyliea described by Eusebius. It only, consequently, 
 remains to point out how far recent researches or investigations on the spot 
 have confirmed or invalidated these conclusions. 
 
 Another strong point in these discussions, which I have always insisted 
 upon, is the difficulty of assigning any reasonable motive for Justinian’s con- 
 duct, in placing his Mary Church where he did, if it were not that he wished 
 it to be in immediate proximity to the other Christian sites. 
 
 The spot he chose — the south-east angle of the Haram — is avowedly the 
 most restricted and the most expensive for his purposes that could be found 
 in or about Jerusalem. Procopius leaves us in no doubt on the subject . 1 Yet, 
 as he states the case, Justinian braved all these difficulties without any ajiparent 
 motive — or, in other words, for some motive so manifestly apparent to everybody, 
 that it was not necessary for him to mention it. If it was, as I believe, that his 
 church might form one of a group of Christian edifices which already existed 
 in the Haram arei, his conduct is easily intelligible and perfectly consistent. 
 If he had any other motive, it was, as far as we can see, that of a madman. 
 No one, however, has yet, so far as I know, ventured to suggest any reason, 
 however eccentric, for this conduct on his part. It is one of those questions 
 which all have agreed it is better to leave alone, trusting that silence may 
 prevent attention being drawn towards it. 
 
 If this cause could be brought before any competent tribunal, a judge 
 would insist on a categorical answer being given to each and all of these 
 enquiries, and, if none were offered, would unhesitatingly order judgment to 
 be entered against the defenders of the so-called Holy Sepulchre in the town. 
 Unfortunately, no such tribunal exists, and no attempt has ever been made to 
 obtain a dispassionate decision from those competent to form an opinion. On 
 the contrary, the controversy has generally been carried on by one-sided 
 advocates, who, under the anonymous mask, assert things they would not dare 
 to hint at in their own names, and who, multiplying themselves indefinitely 
 in periodical publications, keep up a clamour that imposes on the public, and 
 stifles, for a while at least, the voice of reason, the excuse being — as just hinted 
 at — that it is inexpedient to unsettle a tradition of eight centuries’ standing ; 
 that it is better to cling to what we have than to strive after something we 
 do not feel sure we shall ever attain. 
 
 1 See Appendix II. 
 
198 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Part III. 
 
 If, consequently, I now again revert to the subject, it is not with any 
 idea that my views will obtain a fair appreciation. I do it more for my 
 own personal satisfaction, being absolutely convinced that, as the evidence 
 at present stands, no other conclusions than those I have arrived at can 
 be for one moment maintained. Of course, new evidence may be brought 
 forward, of which I know nothing, and new discoveries may be made which 
 may alter the whole aspect of the case. For that neither I nor any one else 
 can be held responsible. But after carefully examining and testing every 
 local indication, and every written testimony that is at present available, it 
 appears to me that few things are more clearly proved than that the Dome 
 of the Rock is the identical church Constantine erected over, what he 
 believed to be, the Sepulchre of Christ. If this is so, all the subsidiary 
 questions connected with the subject sink into insignificance, and are scarcely 
 worthy of lengthened consideration ; but it may nevertheless be as well to 
 revert again to some of those which have hitherto seemed to present difficulties 
 to the reception of the above conclusions. 
 
 48. — Plan of the Dome of the Eock. 
 
 (From a drawing by F. Cathenvood. Scale, 100 feet to 1 inch.) 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE EOCK. 
 
 199 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE EOCK. 
 
 One of the most interesting architectural discoveries made recently in the 
 Haram area resulted from some repairs undertaken in 1873 in the Dome of 
 the Rock. On the west face of that building, where it is exposed to the 
 influence of the moist air from the sea, the tiles with which the whole of the 
 upper part of the external walls are covered had become loosened, and in many 
 parts detached, so as to show the plain wall beneath. The whole, in fact, had 
 become so ruinous that the Turkish governor determined to strip the entire 
 face, and replace the old with new tiles where necessary. When this was 
 done, the whole of the original masonry was exposed to view, and was 
 found to consist of a series of round arches — five pierced for windows and 
 two blind panels — on the principal floor. This, however, was known before ; 
 indeed, it had been generally admitted that the pointed arches and their 
 frames were inserted when the tiles were first applied, in the age of Suliman 
 the Magnificent, in the sixteenth century. What was really new, however, was 
 the discovery that the parapet wall above the principal range of windows, which 
 had always been believed to be solid, was, in reality, composed of a range of 
 thirteen small arches on each face, each arch being adorned with a small 
 dwarf pillar on each side. It may be assumed, as certain, that this arcade 
 formed the front of a covered gallery, not only because no other view seems 
 consistent with commonsense, but because the description of it by John of Wurz- 
 burg, made in the time of the Crusades, will bear no other interpretation. 1 It 
 is not, however, now easy to determine whether its roof formed, as it does 
 now, one uniform slope from the drum of the great dome to the outer 
 wall of the octagon, or whether there was not a central depression something- 
 like that of the circular church of Santi Angeli at Perugia, a building very 
 similar in plan and arrangement to the Dome of the Rock, and almost 
 certainly belonging to the fourth century. 2 My own impression is that' the 
 roof was in two slopes, with a depression in the centre ; otherwise it would 
 be difficult to account for the position of the gargoyles or spouts to carry 
 
 1 Tobler’s edition, p. 126. I entirely agree with the 
 
 translation of this somewhat obscure passage suggested 
 by M. Ganneau, Quarterly Eeports, P. E. F. 1874, p. 157. 
 It does not seem possible to reconcile the facts with 
 
 any other interpretation. 
 
 2 Isabelle, folifices circulates, p. 85, pi. xxxviii. 
 See also my History of Architecture, vol. i. p. 432, 
 woodcuts 297, 298. 
 
200 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Pakt III. 
 
 off the water, which are on the level of the gallery floor. Possibly a 
 careful examination of the construction between the internal ceiling and the 
 external roof might reveal how this was ; but as this is of the least possible 
 consequence for our present purpose, it is needless dwelling further upon 
 it here. 
 
 49. — Elevation and Section of the Flank of the Dome of the Rock. 
 (From the Quarterly Reports of the Palestine Exploration Fund.) 
 
 With this explanation, the general appearance of the building, as it was 
 originally constructed, will be easily understood from the annexed woodcuts, 
 kindly placed at my disposal by the Committee of the Palestine Exploration 
 Fund. 1 There was, first, the marble-cased basement, 16 feet high, pierced only 
 
 Quarterly Reports, P. E. F. 1874, pp. 154, 155. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE ROCK. 
 
 201 
 
 by the four doors ; then a storey of plain masonry, 20 feet in height, and 
 pierced by five round-headed windows on each face ; above this, a gallery 10 
 feet high in front, with thirteen small arches with the dwarf pillars, which 
 are undoubtedly coeval with, and of the same masonry as, the storey below. 
 
 The first question that arises in looking at this elevation is, Is it Saracenic ? 
 or, in other words, is there anywhere a building erected by the Moslems in 
 this style ? An absolute answer cannot, of course, be given to this question, 
 because it may happen, that some building may be found in some part of the 
 world which may resemble this one. But it can be answered positively that, 
 so far as is at present known, no building at all resembling it in style is known 
 
 ELEVATION 
 
 PLAN 
 
 SECTION 
 
 50. — Upper Gallery, Dome of the Rock. (From the Quarterly Reports of the Palestine Exploration Fund.) 
 
 to exist anywhere, erected either in the first or any other century of the Hegira. 
 The means of comparison are, it must be confessed, few, and not much to the 
 point. Almost the only building which retains any of its ancient features, 
 erected between 622 and 700 a.d., is the mosque of Amrou, at Cairo. Assuming 
 this to be the case, 1 2 it may safely be asserted that it has absolutely nothing in 
 common with this design. But to this it may be objected that the Egyptian 
 example is a mosque, and that this one at Jerusalem is a tomb or tomblike 
 building, which is true ; but we have no tombs or tomblike buildings erected by 
 
 1 The best illustrations of this mosque I know of are those by Girault de Rrangey, Monuments arabes, pis. vi. 
 and v. The drawings were made before the late rebuilding, which has obliterated all the ancient features. 
 
 2 D 
 
202 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Pakt III. 
 
 Saracens in the first and second centuries of the Hegira, and no reason for 
 supposing that they erected any; so that, as far as that argument goes, it 
 tells against the idea of this building being Saracenic. 
 
 A more pertinent question, however, is, Hoes this external face of the 
 Home of the Rock resemble the design of the Aksa in any way ? For if it was 
 not built by the Christians, all admit that it must have been built by Abd-el- 
 Malek, who also built the Aksa. Naturally, we should expect that, in two 
 buildings erected in the same age by one man, and as parts of one design, 
 there should be some points of resemblance ; absolutely, there are none. 
 Again, it may be objected that the exterior of the Aksa has been so altered 
 and changed that its original form is hardly recognisable externally. To some 
 extent, this is true, but not to such an extent as to vitiate the argument; but 
 the point is not so important as it might at first sight appear, as it is the 
 internal and not the external form that makes the difference in age, between 
 the two buildings, so clearly apparent. 
 
 The building, we know of, that is nearest to the Aksa in date and 
 design is the mosque at Cordova, commenced by the khalif Abd-el-Rahman, 
 in a.d. 786, and completed by his son Hesham, who died a.d. 796. As originally 
 erected, it was an eleven-aisled basilica, not unlike the seven-aisled Aksa, the 
 seven central aisles in the Spanish example occupying, as nearly as possible, 
 the same width as at Jerusalem ; the two outer ones being apparently added 
 at Cordova in order to gratify the ambition of its founder, who is said to 
 have desired that his mosque should surpass that of Abd-el-Malek, which, in 
 fact, it does, both in size and design ; great progress in the art of 
 architecture having been achieved by the Saracens in the century that 
 elapsed between the erection of these two buildings. Between the Aksa 
 and the mosque at Cordova, there are resemblances, but there is nothing 
 in the one or in other that presents any points of contact with the 
 Home of the Rock. To my mind, centuries must have elapsed between the 
 erection of these two buildings. If others see resemblances between them, 
 all that can at present be said is that they have not yet been brought forward, 
 or pointed out by any one. 
 
 Is the architecture of the exterior of the Home of the Rock Christian ? 
 The absence of any distinctly recognisable architectural mouldings renders the 
 answer to this question less absolute than it might be, but it is easy to 
 reply that all its features are found in the Christian architecture of the fourth 
 century, and that there is nothing whatever in it at all antagonistic to the 
 idea that it belongs to the Christians and to that age. 
 
 In the first place, the art of veneering the surface of their walls with 
 marble slabs was extensively practised by the Romans in their thermal and 
 other secular buildings; and this mode of decoration continued to be employed 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE ROCK. 
 
 203 
 
 by the Byzantines down to the building of Santa Sophia, the interior of which 
 is, to a considerabe extent, so adorned. The patterns here employed are also 
 such as are generally found in classical or Byzantine work, and, so far as I 
 know, such as were never employed in Saracenic work. Indeed, though they 
 used coloured tiles extensively, I cannot call to mind a single instance of the 
 Moslems using a marble veneer to their edifices anterior to the Crusades. 
 
 The forms and masonry of the middle storey are just such as we would expect 
 to find in a building of the fourth century. The surface of the stonework has 
 been, however, considerably defaced by the Moslems, who purposely roughed it, to 
 get a tooth for the plaster which was to support their tiles ; but the joints and 
 the whole constructive arrangements are in accordance with the practice of the 
 Romans at that age, though there is, perhaps, nothing sufficiently distinctive in 
 this to prove the case. The argument must consequently principally rest on the 
 arcade and its little columns. Are they Christian ? The answer seems distinct 
 and final. 
 
 51. — Gallery op Sant’ Ambrogio. (From Hiibsch.) 
 
 Any one who is at all familiar with the subject will at once call to mind 
 hundreds — I might almost say thousands — of such galleries adorning the apses of 
 churches between Pavia and Cologne, or rather between the Po and the Northern 
 Sea. Indeed, there is hardly a church of any importance in the North of Italy or 
 of Germany that is not so adorned from the earliest time at which Christian 
 churches were built down, at least, to the thirteenth century. The only question 
 is, when were they first introduced ? It is, and always must be, extremely 
 difficult to find any examples before, or even as early as, the time of Constantine, 
 as he was practically the first Christian church builder ; but there are two 
 churches in Milan, both built by St. Ambrosius in the fourth century, in which 
 we find the system fully developed. The first is the church now bearing 
 his name, the apse of which is undoubtedly a part, almost the only part, of 
 the original construction, and it has a gallery under its roof. It is in brick- 
 work, and on a smaller scale ; but, as will be seen from the above woodcut, 
 
204 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 in other respects almost identical with this one. Inside this apse is a mosaic 
 that cannot be more modern than the age of the second Angilbertus (835 a.d.), 
 and most probably belongs to the age of the first archbishop of that name 
 (530 a.d.). In it there is a representation of the building as it then was, 
 and in it this gallery is clearly and easily recognisable. 1 
 
 There is, also in Milan, another church, San Nazaro, built in 382 a.d., 
 which is even more to the point than Sant’ Ambrogio, or rather would be, 
 were it not that it has been so knocked about and altered that it is not easy 
 now to make out what is new and what old. It has, however, absidal galleries 
 externally, and internally columns with capitals identical with those of the little 
 dwarf columns of this gallery. 2 
 
 There is a third church at Milan, San Lorenzo, with its side chapel, 
 S. Aquilino, which belongs also to the fourth century, and has galleries of this 
 sort, parts of which belong to the original foundation, though in others they 
 are only renewals of what has been destroyed. 3 Other examples are quoted 
 by Hubsch, and are to be found elsewhere, till we come down to the times of 
 the Longobardi, and find such churches as that of Santa Julia at Brescia, 
 said to have been built by Theodolinda about the year GOO. 4 There, however, 
 the gallery is supported by regular shafts, with capitals and all the refinements 
 
 used in Rhenish and Pavian churches in the twelfth and 
 thirteenth centuries. This invention, in fact, which was 
 first thought of, probably, about the year 300, and per- 
 fected three centuries afterwards, continued to be used by 
 Christians for six or seven centuries longer, but, so far 
 as I know, never in Saracenic art. 
 
 Next to the capitals and pillars found in the church 
 of San Nazaro, just alluded to, the most perfect specimens 
 of the class of small pillars, belonging to this gallery, are 
 to be found in the cistern of Philoxenus, now the Bin 
 Bir Derek at Constantinople, which is generally assumed 
 to have been the work of Constantine or of his age, 
 and on data which I do not think can be doubted. 5 
 It certainly, at all events, is one of the oldest and most 
 important cisterns in the city, and occupies one of the 
 most important sites. Most of the pillars in this cistern have capitals similar 
 to that represented in the annexed woodcut, and they are so nearly identical 
 
 52. — Capital from 
 Cistern of Piiiloxenus 
 at Constantinople. 
 (From Hubsch.) 
 
 1 Ferrario, St. Ambrogio, Milano, 1824. PI. 24. 
 
 2 These statements are made on the authority of 
 Hubsch, Altchristliche Bamverke, pi. xli. pp. 97, 98. 
 I see no reason for doubting their perfect correctness. 
 
 3 Hiibsch, Altchristliche Bauwerke, pi. xiv. pp. 21 
 
 ct seqq. 
 
 4 Hubsch, Altchristliche Bauwerke, pi. xl. p. 97. 
 
 5 Salzenberg, Altchristliche Bauwerke Constanti- 
 nople’s, p. 38, pi. xxxviii. See also Du Cange, Con- 
 stantinopolis Christiana, lib. i. p. 96 and lib. ii. p. 132 ; 
 and Gylius, lib. ii. chap. xxv. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE ROCK. 
 
 205 
 
 with those attached to the gallery of the Dome of the Rock 1 that they cannot 
 differ much, if at all, from each other in age. 2 
 
 Among the various churches illustrated by the Count de Vogue, in his 
 beautiful work on ‘ Syrie Centrale,’ the cathedral at Bosrah was apparently the 
 only one that was so arranged as to admit of its possessing a gallery of this 
 sort. The apses of the others were apparently too small for its introduction, 
 but in this instance not only the scale but the arrange- 
 ments of the building were such as to demand something 
 of the kind. The plan here given is taken from M. Rey, 3 
 and is practically identical with that by M. de Vogue, 
 except that all the internal arrangements are omitted. 
 
 The section on the following page is copied from one by the 
 Count, and conveys a very perfect and complete idea of 
 its internal arrangements. Its principal interest to us here 
 is what any one will perceive at a glance, that it is a literal 
 copy, on a slightly smaller scale — 120 against 150 feet — of 
 the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem (Plate VI.) ; with only 
 such alterations as were indispensable to adapt a tomblike 
 building to one suited for congregational purposes. The 
 first change was to convert the octagonal ground plan into 
 
 a square, but that was what was being done by the Byzantine architects every- 
 where during the interval that elapsed between the erection of these two 
 buildings. 4 The next change was to get rid of the central circle surrounding the 
 Rock at Jerusalem, but no longer wanted here, and then to bring forward the 
 eight piers of the outer octagon, each with their two pillars between them. 
 Instead, however, of a tie-beam with an arch to each pillar, a greater familiarity 
 with the style enabled the architects to throw one bold arch over the whole, 
 and to convert what was only an ornament at Jerusalem into a useful gallery 
 at Bosrah. 5 This was also an improvement on the corresponding gallery at 
 Jerusalem — which is the one just discovered — as it makes the gallery an integral 
 part of the church, instead of a mere external ornament. 
 
 53. — Plan of 
 Cathedral at Bosrah. 
 (From M. Rey.) 
 
 (Scale, 100 feet to 1 inch.) 
 
 1 The pillars of the Porta Nigra at Treves, which is 
 almost undoubtedly a building of Constantine’s age, 
 were all apparently intended to have capitals of this 
 class. None of them, however, have been finished, and 
 it is consequently impossible to base any arguments on 
 their forms. It is only an architect who can see what 
 was intended by the blocks that remain, while a layman 
 would be perfectly justified in contending that it might 
 be something else that was originally proposed. 
 
 2 On the 31st plate of his great work on Old Christian 
 
 Churches, Hubsch engraved a plan of the Church of the 
 
 Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, which he believed to be 
 
 the one in the city ; and in the same plate, figs. 6 and 7, 
 
 he engraved a plan and elevation of one of those pillars 
 from the Bin Bir Derek, as authentic examples of the 
 work of Constantine to be used in the restoration. Had 
 he known that similar capitals were hidden beneath 
 the tiles of buildings within a few hundred yards of 
 that site, it probably would have altered materially his 
 views on the subject. 
 
 3 History of Architecture, vol. ii. p. 439. 
 
 4 History of Architecture, vol. ii. p. 440. 
 
 5 If Count de Vogue had been an architect, he would 
 have known that the stone dome he places over the 
 centre of the church would not have stood for an hour. 
 The roof must have been wood, probably conical. 
 
206 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 From inscriptions on the walls, it was ascertained that this church was 
 completed in 512 a.d. When it was commenced, we are not told, probably ten 
 or twenty years earlier ; but be this as it may, it would be difficult to find 
 anywhere a more complete and interesting example of architectural develop- 
 ment than is exhibited by the changes introduced at Bosrali on the designs 
 of a church erected 170 or 180 years earlier at Jerusalem. So evident, indeed, 
 is this that, if De Vogue’s section is to be depended upon — and I see no 
 reason for doubting its general correctness — it ought nearly to suffice for settling 
 this question. It is quite impossible that the section of the Dome of the Rock as 
 shown on Plate VI. could be copied from that of the cathedral at Bosrah, but the 
 
 54. — Section of Dome at Bosrah. (Facsimile ot one in Count de Vogue’s Syrie Centrale, p. 64.) 
 
 (For comparison with section of Dome of the Rock, Plate VI.) 
 
 converse appears clear and certain. The two buildings are in the same style, 
 and so like one another, and their connexion is so intimate, that their relative 
 ages are as nearly certain as anything of the sort can well be. 
 
 The removal of the tiles from the upper part of the external walls of 
 the Dome of the Rock, besides revealing the existence of the arcades, disclosed 
 also another fact, which, when published and properly investigated, may have an 
 important bearing on the history of the edifice. In a letter to the Committee 
 of the Palestine Exploration Fund, dated May 31, 1874, M. Ganneau announced 
 that he had discovered that some, at least, of the arcades of the upper storey 
 had at one time been formed into semicircular niches, with semi-domical 
 heads, and that the upper parts, at least, had been adorned with mosaics. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE ROCK. 
 
 207 
 
 Whether the perpendicular parts were also so ornamented, we are not told. 
 In one niche, the marks only of the tesserm were found, but in the adjacent 
 one the remains were sufficiently perfect to enable M. Lecomte to make a 
 complete coloured drawing of its details, the correctness of which I see no 
 reason for doubting. If the drawing had been submitted to me without any 
 intimation of where it came from, I should have unhesitatingly pronounced it 
 late Roman or Byzantine, though I fully admit the difficulty of feeling certain 
 on such a point. Mosaics do not show any signs of age in themselves, and 
 the same patterns, or others nearly similar, are repeated over and over again, 
 so that without emblems or figures it is difficult to base any reasoning on 
 the abstract question. M. G-anneau thinks they belong to the age of Saladin , 1 
 merely, it seems, because he did not know to whom else to ascribe them. 
 To me, however, it appears extremely unlikely that, if Saladin or any Maho- 
 medan prince had wanted merely to block up these arches to display a mosaic 
 decoration, he should have taken the trouble to form them into niches with 
 semi-domical heads ; few things are more difficult than to adapt a geometric 
 pattern to such a form ; it must always look contorted, and, when done, it 
 would always be in shade, and at that height almost invisible. What he almost 
 inevitably would have done would have been to close the niche with a flat slab on 
 which to display his mosaic, which, in Saladin's time, would, probably, have been 
 a floral design, far more easily executed than that now ‘found there, and, as an 
 architectural decoration, infinitely more effective. Whoever formed these niches, 
 it seems to me almost certain that they intended to place statues in them, or 
 some free-standing ornament ; and from the position of the gargoyles or spouts, it 
 seems most probable that they were coeval with the erection of the building, and 
 that the drainage of the building was carried below them, so that the drip might 
 not damage the mosaics, as it inevitably would have done if carried above them. 
 
 If they were all niches, and their perpendicular backs carried down to 
 the bottom of the arcades, there would, of course, be an end of the gallery 
 theory, and we must look for some other explanation ; but in so far as I 
 can understand M. Lecomte’s drawings, this is not so. Some may have been 
 so, but in others it was only the circular part that was filled in, the square 
 below being left open, and others were apparently without even the semi-dome. 
 In fact, till we have more knowledge than we now possess, it is impossible 
 to put forward, or to criticise any theory with any degree of confidence. All 
 I can at present say is, that I know nothing of any building ornamented 
 with mosaics externally by any Moslem architect in any age or any part of 
 the world, and that, on the other hand, I see nothing to render it improbable 
 that these mosaics may not be part of the original design of the building, 
 assuming it to have been erected in the fourth century. 
 
 1 Quarterly Reports of the Palestine Exploration Fund for 1874, p. 263. 
 
208 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 Interior. 
 
 Although the evidence derived from a comparison of the exterior of the 
 Dome of the Rock, when compared with that of the Aksa, is tolerably 
 conclusive as to their relative ages, and of the time that must have elapsed 
 between their erection, that derived from their interiors is ten times more so. 
 In the Dome of the Rock all the constructive arches are circular ; in the 
 mosque they are all pointed. All the capitals in the first-named building 
 
 55. — View in Aisle op the Dome of the Rock. 
 
 56. — View in the Interior op the Aksa. 
 
 (From a drawing by Arundale.) 
 
 (From a drawing by Arundale.) 
 
 are of the Corinthian order, with concave curves to their bell-shaped capitals, and 
 so classical in detail that none such could have been used except borrowed 
 from older buildings after Justinian’s time. In the Aksa there is not a single 
 pillar — unless one or two borrowed ones — which was invented before Justinian’s 
 age ; generally they have convex basket capitals, and those with foliage are of 
 a debased character, wholly unlike those of the Dome. But the greatest con- 
 trast is exhibited in their design. Everything in the Dome is elegant and 
 well-proportioned, and everything suitable to the place where it is found. I do 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE ROCK. 
 
 209 
 
 not indeed know of any tomb or tomblike building in the whole world so 
 beautiful, or so entirely satisfactory, as the Dome of tlie Rock — at least none 
 erected before the great Indian mausolea of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 
 The Aksa, on the other hand, is badly designed, worse proportioned, and 
 its details detestable. It betrays in every feature the efforts of a rude 
 unskilful people, attempting to imitate the work of a superior race, which they 
 were incapable either of understanding or appreciating. So evident indeed is 
 this that, if there is any foundation for the theory of architectural develop- 
 ment, it seems quite certain that these two buildings were erected not only 
 by different races, but at long distant periods of time. 
 
 There is of course considerable difficulty in making this difference quite 
 clear either to those who have not been on the spot, and had an opportunity 
 of comparing the two buildings, or to those whose eyes are not sufficiently 
 educated in the styles to detect the characteristics that are so obvious to those 
 who are familiar with the subject. Yet it seems impossible that anyone can 
 look at the two last woodcuts and not perceive the differences between them. 
 This, however, is still more apparent from a comparison of the plates in my 
 work on the ‘ Topography of Jerusalem,’ from the illustrations of which these 
 cuts are reduced, or, better still, from the plates in De Vogue’s great work on 
 the Temple, especially plates xix. and xxxi., without perceiving how very 
 unlike the one is to the other. Photographs also are available , 1 and any 
 one who will take the pains to go through this evidence must, I fancy, arrive 
 at the conclusion that a long interval of time separates these two buildings, 
 and that the Dome of the Rock is the oldest and by far the most classical 
 in style of the two. 
 
 Before the period of the recent repairs, no one probably expected much 
 from any examination of the construction of the exterior of the Dome of the 
 Rock, but I, and probably others, had hopes that, when an opportunity was 
 afforded of examining the complicated structure of the interior, something 
 might be disclosed that would reveal the history of its erection. I, for 
 one, felt certain that, if we were only allowed to remove the plain marble 
 slabs that now surmount the capitals of the intermediate range of columns, 
 we should find beneath them, the original blocks that were hidden hy this 
 placage , and if we did, we should find engraved on them either a cross 
 or some Christian emblem, that would tell us what we wanted to know ; 
 but in order to explain the reason for this belief, it is necessary to go back 
 a little. 
 
 When, in the time of Diocletian, architects first began to tamper with 
 the stereotyped forms of the Roman Corinthian order, they left the cornice 
 
 1 Two taken by Lieutenant Kitchener, representing these two interiors, were published by the Palestine 
 Exploration Fund, and in themselves ought to be sufficient to settle the question. 
 
 2 E 
 
210 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 and frieze for a long time pretty much as they found them. They pulvinated 
 the frieze — or, in other words, curved it outwards — and carved it richly, to 
 supply the place of the figures which were its original and proper ornament ; 
 and they omitted some details of the cornice, but the great alteration was 
 made in the architrave. When using arches, as in the court at Spalatro , 1 
 they bent the architrave as an archivolt, round the arches, leaving the 
 frieze and cornice as before ; but when using a trabeate or horizontal con- 
 struction, they omitted the architrave altogether, except one block of it 
 
 57. — Court in Diocletian’s Palace at Spalatro. (From a sketch by Sir Gardner Wilkinson.) 
 
 over the capital, and afterwards, even in arched construction, used this 
 block in order to give apparent strength to the capital to support the 
 arches, and continued this practice down nearly to the time of Justinian. 
 In his age, however, the invention of convex capitals enabled the architects 
 to dispense with this ; their fulness being sufficient to give the requisite 
 appearance of strength. In the intermediate period, however, the architects 
 
 Adams, Palace of Diocletian, plates xviii., xx. et passim. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE EOCK. 
 
 211 
 
 almost invariably engraved either a cross or a Christian emblem of this 
 de, or cubical block, as in the subjoined example from Thessalonica, dating about 
 the year 500 a.d., and this practice became almost universal in the churches 
 at Ravenna and elsewhere. When the Byzantine style was completed under 
 Justinian, the de was omitted, and the cross or monogram was transferred to 
 the capital, which had then become convex, instead of concave, and, in fact, 
 belonged to a totally different style of architecture from that which is found 
 in the buildings of Constantine at Jerusalem. This may be seen from the two 
 illustrations on the next page, taken from the Church of Santa Sophia at Con- 
 stantinople, which only retains a very slight reminiscence of the Corinthian 
 capital, and from which all traces of the classical entablature have been almost 
 entirely banished. 
 
 58. — Aecade prom Church of St. Demetrius at Thessalonica, a.d. 500-520. 
 
 It is easy for any one to see at a glance how far the style employed in 
 the Santa Sophia had deviated from that found in the Dome of the Rock before 
 these capitals were executed ; but it was after their time that the Aksa was 
 built, and, according to the usually accepted theory, the Dome of the Rock 
 also. As the Dome of the Rock was one of the examples in which this 
 transitional style of architecture was first introduced, we might hope that there 
 also this mode of engraving crosses or emblems on the blocks surmounting the 
 capitals would be found, though it might perhaps be only feebly attempted. 
 As will be presently explained, this hope has been disappointed. The de is 
 a rough block of stone, unhewn and without any ornament at all. The fact, 
 however, evidently is, that it was ornamented by bronze plates on its four faces, 
 and these have been removed with the ornaments upon them, whatever they 
 may have been, and replaced by the marble slabs we now find there. 
 
212 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Part III. 
 
 The proof that the ornamentation of this part was in bronze will be 
 found in the fact that the sofit of the intermediate entablature, and part of 
 
 59. — Capital, Santa Sophia, Constantinople, 
 
 60. — Capital, Santa Sophia at Constantinople. 
 (From Salzenberg.) 
 
 the sides is still in bronze repousse work of a very elaborate and beautiful 
 class. One of the parts is shown in the annexed woodcut. This has so 
 
 61. — Bronze Plaque prom Underside of Beam, Dome of the Rock. (From De VogW, plate xxii.) 
 
 antique an appearance that, if such a thing were possible, I would be half 
 inclined to fancy it might have been borrowed from Herod’s Temple, or, 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE DOME OP THE EOCK. 
 
 213 
 
 62. — Capital and Entablature op Intermediate Range op Pillars, Dome of the Rock. 
 (From a drawing by M. Lecomte, Quarterly Reports, P. E. F. 1874, p. 139.) 
 
 at all events, from some building anterior to a.d. 70. 1 That, however, 
 it cannot be, and the vine, in fact, is here used, as it is in frescos in 
 the Catacombs, or in mosaics of the contemporary tomb of Santa Costanza at 
 
 1 Its ornamentation, in fact, resembles more closely that of the lid of Herod’s sarcophagus (woodcut No. 36) 
 than any other piece of sculpture I am acquainted with. 
 
214 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 Rome. If it ever was used by any Moslem architect, in any part of the world, 
 this has escaped my attention. If it does exist, perhaps some one will say 
 where. 
 
 The arrangement of this entablature will be best understood from the 
 woodcut on the preceding page, made from a drawing by M. Lecomte during the 
 late repairs. The capital is undoubtedly of the age of Constantine. It is one 
 of the very first attempts to convert the hollow bowl of the Corinthian 
 capital into a fuller form, to bear an arch or a longer entablature. It is, 
 however, a very long time anterior to the full development of this idea 
 shown in the two woodcuts Nos. 59 and 60. Above this is shown, as just 
 mentioned, the rude de, a square block, now cased with plain marble slabs, 
 but which, originally, must have been cased with bronze plates, like the 
 underside of the wooden beam which it supports. The wooden cornice 
 appears above this, ornamented with small rosettes, apparently original. 
 Above this, the marble casing again appears fastened to the woodwork 
 underneath by iron clamps. No part of this seems to have been removed 
 during the repairs ; so we do not know what these slabs cover in the parts 
 represented in the above illustration (woodcut r No. 62), but in other parts 
 it is by the very beautiful frieze and cornice represented by De Vogue, in his 
 plate xx., and shown, though less perfectly, in the woodcut on the opposite page 
 (No. 63). 1 It is not quite classical, but it is just as far removed from the pure 
 types of Roman architecture as the capital shown in the last woodcut (No. 62), 
 and, if there is any basis for the theory of architectural development, the 
 entablature is as certainly of the time of Constantine. To assert that this capital 
 or this cornice is the work of Abd-el-Malek, at the end of the seventh century — 
 a century and a half after Justinian — is to cast on one side all we know of 
 the history of the style, and to deny the first principles of the science of 
 architectural development. 
 
 The fact is that every form and every detail of this entablature accords 
 minutely with the assumption that it belongs to the fourth century, while it does 
 not accord with anything found in any Mahornedan building of any age or 
 country. It is true, it has been said, that the Saracens used beams of wood 
 to connect their arches in the mosque of Amrou at Cairo, and elsewhere. 
 These, however, are in all instances simple square balks of timber with 
 6 or 12 inches section used as tie-beams, to resist the thrust of their badly 
 constructed arches, in the same manner as iron tie-rods were used in Italy 
 and in Asia for the same purpose down to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. 
 No such highly ornamented beams as those of the Dome of the Rock exist 
 anywhere that I know of. The thing most like it, probably, is the tie-beam 
 
 1 So far as I can make out, the woodcut No. 61 represents the outer face of the entablature. It is only on 
 the inner face that the classical frieze and cornice exists. 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE EOCK. 
 
 215 
 
 oh each side of the nave of the Aksa, hut it is so evidently a barbarous attempt 
 to copy that in the Kubbet es Sakhra that its evidence is one of the best proofs 
 how little Abd-el-Malek’s architects knew what they were doing, and how 
 completely, having no style of their own, they were trying their ’prentice hands 
 on a style they did not understand. 
 
 The capital of the pillars shown in the woodcut below (No. 63) is, as just 
 mentioned, another proof, if any were wanted, to show that this whole system 
 of decoration belongs to the age of Constantine. In the fourth century the 
 Christian architects were trying to apply to their interiors that magnificence 
 
 63. — Capital and Cop.nice op the Intermediate Range of Columns in the Dome op the Rock. 
 
 (From a drawing by Arundale.) 
 
 which their pagan predecessors had lavished on their exteriors, and in coo- 
 sequence found it necessary to introduce much wider spacing than formerly. 
 Whether this was done by arches, as was attempted at Spalatro (woodcut No. 57), 
 and became universal afterwards, or by a light horizontal entablature, as 
 here attempted, a much greater weight than formerly was thrown on the 
 capital, and it hence became indispensable to strengthen it, in appearance at 
 least. The capitals in the Dome of the Rock are early and fine specimens 
 of their class, and could not have been carved before 300 a.d. nor after 500. 
 Their internal evidence is alone sufficient to prove this ; but, fortunately, 
 
216 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 there are other examples, elsewhere, confirming this assumption with more 
 or less exactitude. The annexed example, for instance, from the Church of 
 
 St. John Studios at Constantinople, erected 
 a.d. 463, is extremely similar to that repre- 
 sented in woodcut No. 62, except that, as a 
 metropolitan example, it is a little more 
 refined, and retains some classical features 
 longer than in that found at Jerusalem. 
 
 As no Christian churches were destroyed 
 at Jerusalem between the capitulation to 
 Omar and the time of Abd-el-Malek, the 
 capitals in the Dome of the Iiock could not 
 have been borrowed from elsewhere, but 
 must be and are integral parts of the decora- 
 tion of the edifice in which they are found ; 
 and the idea, that they can be the work 
 of the Moslems in the last decade of the 
 seventh century, seems so preposterous that 
 the wonder is that any one can be found 
 to maintain it. If it is so, we had better 
 burn our books, and give up at once all idea 
 of ascertaining the age of buildings, either 
 Gothic or classical, from their style. 
 
 During the recent repairs, some of the 
 bases of these columns were uncovered by 
 the removal of the slabs in which, at some 
 subsequent period, they had been encased. 
 They were carefully drawn by M. Lecomte, 
 but have not yet been published. From 
 what I have seen of them, they appear singularly classical ; but he seems 
 to have been astonished that they were not all identical and of exactly the 
 
 same height. To me it appears that the wonder is the 
 other way ; I know of no building of that age where such 
 uniformity occurs, especially if erected by Christians- 
 Everywhere pagan temples were being desecrated and 
 destroyed ; and with the enormous wealth of materials 
 placed at their disposal, it seems absurd to suppose that 
 the Christians would quarry and carve new shafts for 
 every separate occasion. Even in Rome, where the supply 
 was superabundant, in every church and every building 
 of the fourth century columns and capitals and bases of 
 the most discrepant dimensions are found everywhere. 
 
 64. — Capital from Church of St. John 
 Studios at Constantinople. 
 
 05. — Baptistery of 
 Constantine. 
 (From Isabelle.) 
 
 (Scale, 100 feet to 1 inch.) 
 
Chap. II. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE ROCK. 
 
 217 
 
 One of the most notable examples of this is found in the Lateran Baptistery, 
 which was certainly erected by Constantine, though it is said to have been 
 only finished by St. Sixtus, a century after his time, 431-440 a.d. The 
 truth appears to he that Sixtus restored it after it was plundered, perhaps 
 damaged, by Alaric. Be this as it may, it is in all essential parts an exact- 
 miniature counterpart of the Dome of the Rock, except that, as even Rome 
 could not furnish eight porphyry shafts of the same length, the taller ones 
 are furnished with Ionic, the shorter ones with Corinthian capitals. 
 
 h 
 
 10 5 0 [0 20 30 40 SO FT 
 
 66. — Section of Lateran Baptistery. (From Fleury.) 
 
 These pillars are connected together by beams identical in principle with 
 those we have just been describing as belonging to the Dome of the Rock, with 
 this only difference, that they are, at Rome, in stone, instead of being in wood, 
 because they had to support a vault in brickwork, instead of a flat ceiling in 
 wood, as at Jerusalem ; bnt barring this essential difference in construction, 
 the two designs are identical, and they are undoubtedly of the same age. 1 
 
 1 These particulars regarding the Lateran Baptistery- 
 are taken from a work by G. R. de Fleury, published 
 in Paris, this year, by Morel. It is one of the most 
 conscientious as well as one of the most interesting 
 monographs of a mediaeval church that have appeared 
 of late years. The author has no theories and no bias, 
 
 and supports his statements and drawings with a 
 sufficient number of “pieces justificatives ” to render 
 them thoroughly trustworthy. It need hardly be added 
 that he never dreamt of the Dome of the Rock being a 
 Christian church. 
 
218 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE ROCK. 
 
 Mosaics. 
 
 If, as mentioned above, the mosaics now existing on the exterior of the Dome 
 of the Rock are of too fragmentary a character to give any clear indication of 
 their age, those of the interior are so complete that they ought to afford satis- 
 factory materials for the chronological elucidation of its history. To enable this, 
 however, to be done, the person examining them ought to have special technical 
 knowledge of the subject, with access to them, so as to be able to examine 
 them almost by touch as well as by the eye. Messrs. Catherwood and Arundale, 
 who were the first who were able to approach them in modern times, had not, 
 perhaps, sufficient knowledge to decide the question ; but being of opinion that 
 the building was erected by Omar, they expressed to me their astonishment 
 at their classical character. It is not known whether Messrs. Granneau and 
 Lecomte have the technical education requisite for this purpose ; they have 
 not, so far as I know, expressed any opinion on the subject. We are therefore 
 dependent on the Count de Vogue for the materials to reason upon, in so far, 
 at least, as the public is concerned. In his splendid work on ‘ Le Temple de 
 Jerusalem,’ he devotes three coloured plates to these mosaics — one of these a 
 double one. The mosaics on plate xxi. he ascribes to the seventh century ; those 
 on plate xxii. to the eleventh century; and those on plate xxiii. to 1027 a.d. 
 In these determinations, however, the Count has been avowedly guided by the 
 Arabic inscriptions found upon them ; and as he believes these inscriptions to 
 be coeval with, and indeed a part of, the design, this was a perfectly legitimate 
 conclusion to arrive at — the only one, indeed, possible from his point of view. 
 Had the inscriptions, however, not been there, I am convinced that he, or 
 any other expert, would have arrived at conclusions diametrically opposed to 
 those. The mosaic scroll rising from a group of acanthus leaves (plates xx. 
 and xxii.) appears to me as classical as anything at Ravenna or at Santa Sophia 
 at Constantinople, and, taken by itself, might well be earlier. On the other hand, 
 the mosaics on plate xxiii. are of quite a different character, and certainly 
 of much more modern date. But the instantia crucis is plate xxi., where the 
 decoration, notwithstanding the square Kufic inscription, has not a trace of 
 classicality about it, and appears to be mediaeval Saracenic of any age, but 
 certainly after the tenth or eleventh century. 
 
Chap. III. 
 
 THE DOME OP THE ROCK. 
 
 219 
 
 Count de Yogiie seems himself to be aware of the discrepancy between 
 the artistic and the epigraphic history of these mosaics, inasmuch as he says 
 (page 88) : — “ Les enroulements du maitre pilier de la coupole, et ceux du 
 tambour, rappellent certaines decorations romaines du iv e siecle et particu- 
 lierement l’ornementation sculpte'e au tombeau de sainte Constance.” “ Les 
 mosaiques des bas cotes, au contraire, quoique beaucoup plus rapproche'es, 
 par leur dates, des temps antiques, sont d’un style plus originel — une fantaisie 
 plus libre, une bizarrerie plus capricieuse,” &c. “ Ces qualites se retrouvent 
 dans les mosaiques du xi e siecle,” (those of the tambour, plate xxiii.) “mais 
 a un moindre degre' ; en revanche, elles sont d’un meilleur gout et d’un dessin 
 plus soigne.” After this he may well exclaim, “ D’oii vient cette apparente 
 contradiction, et comment l’expliquer?” “Nous ne connaissons pas encore 
 assez comple'tement l’histoire de l’art byzantin, pour pouvoir re'pondre d’une 
 maniere pe'remptoire.” 
 
 If, however, he had thought of turning to his own work on the ‘ Churches 
 of the Holy Land,’ he would have foimd at least an approximate answer. In 
 plates iii. and iv. of that work, he portrays with his usual fidelity the mosaics 
 of the church at Bethlehem. It is, of course, not quite easy to feel certain of the 
 identity of form in comparing the coloured plates of ‘Le Temple de Jerusalem ' 
 with the monochromes of ‘ Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte,’ but it seems to me 
 impossible for any one to compare the one with the other without perceiving 
 that they belong to the same age. The date of the Bethlehem mosaics is 
 perfectly well known ; they were executed by order of Manuel Comnenus 
 Porphyrogenitus, between the years 1145 and 1180 a.d., 1 and if we assume 
 that those of the Dome of the Rock were executed by order of Saladin, after 
 his recovery of Jerusalem, a.d. 1187, he may have employed the identical artists, 
 and may have instructed them to execute similar designs, leaving out those 
 symbols only that -would be offensive to his co-religionists. 
 
 This, it is true, may not be sufficient to establish their date beyond cavil, 
 but it is certainly enough to make out a prima facie case for placing the date 
 of these mosaics towards the end of the twelfth century. It is so conclusive 
 to my mind that, if it were only the artistic question that was involved, J 
 would not care to pursue the enquiry further ; but mixed up with these 
 mosaics, and apparently an integral part of them, is a great inscription, which 
 both the Count de Yogiie 2 and Mr. Palmer 3 consider as a perfectly authentic 
 document of the seventh century, recording the erection of the Dome of the Rock, 
 by Abd-el-Malek, in the year 72 h. (a.d. 691). They consequently consider 
 it as an absolute proof of the correctness of their views regarding the date 
 of the building, and as quite fatal to any attempt to prove that it was built 
 
 1 Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte, p. 99. 2 Le Temple de Jerusalem, pp. 84 et segrq. 
 
 3 Quarterly Reports, P. E. F. for 1870, p. 164. 
 
220 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 by Constantine or any one else. I, on the contrary, believe it to be a manifest 
 forgery : in the first place, because I have the most unbounded faith in the 
 architectural argument when it speaks so clearly as it does in the present 
 instance. I trust to it beyond all others, because I do not know one single 
 instance, in any part of the world or in any age anterior to the Reformation 
 in Europe, where it speaks falsely, and where its testimony may not be 
 implicitly relied upon. On the other hand, nothing is so easily forged as an 
 inscription, especially in mosaic, and nothing more likely than that a forgery 
 should be attempted in a place like Jerusalem, where sectarian jealousies ran 
 so high, and in a building which has so often changed hands as the Dome 
 of the Rock. Unless, therefore, it can be proved on perfectly irrefragable 
 evidence that these mosaic inscriptions are what they profess to be, I for one 
 would have no hesitation in rejecting their evidence, even if I could not 
 prove them to be forgeries, which from the very nature of the case it may 
 be difficult to do in a perfectly complete or satisfactory manner. 
 
 So far as I can make out the history of these inscriptions, it is as 
 follows. We learn from William of Tyre that, when the Crusaders reached 
 Jerusalem, they found the Mosque of Omar covered with inscriptions in the 
 ancient Kufic characters, one of which stated that the building had been 
 erected by Omar, the son of Katab, the third khalif, and giving an account 
 of expenses and motives of the erection. 1 That inscription, however, seems to 
 have disappeared during the Christian occupation, inasmuch as we have a 
 most minute and detailed account of the building by John of Wurzburg, and by 
 Theodoricus, both writing about the year 1180 ; and while they make no mention 
 of this or any other Arabic inscriptions about the building, they copied and 
 report a number of Latin inscriptions in mosaic which adorned the building 
 both inside and outside. Outside, for instance, Theodoricus, after describing 
 the lower storey with its noble marble incrustation, mentions a mosaic band 
 under the roof, which ran all round the building, 2 on the first face of which 
 was inscribed, “ Pax seterna ab seterno Patre sit huic domui ” ; on the second, 
 “Templum Domini sanctum est”; on the third, 4 Hasc est domus Domini 
 firmiter sedificata ” ; and so on throughout the whole eight faces, in each 
 of which, except the first, the building is distinctly called the Temple of “our 
 Lord,” meaning Christ, so as to distinguish it carefully from the Templum 
 Salornonis close at hand. 
 
 “ Extant porro in eodem Templi asdificio, intus et 
 extra ex opere Musaico, Arabici idiomatis literarum 
 vetustissima monumenta, quod illius temporis esse 
 creduntur. Quibus et auctor et impensarum quantitas 
 et quo tempore opus inceptum quoque consummatuni 
 fuerat evidenter declarator.” i. cli. iii. p. 630. 
 
 “ Porro in principio bujus voluminis ajdilicii hujus 
 auctorem diximus Homar filium Catab qui tertius a 
 
 seductore Maometis errores et regni successor extitit.” 
 viii. ch. iii. p. 748. Gesta Dei p. Francos. 
 
 2 “ Inferius usque ad medium spatium nobilissime 
 marmore ornatum, et a medio usque ad superiorem cui 
 tectum incumbit, limbum musivo opere decentissime 
 decoratum. Ipse vero limbus circulariter per totum 
 templi ambitum circumductus banc continet scriptu- 
 ram.” In Tobler’s edition, p. 38. 
 
Chap. III. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE EOCK. 
 
 221 
 
 In the interior, where apparently the great Arabic inscription now is, we 
 have, “ Dorans mea domus orationis vocabitur, dicit Dominus,” &c., as recorded 
 by Theodoricus, who mentions a third inscription in giving the date of these 
 mosaics as seventy-four years from the capture of Antioch and seventy-three 
 from that of Jerusalem, consequently 1172. Practically the same account of 
 the Latin inscriptions is given by John of Wtirzhurg, 1 with some variations, 
 it is true, hut just sufficient to show that both were copying on the spot, 
 and not repeating what the other had said. 
 
 As might be expected, all these Latin inscriptions have disappeared, not 
 only from the outside, but from the inside of the building, though, from their 
 extent, they must have occupied a considerable portion of the surface now 
 appropriated to mosaic decoration. So too has the inscription seen by William 
 of Tyre, for in those that exist there is no mention of Omar-ibn-Katab, nor 
 any account of the expenses and purposes of the building. In its stead we 
 have a long inscription, which was partially translated by De Yogiie, 2 and 
 more fully by Mr. Palmer, 3 whose translation, as the most complete, is printed 
 in extenso in the Appendix. As understood by these gentlemen, it records the 
 erection of the building by Abd-el-Malek, the builder of the Aksa. As it 
 now stands, however, this honour is ascribed to Abd-Allah-al-Mamun, the 
 successor of Harun-al-Rashid, and who lived 198-218 h. This, however, is 
 stated to be a forgery, though, as Mr. Palmer remarks, “ it is inconceivable 
 that so liberal and intellectual a prince should have sanctioned so arrogant 
 and so transparent a fiction. ’’ 4 I quite agree with him in this, but my solution 
 of the mystery is different. I believe that when the Saracens under El-Hakim, 
 the mad khalif of Egypt, first wrested the building from the Christians, in the 
 beginning of the eleventh century, they put up the inscription which William of 
 Tyre saw, in which they ascribed the erection of the building to Omar. When, 
 however, they recovered it from the Christians after the Crusades, and it had 
 been discovered that Omar had built nothing of the sort at Jerusalem, it was 
 thought expedient to ascribe it to the builder of the Aksa. Again, however, 
 when it was pointed out that there was no authority — which there is not — for 
 this, Al-Mamun’s name was selected, and inserted not only in the great 
 inscription, but inscribed over the doorways and in several other places about 
 the mosque, where it is now found. But neither in their books nor in their 
 traditions is there any hint of his having erected this or any other great 
 building at Jerusalem. In order to establish the Mahomedan claim to the 
 building, it was necessary that it should be ascribed to some one who lived 
 before the Crusades, and, after hesitating between Omar and Abd-el-Malek, 
 
 1 Pez. Thesaur. Anecd. Nov. vol. i. pi. iii. pp. 494 et 
 seqq. Tobler’s edit. pp. 124 et seqq. 
 
 2 Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 84. 
 
 3 Quarterly Eeports, P. E. F. for 1870-71, pp. 164 
 et seqq. 
 
 4 Quarterly Eeports, P. E. F. for 1870-71, p. 169. 
 
222 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 neither of whom could make good his claim to it, they seem to have chosen 
 Al-Mamun, though for reasons it is now difficult to ascertain. 
 
 Be this as it may, it seems quite impossible that this inscription could have 
 escaped the notice of two such careful observers as John of Wurzburg and 
 Theodoricus, if it had existed in their time. They knew perfectly what 
 Saracenic letters were, and the former remarks on an inscription written in 
 them, as we may infer from the context, the only one in the Haram area. 1 I 
 am, however, quite prepared to admit that the Arabic inscription containing 
 a date, 418 h.— but a date only, 2 for the name is carefully erased — may have 
 remained during the age of the Crusades. To me, indeed, it appears certain 
 it was left, and its presence now is most opportune as explaining what 
 without it would have remained a mystery. Practically what it seems to 
 tell is this. When in a.d. 1009 El-Hakim destroyed the Basilica of Constantine, 
 but appropriated the tomb of Christ, and dedicated it to his own religion, he 
 found its interior ornamented with mosaics, some of which still remain. 
 These must, however, have been interspersed with Christian emblems and 
 figures of saints, which were abominations to Moslem eyes. These he 
 obliterated, and they were replaced by his successor, Dhaher, in the year 418 of 
 the Hegira (a.d. 1027), which is the date of the inscription. When the Christians 
 recovered the building in 1099, they knew that the place had been in the 
 hands of the Saracens for ninety years, and may have known that Dhaher 
 was the author of these mosaics. It was sufficient for them to obliterate his 
 name, which could only have been done by the Christians ; but they saw no 
 reason for ignoring the date, and they consequently have left that as we now 
 find it, and it is fortunate for our purposes that they have done so, for it enables 
 us to understand the history of these mosaics in a manner we could not have 
 done without its assistance. 
 
 A good deal might, no doubt, be said about the employment of square 
 Kufic in nearly as archaic a form as that of this inscription in the mosque at 
 Cordova, a.d. 79 6, 3 or in that of Ebn-Touloun at Cairo (a.d. 876); 4 still more 
 about that found in the mosques at Delhi or Ajmir and Samarcand, between the 
 thirteenth and fifteenth centuries ; but that does not appear to affect the question 
 here. 5 The alphabet employed in this inscription, I am informed by my friend, 
 Mr. Ed. Thomas, who is far more competent of judging such a question than I am, 
 is identical with that found on the coins of Abd-el-Malek. He has also pointed 
 
 1 “ Ab Aquilone habens unum ostium, versus claus- 
 trum dominorum, in cujus superliminari plures litterm 
 Sarracenicse sunt appositse.” Tobler’s edit. p. 125. 
 
 2 De Vogue, Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 87, pi. xxiii. 
 
 3 Girault de Prangey, Architecture des Arabes, pi. v. 
 * Girault de Prangey, Monuments arabes, pi. 13. 
 
 Coste, Arch. Arab. pi. v. 
 
 e A curious illustration of the mode in which these 
 characters were used is found in Girault de Prangey’s 
 
 Architecture des Arabes, pi. 13. In it there is repre- 
 sented an inscription on the robe of King Roger I. with 
 a date, 528 h. (a.d. 1134). This is in a very old 
 form of square Kufic. On the same plate are several 
 inscriptions from the palace of La Cuba, of the same or 
 an earlier date, which are in the Neschi characters current 
 at that time. According to the usual theory, the dates 
 ought to be reversed, and a couple of centuries at least 
 intervene between them. 
 
Chap. III. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE ROCK. 
 
 223 
 
 out to me other difficulties that militate against the acceptance of the name of 
 Abd-el-Malek in lieu of that of Al-Mamun. All these, however, are details that 
 others must decide. My argument is not based on them, but on the broad fact, 
 that this inscription did not exist there during the time of the First Crusade, and 
 that it consequently must be a forgery of Saladin or of some one of his age. 
 
 The fact of the matter seems to be that those who forged this inscription 
 were probably wide enough awake to know that, if they wished it to be believed 
 that it was of the time of Abd-el-Malek or of Al-Mamun, they must write 
 it in the characters current at the time of the khalif in whose reign they wished 
 it to be believed it had been written. They were trying to establish a claim 
 to a building to which they knew they had no right, and it would be paying the 
 Orientals a very bad compliment to suppose they were not clever enough to 
 know that, if they wished their statements to be believed, they must be engrossed 
 in the characters of the time in which they were dated. Some may probably 
 be inclined to suggest that the square Kufic is much more easily written in 
 mosaic than the cursive writing of the Arabs, but this in itself would not be 
 sufficient to account for its adojition here. 
 
 The truest test, however, of the age of this inscription, is its contents. If 
 we assume that it was written either by Abd-el-Malek, or by Al-Mamun, or 
 by any one else, in a building which they believed to have been erected on the 
 site of Solomon’s temple, it is not only inapplicable but unintelligible. If 
 they believed the great Sakhra to be either the site of the Holy of Holies or 
 of the Altar of the Jewish Temple, it seems quite impossible that no reference 
 should be made to the fact, and that the names of David or of Solomon do not 
 occur in any part of it, and that no allusion to their greatness or their works 
 should occur in it, not even a prayer for the rest of their souls. If, on the other 
 hand, we assume that it was written by Saladin, or any one in the twelfth 
 century, on a building which they knew had been appropriated by his 
 co-religionists, but which, as Theodoricus says, writing in 1176, was erected 
 by Constantine and his mother, Helena, in honour of Jesus Christ, 1 then every 
 word becomes intelligible, and is just such as we would expect to find there. 
 It begins, of course, with the usual paragraphs in honour and praise of the 
 founder of their religion, and of the unity of Grod. Then follows a very 
 emphatic denial of the Trinity, “ He neither begetteth nor is begotten,” which, 
 however, is so common an expression as not to be important here. Then follows 
 what is certainly most unusual, “ Yerily, Jesus, the Son of Mary, is the Apostle 
 of God, and his word which he cast over Mary, and a spirit from him. 0 
 God, pray for thy Apostle Jesus, the Son of Mary. Peace be on me the day 
 
 1 “Hoc Templum quod nunc videtur ad honorem 
 Domini nostri Jesu Christi ejusque pise genitricis ab 
 Helena regina et ejus filio imperatore Constantino con- 
 structum est” Ed. Tobler, p. 46. The whole passage 
 
 is printed in extenso in the appendix to my little 
 work entitled The Holy Sepulchre and the Temple at 
 Jerusalem, Murray, 1865. 
 
224 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Paet III. 
 
 that I am born, and the day I die, and the day I am raised to life again ” ; 
 and so on to the end. The whole of the latter half of the inscription is, in 
 fact, in honour of Jesus and his mother, and the idea of any Mahomedan 
 inscribing that on a building supposed to he a rebuilding of the Temple of 
 Solomon, and having no reference to Christ, seems too absurd to be entertained 
 for one moment. On the other hand, if any one will read the translation 
 of the great inscription found in Appendix II., with the knowledge that the 
 building in which it is found was erected by the Christians over what they 
 believed to be the sepulchre in which Christ was laid, but which had afterwards 
 been appropriated by the Mahomedans, the whole becomes clear and intelligible. 
 
 Without more illustrations than are compatible with the nature of this 
 work, it may be difficult to render this history of the mosaics so clear to others 
 as it appears to myself; and those who have not access to De Vogue’s books 
 may have difficulty in following the line of argument just enunciated. Briefly, 
 their history seems to be this : — 
 
 When the building was first erected by Constantine, he adorned it, internally 
 at least, with mosaics, portions of which still remain, and which are those 
 which De Vogue correctly describes as so nearly resembling those of the fourth 
 century at Rome. 
 
 When the Saracens took possession of the building in or after 1009 a.d., 
 they destroyed those parts of these mosaics representing emblems offensive 
 . to Moslem ideas, and in 1027 replaced them by those others which we now 
 see. It was probably also at this time that they inserted those inscriptions 
 which assert that Omar had erected the building, with details of the expenses 
 and motives, &c. 
 
 When the Christians regained possession of the building, in 1099, they 
 obliterated the Saracenic inscriptions, and replaced them by the Latin ones, 
 copied and published by John of Wurzburg and Theodoricus, at the same time 
 probably remodelling the patterns of the mosaics to some extent ; but of this 
 we have no direct evidence. 
 
 Lastly, when the Saracens recovered possession of the Dome of the Rock, 
 Saladin, or some one about his time, obliterated the Christian inscriptions, 
 remodelled entirely the mosaics of the side aisles at least, and inserted those 
 Kufic inscriptions which ascribe the erection of the building to Abd-el-Malek 
 or Al-Mamun, and which we see there at the present day. 
 
 There is consequently in reality no conflict between the artistic and the 
 epigraphic evidence of the mosaics, and the whole of the story which they tell 
 is in every particular confirmed by the historians of the day, and make it as 
 clear as anything of the sort can be, that the Dome of the Rock was not built 
 by the Saracens at all, but by Christians, who believed it to cover the 
 sepulchre of Christ. 
 
Chap. IV. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE ROCK. 
 
 225 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE ROCK. 
 
 History. 
 
 As before mentioned, I am not aware of the existence of any quotation from 
 any Mahomedan author, who wrote before the Crusades, which asserts that 
 either Abd-el-Malek or any one else erected any circular or octagonal building 
 at Jerusalem, though there are ample details regarding the square one that khalif 
 did erect. Nor do I know of any passage which would convey the idea that the 
 Moslems understood the Sakhra to be a rock. I have already pointed out that, 
 till the Crusades at all events, they adhered to the little or true Sakhra without 
 swerving, and that it was only after that time, when they found themselves 
 in possession of two Sakhras, that they were forced to make an election ; just 
 as the Christians, when they found themselves in possession of two sepulchres, 
 were under the necessity of adopting one, and in both instances, unfortunately 
 for the topography of Jerusalem, they chose the false instead of the true one. 
 Even to the present day the Mahomedans have only the haziest ideas possible as 
 to what the great Sakhra really is intended to represent. I do not gather from 
 any author that they really believe it to be the Altar, or the foundation of the 
 Altar, of the Jewish Temple. They know, as we do, that there is nothing in 
 the Bible, or the Talmud, or in any ancient author, to countenance the idea, that 
 the Altar was a rock or founded on a rock ; what we do know is that it was 
 in Solomon’s time of brass, in Herod’s of loose stones, but there is no mention 
 of the rock anywhere. It seems only something that somebody has asserted and 
 every one repeats, without any one enquiring whence the tradition arose. 
 
 The principal Mahomedan tradition regarding it is, that it was from this 
 rock that Mahomet ascended to heaven, on his celebrated night journey to that 
 place. Another tradition — the true one, I believe 1 — makes it the burying-place 
 of Solomon ; but Enoch has also a place there, and so have Abraham and Elias, 
 and the hand-print of Gabriel is also shown. David and Solomon have 
 mihrabs in the cave below, and both are represented as praying with their faces 
 towards Mecca, as, according to the Mahomedan ritual, they ought to do. If 
 asked the question pointblank at the present day, a Moslem would, no doubt, 
 answer according to the tradition he has learned from the Christians, that it was 
 
 2 G 
 
 1 Ante, page 57. 
 
226 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 the site of the Altar of David ; but this is not according to anything handed 
 down to him by his forefathers, nor to anything to which he attaches any 
 real importance ; it is, indeed, at variance with all we gather from the best 
 Moslem mediaeval writers. 
 
 On the other hand, nothing can be more curiously characteristic of the 
 uncritical spirit of the age than the conduct of the Christians on their entry into 
 Jerusalem in 1099. Their joy at the recovery of the Dome of the Rock was 
 at least equal to that at their rescuing the sepulchre of Christ out of the hands 
 of the infidels. They immediately proceeded to erect a golden cross on the 
 summit of the dome. They encased the rock in marble, and erected on it a 
 sumptuous shrine. A golden lamp, suspended from the dome, burnt over it 
 day and night. Inside and outside, as we have just seen, it was covered with 
 mosaics, interspersed with Latin inscriptions. Regular canons were appointed 
 to perform service in it daily, and, in all and every respect, the Templum Domini 
 was considered equal in sanctity and importance to the Sepulchrum Domini in 
 the centre of the town. 1 
 
 What, then, did the Christians suppose this building to have been ? Certainly 
 not, in the first instance at least, the Temple of the Jews. In no inscription 
 and in no text is it called Templum Salomonis or Judseorum. That, they knew 
 perfectly well, was represented by the Aksa, and that — which they afterwards 
 learned to call “ Palatium Salomonis ” — they desecrated without a moment’s 
 hesitation, and assigned it as a habitation to the knights who, from their 
 
 residence there, took the name of Templars. They knew the Aksa had been 
 
 built by the Moslems, and they knew equally well that the Dome of the Rock 
 had not been built by them ; hence their different treatment of the two buildings. 
 Beyond this, they seem to have been extremely puzzled to account for the origin 
 of the two. By degrees, as we learn from the inscriptions, they assigned places in 
 the Dome of the Rock, where the Virgin had been presented, when three years 
 old ; where Christ himself had been presented to Simeon ; where he had driven 
 out those who bought and sold ; where he had pardoned the woman taken 
 
 in adultery ; and localities were found for other scenes narrated in the 
 
 New Testament, as it was the custom of the day, but still without any distinct 
 recognition that, in so doing, they were, in fact, rehabilitating the accursed 
 Temple of the Jews. They could not have forgotten the prophecy so empha- 
 tically recalled by Eutychius, “Behold, your house shall be left desolate; of all 
 this glory not one stone shall be left standing on another.” Their priests, at 
 least, must have recollected Julian's impious attempt to rebuild the Temple, and 
 how it was prevented by fire from heaven. The tradition of Sophronius and 
 ills transactions with the khalif Omar must still have lingered in Jerusalem. 
 
 1 The references for all these assertions, with the passages on which they are based, will he found in my 
 Topography of Jerusalem, pp. 164 et seqq. ; and need not therefore be repeated here. 
 
Chap. IV. 
 
 THE DOME OF THE EOCK. 
 
 227 
 
 The building of the Aksa bj Abd-el-Malek on the site of the Temple was well 
 known and acted upon. What then was this building? The answer given to 
 this question by Theodoricus is probably that which would be given by any 
 one at that age, and is partly true, partly false. It was, he says, built by 
 Constantine and his pious mother, as the fifth rebuilding of the Temple since 
 Solomon's time . 1 It was a dilemma, and it seems there was no other way out 
 of it. It was known to have been built by Constantine, but it could not be the 
 sepulchre of Christ, as this was elsewhere. It must therefore be the Temple, 
 because it could be nothing else, and the simple faith of that day asked no more . 2 
 
 One only tradition of the locality seems to have been preserved unaltered 
 during the whole time of the Crusades, and it is one the least worthy of such 
 distinction. During the time that the Dome of the Rock was known to be the 
 sepulchre of Christ nothing could have appeared more natural and more 
 consonant with the usages of the age than that his brother James should have 
 been buried close to him. We consequently find, according to tradition, that 
 the building, now known as the Dome of the Chain, close to the eastern entrance 
 of the Dome of the Rock, is his reputed sepulchre. It is true, of course, that 
 the Mahomedans lay claim to it. It was, they assert, erected by Abd-el-Malek 
 as a model of the great dome alongside of it, in order that he might judge of 
 the effect before commencing the longer undertaking . 3 Bad as the art of that 
 day was, it is hardly probable that he would erect an open pavilion of eleven 
 sides and with only six internal columns, as a model of a closed building of 
 eight sides externally, and of the complicated structure internally such as that 
 exhibited in the Dome of the Rock. The tradition is evidently only one of 
 those guesses at truth which are so common in Jerusalem. It is difficult, 
 however, to say when the building, as it now stands, was erected. All its 
 seventeen columns are of the Corinthian order, borrowed from some classical 
 building, and its superstructure of round arches has been so covered with tiles, 
 probably at the same time as the great mosque, that it is difficult to say when 
 it may have been built. What we do know is that in the twelfth century it 
 bore the following inscription : — 
 
 “ Die lapis et fossa enjus stmt, quse regis ossa, 
 
 Sunt Jacobi justi. Jacet hie sub tegmine busti ” ; 4 
 
 and two other longer inscriptions to the same effect, quoted by John of 
 Wurzburg . 5 It is true he is said to have been killed by falling from the 
 
 1 Tobler’s edit. p. 46. 
 
 2 When we see what things learned men in the 
 
 present day believe and assert with reference to these 
 
 very localities, it is only too evident that the nine- 
 teenth century has no right to throw stones at the 
 
 credulity of the twelfth. We are, I believe, worse 
 
 now than they were then, for we have far better means 
 of knowing what is right, but do not employ them. 
 
 3 Mejr-ud-Din, Sauvaire’s translation, p. 50. 
 
 4 Theodoricus, Libellus de Loc. Sanct. p. 42. 
 
 6 Pez. Thesaur. Anecd. Nov. p. 496. 
 
228 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 pinnacle of the Temple, but that is no reason why he should be buried there, 
 while it was a temple. In fact, the traditions says he was first buried elsewhere, 
 in the valley of Jehosliaphat, and only brought here and buried — “ut eum 
 decuit.” I would add, near the sepulchre of his brother ; but if any one can 
 assign any other cause for the origin of the tradition, he is welcome. It is 
 curious, but not of much value. 
 
 The truth of the matter appears to be that, from the very nature of the 
 case, it is idle to expect that any consecutive or intelligible narrative can be 
 obtained from the traditions connected with this building, or the statements 
 regarding it, made by either its present or its past possessors. Originally 
 built for the Christians, and possessed by them for 686 years, it was first 
 wrested from them in a.d. 1009, and retained by their hated rivals for ninety 
 years. It was recovered by the Christians, and retained by them for eighty- 
 eight years. They then again lost it, and their rivals have since held it for 
 690 years. Bandied about in this manner from one to another, the Christians 
 have exhausted their ingenuity to invent excuses to explain how they came 
 to lose what they know was their own. The Moslems have been equally 
 industrious in trying to invent titles which would justify their retaining 
 what they know does not belong to them ; and between the two they have 
 involved the building in such a mass of contradictory fables that it would be 
 an utterly hopeless task to attempt to unravel its history, were it not that 
 Architecture never lies, and that Art, when not purposely falsified, may be 
 depended upon as speaking the truth. With these two guides, however, the 
 path is tolerably clear, and very little more is now wanted to make the results 
 it leads to absolutely certain. 
 
 Even written history, though much less trustworthy, is far from contra- 
 dicting this view, and indeed rather confirms it, provided we bear in mind that 
 the two centuries during which these transfers and retransfers of the building, 
 backwards and forwards, between the two rival sects took place, were those 
 when the passions of the East and West were most violently excited the one 
 against the other. They wrnre also those in which the critical faculties of 
 mankind were most obscured by passion, and when faith justified means to 
 an extent that would not have been tolerated at other times. When these 
 sources of error are carefully eliminated, there remains a residuum of truth 
 which, with the artistic evidence and the local indications, renders the story 
 of the Dome of the Rock, for the fifteen centuries it has existed, as nearly 
 certain as that of any other building that has been in use as long, and has 
 had so eventful a history. 
 
Chap. V. 
 
 THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE. 
 
 229 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE. 
 
 Nothing has recently been discovered in reference to the Golden Gateway 
 that throws any new light on its history. Unlike the Huldah and southern 
 Parbar gates of the Temple, which were subterranean structures, this was 
 always a free-standing edifice, with architectural ornaments on all its four 
 sides, and therefore nothing was to be discovered by excavations. The one 
 point which has been brought prominently forward is the existence of the 
 commencement of an arcade extending southward along the ITaram wall, and 
 to which access was obtained from a portal in its southern wall. 1 From its 
 position, and that of its portal, this gallery or porch, which is about 20 feet 
 in width, was evidently an important structure, and it would be interesting 
 if its extent and form could be ascertained. That, however, could only be 
 obtained by excavations, which are not likely to be at present undertaken. 
 Near the middle of it there is a postern, the “ portula ” of Arculfus, 2 the 
 existence of which proves that the building to which it gave access must 
 have been of some importance. 
 
 In itself, the Golden Gateway is one of the least altered buildings in 
 Jerusalem. It has not been occupied and reoccupied by contending religions, 
 and adapted to their various purposes ; and, except a slight alteration in the 
 roof, of no great importance, it remains substantially as it was originally 
 erected, and its age can consequently be obtained from its architecture with 
 more certainty than that of almost any other building in Jerusalem. No one 
 has yet ventured to assert that it could have been erected before the time of 
 Constantine, and no one who knows anything of architecture can fail to see 
 that it was erected long before the age of Justinian, while the presence of 
 sculptured crosses on its capitals proves that it was erected by Christians and 
 for Christian purposes. 3 If, in fact, it is not the festal portal which Eusebius 
 describes Constantine as erecting in front of his Basilica — the crowning member 
 of the group — it seems impossible to suggest what it may have been. 
 
 It is quite true, nevertheless, that this view of its origin has not been taken 
 
 1 De Vogiie, Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. vii. Major 
 Wilson’s Notes, p. 36. 
 
 2 Act. Sanct. ord. Ben. vol. iii. p. ii. p. 504. De 
 
 Saulcy, Voyage autour de la Mer Morte, p. xxiv. 
 Wilson’s Notes, p. 25, pi. x. fig. 6. 
 
 3 De Vogiid, Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 66. 
 
230 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 however, they also know that the apathy of the general public is such, and 
 their ignorance as a rule so great, that they will not demand a categorical 
 answer to this question, for the simple reason that few are aware of the value 
 of architectural evidence in determining such questions. All are, consequently, 
 agreed, and wisely, that silence is the best policy; and they have religiously 
 observed it. It is not, it must be confessed, a very straightforward or dignified 
 way of meeting a difficulty, but it is one that society sanctions ; and as long as 
 the world in general are content that it should be so, it must also be content 
 to put up with an imposture. It seems, however, little creditable to the boasted 
 spirit of enquiry, said to be characteristic of the nineteenth century, that this 
 should be so. 
 
 by any English author I am acquainted with ; for the simple reason that, though 
 it is now nearly thirty years since the challenge was put forward, no one 
 lias yet ventured to accept it. Like the late Professor Willis, they have all 
 ridden off on various extraneous issues, but no one has ventured to say who built 
 the Golden Gateway, nor to suggest how or why it was placed there. They 
 know, perfectly well, that no reasonable answer can be given to these questions 
 that would stop short of an admission that it was built by Constantine ; and 
 they know equally well that, if this were admitted, the whole framework 
 of impostures that has grown up around the present Church of the Holy 
 Sepulchre would crumble to pieces like the fabric of a vision. Unfortunately, 
 
 67. — West Face of Golden Gateway. (From a drawing by Arundale.) 
 
Chap. V. 
 
 THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE. 
 
 231 
 
 Fortunately for the purposes of the present investigation, there are few 
 buildings of antiquity the age of which can be ascertained with greater 
 certainty, from their own intrinsic evidence, than the Gfolden Grateway. The 
 only difficulty is that it was erected in an age of transition, when the old pagan 
 style was dying out, and the new Christian art can hardly be said to have been 
 born ; hence it contains features belonging to both styles, and its style of art 
 is not so settled as to enable us to trace the sequence with the same precision 
 
 68. — Interior or Golden Gateway. (From a drawing by David Roberts, R.A.) 
 
 we might have done had it been erected a century later or earlier. Thus it 
 might, for instance, be fairly argued that it was anterior to the time of Diocletian, 
 because — especially on its western face — all the three members of the classical 
 entablature are bent together into the form of an arch, whereas at Spalatro 
 {ante, woodcut No. 57) the architrave is generally separated from the other 
 two members, and employed as an archivolt by itself. When we reflect that, 
 for a thousand years before Constantine’s time, the classical entablature had 
 invariably consisted of three chief parts — architrave, frieze, and cornice — and 
 
232 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Part III. 
 
 this combination had become so sacred that their separation had never been 
 attempted, it is probable that bending all three together, as at Jerusalem, 
 would have preceded bending one, and leaving the other two straight, as in 
 Dalmatia. As seen, however, from the woodcut No. 57, both practices were 
 adopted in Diocletian’s palace. The architects were, in fact, feeling their way 
 towards the best mode of effecting a change that had become necessary, but 
 had not quite made up their minds how it should be done. 
 
 Besides this transitional example at Spalatro, there is an arch and some 
 other buildings at Mylasa in Caria 1 2 which resemble the Golden Gateway in 
 
 69 . — Capital and Entablature or the Interior of Golden Gateway. (From a drawing by Arundale.) 
 
 style and arrangement so much more than any known building subsequent to 
 the time of Constantine that it might plausibly be argued that it belonged 
 to Pagan rather than to Christian times. In so far as style is concerned, this 
 might be true ; but the Christian crosses on the capitals of the Golden Gateway, 
 like the bipennis of Jupiter on the keystone of the Carian arch, are quite 
 
 1 Ionian Antiquities, published by the Society of Dilettanti, vol. ii. pi. xxii. et seqq. 
 
 2 De Vogiid, Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 66. 
 
Chap. V. 
 
 THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE. 
 
 233 
 
 sufficient to settle that point. The gateway was erected by Christians, and 
 the only question is at what epoch. 
 
 On the other hand, I only know of one subsequent example, that of 
 St. John Studios (woodcut No. 64), where the order retains, as in classical 
 times, all the three essential parts of the entablature ; but this, as hinted above, 
 may be owing to its being in a metropolis, where the traditions of the art 
 would naturally have been preserved longer than in the provinces. None of 
 the examples drawn by De Vogue in Syria, of the fifth or sixth century, have 
 the complete entablature ; in all, the simple convex Byzantine cornice prevails, 
 without either its accompanying architrave or frieze. 
 
 In the interior of the gateway these distinctions are even more clearly 
 marked than on the exterior. A complete entablature runs along both the 
 northern and southern sides, resting on Corinthian pilasters of a thoroughly 
 classical type. Here, however, it is attached to the wall merely as an ornament, 
 without any constructive function to perform ; and hence there was no necessity 
 for lightening it, as in the Dome of the Rock, by cutting away the architrave 
 and leaving only a block over each pilaster. The discharging arch, also, over 
 the order is built into the wall, and is part of the construction ; but as in the 
 Dome of the Rock, so here the entablature is entirely omitted over the free- 
 standing pillars in the centre of the building. In both instances the arches spring 
 direct from the capitals without any intervening members, and may thus be 
 said to be the first really constructive examples of the newly born Byzantine 
 style, while the pilasters and entablature on the wall are the last reminiscences 
 of the dying style of classical art. 
 
 One of the most curious differences in the style of the two buildings is 
 that in the Dome of the Rock the capitals of the arch-bearing pillars are still 
 fairly classical Corinthian. The shafts, of verde antique and other precious 
 marbles, are certainly borrowed from other buildings ; and the capitals may be 
 reminiscences of those they originally bore. In the Golden Gateway, no attempt 
 is made in these free-standing pillars to reproduce the forms of Pagan art. They 
 are boldly and originally Byzantine, according neither with the corresponding 
 pilasters in the wall nor with anything else of that age. In them, as in the 
 constructive parts generally, the transition is complete ; in the other or decorative 
 parts of the gateway, it is only dawning. In fact, from whatever point of view 
 it is regarded, it seems impossible to remove the erection of the Golden Gateway 
 far from the age of Constantine, even supposing the fact of its erection by 
 him being open to doubt. Its Christian character precludes the possibility of 
 its being earlier. Its architectural features prove that it cannot be much — 
 if at all — more modern ; and its historical characteristics show as clearly as 
 anything can, that it must have been erected by Constantine, and by him only. 
 From his time to that of Justinian, Jerusalem was a prosperous Christian see. 
 The succession of bishops was unbroken ; and numerous writers — Chrysostom, 
 
234 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Pakt III. 
 
 Jerome, Socrates, Sozomen, and many others — have left records of every note- 
 worthy event that occurred during the interval that elapsed between their two 
 reigns. Not one hint is given by any of them of the erection of any building 
 at Jerusalem between the time of those enumerated by Eusebius and those 
 described by Procopius. Had any, especially any as important as the Golden 
 Gateway, been erected in the interval, it seems impossible that no notice of it 
 should be found anywhere. This evidence is, of course, only negative ; but when 
 combined with the direct testimony of Eusebius, that it formed one of a group 
 of buildings erected by Constantine, it seems more than sufficient to settle the 
 point beyond all possibility of dispute. 1 
 
 One new and important fact was brought to light by the Ordnance 
 Survey, which was a much more serious objection to my views, as originally 
 put forward, than the famous one regarding the “ broad agora,/’ and one I should 
 have found it very difficult to explain but for a fortunate discovery of Captain 
 Warren, which at once made all clear. It was that the difference of level 
 between the floor of the Golden Gateway and that of the platform on which 
 the Dome of the Rock stands is not less than 50 feet. When I first drew my 
 plans of the Christian buildings in the Haram area, I was not aware of this 
 great difference of level, and drew the Basilica with its atrium as in the axis 
 of the gateway, as is usual in Western churches ; but this allowed no means 
 of getting over the fifty feet difference of height, nor do I know now where I 
 could place the stairs requisite for ascending from one level to the other in a 
 dignified manner (see Plan No. V.). One, consequently, of the most important 
 results of Captain Warren’s great discovery was that it showed the floor of the 
 Basilica to be 30 feet below that of the upper platform, and hence only 
 20 feet above the floor of the Golden Gateway, a difference easy to get over. 
 The second important result was that it made it evident that the southern 
 wall of the Basilica was in the position where I had placed the northern, and 
 further that the agora was internal, and not external, as had been generally 
 assumed, and so clearing up all the other outstanding difficulties affecting this 
 branch of the subject still remaining unexplained. 2 
 
 1 Some further evidence on this subject will be found 
 in Appendix V., treating of the Count de Vogue’s 
 theory of the Haram ash Sharif. 
 
 2 The moment I became aware of the nature of this 
 discovery, from the lithograph prepared by the P. E. F. 
 from sketches he sent home, I wrote to Captain Warren, 
 explaining to him that what he had found was really 
 the Basilica of Constantine, and begging him to con- 
 tinue its exploration before all other things, and offered 
 to pay the expense, which I then believed would 
 probably not exceed £10 to £20. Captain Warren, 
 however, did nothing more in this direction, nor 
 
 did M. Ganneau, though I have reason for believing 
 lie could easily have done it, had be been so inclined, 
 during the year the mosque was desecrated, being 
 in the hands of the workmen for the repairs. On his 
 return home, Captain Warren mentions this discovery 
 in the most perfunctory manner, as of little consequence 
 (Recovery of Jerusalem, pp. 218-221), as not agreeing 
 with Dr. Lightfoot’s plan, but at the same time care- 
 fully suppressing any allusion to my views, or to the 
 correspondence I had had with him on the subject. 
 Subsequently, in his Underground Jerusalem (pp. 400 
 et seqq.), he merely alludes to it as a cause of bitter 
 
Chap. V. 
 
 THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE. 
 
 235 
 
 What Captain Warren did discover will be understood from the annexed 
 section and plan, both drawn to a scale of 20 feet to 1 inch. The principal part 
 
 70. — Section of Vaults discovered by Captain Warren, North of Platform of Dome of Rock. (Facsimile.) 
 
 71. — Plan of Vaults discovered by Captain Warren. 1 (Facsimile.) 
 
 was an aisle about 20 feet in width, blocked up with rubbish, which had 
 fallen in from above, at either end, but which was tolerably clear for about 
 
 complaint against me, because, wben I found he had 
 come away without any further attempt at explora- 
 tion, I — fearing that expense might he the cause of 
 nothing further being done — wrote to the “ Fund,” 
 through Major Wilson, offering them, or any one, one 
 hundred guineas if they would only sink a hole 
 where I had marked it on Plan, Plate V., and 
 
 ascertain whether the apse was there or not. I 
 am afraid, however, the opportunity is now lost. In 
 the present state of feeling between Christian and 
 Mahomedan, it is scarcely likely any digging there 
 will be allowed, and we must, therefore, be content 
 with the very meagre particulars we now possess. 
 
 1 See also Plate V. 
 
236 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 70 feet in length, east and west. On the north side was a wall with no apparent 
 opening in it ; on the south four piers were discovered, projecting from 
 16 to 17 feet from the face of the scarped rock, 3 feet 6 inches in width, 
 and somewat irregularly spaced, ranging from 12 to 13 feet. These piers 
 are partly cut from the living rock, partly eked out by masonry, and are 
 now joined by pointed vaults, evidently of Saracenic origin. Beyond this, 
 westward, at a distance of about 150 feet, “the ground sounds hollow, possibly 
 vaults underneath.” 1 
 
 The question is, What is this excavation ? It certainly is not a cistern, 
 as there are no arrangements for keeping in the water on three sides, and 
 no trace of its ever having been so employed. Besides, the piers, cut out of 
 the solid rock, with the masonry additions, are not cistern arrangements, and 
 must have been executed for some other purpose. What that purpose may 
 have been, no one has yet ventured to suggest. To me it appears hardly to 
 admit "of any question that they must be parts of one of the double aisles 
 of Constantine’s Basilica, which Eusebius describes as “ partly above ground and 
 partly beneath it.” 2 The same arrangement occurs in the contemporary churches 
 of San Lorenzo outside the Walls, and Sant’ Agnese at Rome. Both of these 
 churches had a principal, if not the principal, entrance on the flank on the 
 gallery level, and we know that the same thing occurred here, first from the 
 text of Eusebius, and now from this discovery of Captain Warren’s. But 
 this is not all ; for in consequence of it we can now understand some passages 
 in Eusebius hitherto quite unintelligible, which, but for our improved know- 
 ledge of the localities, might have remained so to the end of time. Now, 
 however, anyone who chooses can follow the narrative of Eusebius without 
 hesitation, and identify every act of the Emperor in his search for the Holy 
 places, and his endeavours to render them, by architectural decorations, worthy 
 of the important position they occupied in Christian topography. 
 
 As I have already published a careful analysis of the narrative of Eusebius, 
 from his description of the removal of the temple of Yenus 3 till the com- 
 pletion of the whole group of buildings, 4 it will not be necessary to go over 
 the same ground again, more particularly as all that really bears on Captain 
 Warren’s discovery is contained in chapters xxxiv., xxxv. and xxxvi. of the 
 3rd book of the ‘ Life of Constantine.’ 
 
 In chapter xxxiv. Eusebius describes the manner in which the Emperor 
 ornamented, not only the rock itself, but also the building in which he enclosed 
 it with beautiful columns and every sort of magnificence, meaning, as he says, 
 
 1 Last edition of Ordnance Survey map, 1876. 
 
 2 Avaytlcov re <al KornyeiW. Vita Const, iii. 27. 
 
 I wonder if any one ever seriously believed that 
 any Roman emperor had ever erected a temple to 
 
 Venus on a rock in the middle of the old Jewish 
 
 town ; or was it only that this was one of those ugly- 
 looking facts that it is so convenient to forget and pass 
 over. 
 
 4 Notes on the Site of the Holy Sepulchre, Murray, 
 1861, pp. 44 et seqq. 
 
Chap. V. 
 
 THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE. 
 
 237 
 
 to make it the chief and principal object of the whole group (tov rravros Ke(f)a\rj). 
 The 35th chapter describes, in a manner not to be mistaken, the platform on 
 which the Dome of the Rock now stands as a vast open space, paved with 
 splendid stones, and having porticos on three sides. 1 Then follows a passage 
 which I would translate as follows : — “ The Basilica was attached ” (on the 
 north) “ to that portion of this platform 2 which is situated to the eastward of 
 the side of the building containing the sacred cave ” 3 a rather free translation, 
 it must be confessed, but one that, T believe, will be borne out in every 
 particular by the context. The nominative in the second sentence is certainly 
 the “vast platform,” though it is not expressed; and Captain Warren’s discovery 
 explains how a basilica can be attached to a platform by being on a lower 
 level, though without this knowledge the statement was inexplicable. The 
 use of the word “ cave ” only for “ building containing cave ” added also to 
 the mystery. But a cave can have no sides, and, besides, we had just been told 
 that the holy cave was enclosed in a building which was intended to be 
 the most magnificent of the whole group, and it could only be of the eastern 
 side of this building, not of the side of the cave inside it, that the historian 
 was thinking of, when describing the objects external to it. 
 
 “ On the north ” is, of course, an insertion of my own, but it is just such 
 an expletive as Eusebius might have added, and so saved an infinity of 
 conjectures. There is certainly nothing to show that it might not be 
 inserted, and the new discoveries prove that its insertion was necessary to 
 complete the sense. 
 
 There is nothing now existing to show on which of the three sides of 
 the platform the porticos existed, but there is what is now represented as 
 a long cistern on the Ordnance Survey (135 by 23 feet), extending from the 
 northern door of the Dome of the Rock to where, I believe, the transept of 
 the Basilica to have been. I cannot help fancying that this may originally 
 have been intended as an inclined plane joining the two buildings, and, if so> 
 probably covered with a portico, thus cutting the platform into a western and 
 an eastern half, and so explaining further the expression of Eusebius. If so, 
 a portico would certainly extend along the southern face of the Basilica and 
 another probably opposite, so as to hide the Temple area from the sacred 
 precincts of the Christians. 4 This is, and, of course, must, for the present at least, 
 
 1 Aufiaive §’ e^rjs, eVt TrappeyiQr] x^P ov i els Kadapov 
 
 pWpiov avcnTeTTTap.il/ov , k.t.X. 
 
 2 In ordinary parlance, “ platform ” is not the usual 
 translation for x“P 0l G But, where it is found applied 
 
 to an open space that takes that form, it seems jus- 
 tifiable. In the present instance, avvryrrTo seems to 
 imply that it was “ stuck on ” to something that was 
 more clearly defined than a mere open space. 
 
 “ T<5 yap KaravTLKpv irXevpcp tov avrpov, b 8r) npbs 
 
 avl<T\ovTa rfXiov ecopa, o [3 aaiXetos (TvvrjTTTo vecos, epyov 
 i^aieriov, k.t.X. 
 
 4 In Arculfus’ plan of the four churches, quoted 
 further on, a long gallery seems to extend east and west 
 from the northern gateway of Justinian’s buildings to 
 somewhere about the Bab el Silsile, or Gate of the 
 Chain. This may probably be the portico described by 
 Eusebius. 
 
238 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Part III. 
 
 remain, conjecture; but I do not think any candid person can read the nar- 
 rative of Eusebius, with the plan of Captain Warren’s discovery before him, 
 without perceiving what a flood of light it sheds on the subject, and how 
 nearly at last it settles all the disputed points regarding , the position of the 
 Basilica and Anastasis with their surroundings. 
 
 The results of this discovery are even more satisfactory as regards the 
 Golden Gateway than respecting the Basilica. When I first wrote on the 
 subject, I had no means of knowing whether the atrium of the Basilica 
 could or could not be joined to it. It is now certain that it could not. The 
 building stands entirely free, and nothing was attached to it but the corridors 
 along the Haram walls, which certainly existed on the south and probably on 
 the north side of the building. The mode, consequently, in which the two 
 buildings were joined was an inexplicable mystery till it was discovered that 
 I had placed the northern wall of the Basilica where the southern wall ought 
 to have been, when the whole thing became clear at once. After describing the 
 interior of the Basilica, and its three eastern doors, Eusebius adds, “ There 
 was then the atrium, with its porticos on either side, and after that ” (eastward) 
 “ the gates of the atrium.” “ After these, the vestibule of the whole group of 
 buildings ” (the Golden Gateway), “ situated in the middle of a broad agora, and 
 ornamented in the most ambitious manner, and so placed that those who were 
 outside, when they looked inward, were struck with the magnificence of what 
 they saw.” 1 Any one turning to the plan (Plate Y.) will see at once how 
 perfectly every syllable of this is explained by the buildings as now arranged. 
 The agora was inside, not outside. The Golden Gateway was independent of 
 the Basilica, and those who looked inward, through it, must certainly have 
 been struck with the sjilendour of the prospect. In front of them was the 
 magnificent flight of steps leading to the upper platform. On the right was 
 the Basilica, on the left the Church of Golgotha, and in front the Dome 
 of the Rock, the chief building of the whole group. At first sight, some 
 of Eusebius’ expressions appear exaggerated, but when these buildings are 
 restored, as they can easily be from the two that remain, they appear to be 
 fully justified. 
 
 Beside the Anastasis and Martyrion, or, in other words, the Dome of the 
 Rock and the Basilica of Constantine, there was a third church, belonging to 
 the same group, called that of Golgotha. It is, however, by no means clear 
 by whom it was built. It is not mentioned by Eusebius among the buildings 
 of the Emperor, nor is there any hint of such a building being erected by 
 any one between the times of Constantine and Justinian ; still there can be 
 no doubt of its existence. Arculfus calls it a large church towards the 
 
 1 Vita Const, iii. 39. 
 
Chap. Y. THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE. 239 
 
 east, erected in that place which in Hebrew is called Golgotha. 1 The monk 
 Bernhard apparently confounds it with the Basilica of Constantine, 2 to which 
 it was attached ; but both of them mention it as one of the four separate 
 and distinct churches which in their age made up the Christian group. The 
 probability seems to be that it may have been built by Helena, the mother 
 of the emperor, when she first discovered the crosses, which seems to have 
 been the first act in that strange drama. Be this as it may, both Arculfus 
 and Bernhard describe it as situated on one side of the platform, 3 the 
 7 Ta/jifieyedr] x™P ov of Eusebius. Antoninus, indeed, gives the distance, 400 feet 
 (lxxx gressus ), which is exactly that which we obtain from the Ordnance 
 Survey. 4 
 
 It is impossible now to say what may have been the height of the 
 rock of Golgotha at the time of the Crucifixion ; it still stands more than 
 
 20 feet above the level of the floor of the Golden Gateway, and has every 
 
 appearance of having been levelled, probably at the time when it, with its 
 coherent basilica, was destroyed, either at the end of the tenth or at the 
 
 beginning of the eleventh century. If it stood 10 or 15 feet higher, it 
 
 is easy to understand how such a rock overhanging the valley of the 
 Kidron should have been chosen as a place of execution for the city of 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 Whatever it may have suffered with respect to height, the rock still 
 retains one of those features which are important in determining the locality. 
 When describing the church in the sixth century, Antoninus mentions that at 
 the altar there is an opening, at which, “ if you place your ear, you hear the 
 flowing of water, and if you throw into it an apple, or anything that will 
 swim, and go afterwards to Siloam, you will find it there.’' 5 The rock is still 
 honeycombed with cisterns, but whether they communicate with each other, 
 
 1 “Alia vero pergrandis ecclesia orientem versus in 
 illo fabricata est loco, qui Hebraice Golgotha vocatur.” 
 Acta Sanct. ssec. iii. pars ii. p. 524. 
 
 2 “ Intra banc civitatem, exceptis aliis ecclesiis, quatuor 
 
 eminent ecclesiee mutuis sibimet parietibus cohan-entes, 
 
 una videlicet ad orientem qua? babet nomen Calvarire, 
 
 et locum in quo reperta fuit crux Domini et vocatum 
 basilica Constantini. Aba ad meridiem” (Justinian’s 
 church), “ tertia ad occidentem, in cujus medio est sepul- 
 chrum Domini.” Acta Sanct. ord. Benedict, iii. pars ii. 
 p. 524. Professor Willis, in his work on the Holy 
 Sepulchre, p. 136, perceives the contradiction in this 
 passage, where it is said there were four churches, 
 while only three are described, and boldly translates 
 “ tertia ” as “ fourth.” I could not dare to do this, 
 but it is one way at least out of the difficulty, and 
 one, as it happens, in accordance with the facts of the 
 
 3 “ Inter prcedictas igitur mi ecclesias est paradisus 
 sine tecto, cujus parietes auro radiant, pavimentum 
 vero lapide sternitur pretiosissimo ” (almost the words 
 of Eusebius) “ habens in medio sui confinium nn 
 catenarum quse veniunt a prcedictis ini ecclesiis in 
 quo dicitur medius esse mundus.” Bernhard, Tobler’s 
 ed. p. 93. 
 
 “Inter Anastasim, hoc est illam ssepe memoratam 
 rotundam ecclesiam, et Basilicam Constantini quaedam 
 patet plateola usque ad ecclesiam Golgothanam, in qua 
 videlicet plateola die et nocte lampades ardent.” Adam. 
 loc. cit. 
 
 4 Antoninus, Tobler, p. 21. 
 
 6 “ Ad altarium est crepatura, ubi ponis aurem et 
 audies flumina aquarum, et si jactas malum, pomum 
 aut aliud, quod natare potest, et vadis ad Siloam fon- 
 tem et ibi suscipies.” Ant. Tobler, p. 21. 
 
 case. 
 
240 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Pakt III. 
 
 or where they overflow, has not yet been ascertained ; the strong probability 
 is, however, that the overflow of all the cisterns on this hill is towards Siloam, 
 and, at all events, it is quite certain that there are no such cisterns under 
 the Golgotha in the city, and no flow towards Siloam from that side of the 
 town. The experiment might easily be tried now, and an answer obtained 
 if the ancient channels are not choked up, which, however, they may 
 possibly be. 
 
 We are now in a position to understand the plan of Arculfus , 1 which, 
 if taken for what it pretends to be, is perfectly intelligible, and ought to be 
 final in this controversy. Like Eusebius, he avowedly exaggerates the 
 importance of the Anastasis, which was the head of the whole . 2 The Basilica, 
 which contained nothing sacred, and was merely architecturally important, 
 is represented by the letter m. 3 Even the Church of Golgotha is represented 
 as less important than the place where the crosses were found, and the 
 plateola is represented by two k’s, as if it included not only the platform but 
 the agora, which, in his mind perhaps, they did; while Justinian’s Mary 
 Church, which was the fourth in the group, is represented only by its 
 propylon. All the four are there, however, and in their relative positions, 
 though certainly not in their relative proportions, and so arranged as to 
 prove, so far as I am capable of forming an opinion, the correctness of the 
 
 1 72. — Plan of the Four Churches in the Haram Area. (By Arculfus.) 
 
 N 
 
 A, Tegurium Rotundum. B, Sepulclmim Domini. C, Altaria Dualia. D, Altaria. E, Ecclesia. F, Golgothana Ecclesia. 
 G, In loco altans Abraham. H, In quo loco Crux Dominica cum binis latronum crucibus sub terra repcrta est. I, Mensa lignea. 
 
 K, Plateola in qua die et nocte lampades ardent. L, Sanctre Mari* ecclesia. M, Constantina Basilica, hoc est martyrum. 
 
 N, Exhedra cum calice Domini. 
 
 2 “ Has itaque quaternalinm figuras ecclesiarum, 
 juxta exemplar, quod mihi (ut supra dictum est) 
 Arculfus in paginola figuravit cerata, depinximus. Non 
 quod potest earum similitudo formare in pictura, sed 
 
 ut Domiuicum monumentum, licet tali vili figuratum, 
 in medietate rotund* ecclesise constitutum monstretur, 
 
 aut quee liinc proprior ecclesia vel qu* eminus posita 
 declaretur.” Acta Sanct. vol. iii. pars ii. p. 457. 
 
 3 Nothing in this plan is more misleading than the 
 fact that the Basilica is not figured on the plan at all, 
 and its position merely indicated by the letter m, 
 which, however, is quite correct, as far as it goes. 
 
Chap. V. 
 
 THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE. 
 
 241 
 
 distribution of the Holy Places shown in Plan Y., which is based on a photo- 
 graphic reduction of the Ordnance Survey . 1 
 
 Among the places mentioned by Arculfus in his narrative, and marked on 
 his plan, is one which, in any ordinary controversy, would be considered final, as 
 fixing the position of the Christian edifices on the eastern hill. Between the two 
 churches — the Basilica of Constantine and the Church of Calvary — he points out 
 the spot where Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac . 2 It is true, ot 
 course, that this sacred locality, with all the others, has been transferred to the 
 sepulchre in the town, though one would fancy the idea of Abraham sacrificing 
 his son in the middle of a town of the Jebusites would be rather a strong dose 
 to be swallowed by even the dullest of mediaeval tradition-mongers. 
 
 The fact, however, seems to be that tradition always connected this 
 proposed sacrifice with the Mount Moriah and the Altar of David. Even 
 Josephus asserts distinctly that Abraham offered up Isaac on the mountain 
 on which David afterwards built — or proposed to build — the Temple . 3 
 St. Jerome, on three separate occasions, states, on the authority, apparently, 
 of the Jews, that the Temple was built on Mount Moriah, on which Abraham 
 offered up Isaac , 4 and this is endorsed by St. Augustine , 5 and seems to have 
 been the tradition preserved throughout the Middle Ages , 6 and only not to 
 
 1 The plan here given is based partly on the nar- 
 rative of Arculfus, as written down by Adamnanus, 
 partly on the plan drawn by him on the wax tablet. 
 It is a little difficult to reconcile some of their state- 
 ments, but it must be borne in mind that the text was 
 dictated from memory to a person who knew nothing 
 of the locality, and the plan was drawn, equally from 
 memory, not as a correct survey of the locality, but to 
 explain the relative position and relative importance of 
 the four churches, which then formed the Christian 
 establishment of Jerusalem. 
 
 2 “ Inter has itaque duales ecclesias ille famosus 
 occurrit locus in quo Abraham patriarcha altare com- 
 posuit, super illud imponens lignorum struem, et ut 
 Isaac immolaret filium suum . . . ubi nunc mensa 
 lignea et parva, super quam pauperum eleemosinae a 
 populo offeruntur.” Act. Sanct. loc. sup. cit. 
 
 3 Antiquities, i. 13, 1 & 2. 
 
 4 Com. in Jeremiam, ch. xxvi. iv. 1026 ; Com. in 
 Genesim, ch. xxii. 2, iii. 337 ; Com. in Mark, ch. xv. 
 xi. app. 125. 
 
 5 Opera omnia, tertia editio. Yenetiis, 1797, vol. xvi. 
 p. 691. 
 
 6 One of the most distinct of these records is that 
 of the deacon Theodorus or Theodosius, who, accord- 
 ing to his editor, Dr. Tobler, travelled in Palestine in the 
 sixth century. The paragraph is quoted here entire, as 
 translated from an unpublished MS. in the Catholic 
 University of Louvain, by Mr. A. B. M'Grigor, of 
 Glasgow: — “From the [scene of the] Passion of the 
 Lord, which is the place of Calvary, to the Sepulchre of 
 
 the Lord [the distance is] fifteen paces. There men 
 were purged from their sins. There Abraham offered 
 his son for a burnt offering to the Lord, which mount is 
 ascended by steps. There the cross of the Lord was 
 found where it is called Golgotha. There, are, however, 
 some who affirm that the whole part [of the cross] 
 which touched the naked body of the Lord, and was 
 dyed with His blood, was forthwith carried away from 
 human touch and sight to heaven, and that it will at 
 last appear at the judgment. And note that Jerusalem 
 is called the place of the valley of vision by Isaiah on 
 account of the height of the hills, on which summit is 
 the little hill called Moria, on which Abraham sacrified 
 Isaac, where the Jews s report [that] after[wards] the 
 Temple [was] built, and the altar, on which hill also 
 Abraham made an altar, and David saw the angel 
 sheath a sword in the threshing-floor of Oman the 
 Jebusite. Concerning which [hill] Isaiah says, ‘ There 
 shall be a mountain on the top of the mountains,’ at it 
 every nation [and] every tribe adores the temple. 
 There also Jacob saw the ladder, whence it is called 
 Bethel. From Golgotha to St. Syon [are] two hundred 
 paces, which is the mother, as they report, of all 
 churches,” &c. To this Mr. M'Grigor adds, “ What- 
 ever else may be thought of this, one thing seems clear, 
 that the writer believed that the same hill witnessed, in 
 succession, the offering of Isaac, the vision of the angel 
 at Araunah’s threshing - floor, the building of the 
 Temple, and the death and burial of our Saviour.” 
 See Notes and Queries for January 27, 1877. 
 
 2 i 
 
242 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 have been distinctly asserted by Arculfus because it was so apparent that it did 
 not require being stated. If the Christian edifices were on the eastern bill, 
 it was perfectly well known that the Temple was so also, and to state it in 
 writing would certainly have been a work of supererogation. Any attempt 
 to reconcile bis descriptions with the position of the buildings in the town 
 appears to me one of the most hopeless of undertakings, but placed as 
 shown in the plan, Plate V., not only is every word of his description intelligible, 
 but this and all other traditions of his age find a fitting local habitation and 
 a name. Though as historical facts they may be worthless, it frequently 
 happens that these traditions are of the utmost importance as local indications, 
 connecting together places that, without their evidence, we might fancy far 
 asunder. 
 
 Before describing Justinian’s Mary Church — which, though one of the 
 four great churches of Jerusalem in Arculfus’ time, was not situated on any 
 sacred site — it may be well to cast a glance backwards, to see how far the 
 Jewish and Christian sites, just pointed out, accord with or illustrate the scenes 
 of the Passion, which the Christian buildings were erected to commemorate. 
 
 The place where the Sanhedrim sat, before whom Christ was taken to be 
 judged, was undoubtedly the room Gazith, at the southern end of the Court 
 of the Women in the Temple. Thence he was taken along the east and north 
 sides of the Court of the Gentiles to the Tower Antonia, which was then the 
 Praetorium and the residence of the Roman governor. The Gabbatha, or 
 pavement, where the next scenes were enacted, must have been the inner 
 courtyard of that fortress, and it was in the dungeons either beneath or 
 attached to that court that he was mocked and scourged. Whether the Masonic 
 Hall, so called, with the pillar in its centre, was or was not the actual spot 
 where these sad scenes took place, must be left for future determination. When 
 these chambers are more perfectly explored than they have hitherto been, we 
 may be able to determine some points that must for the present be left for 
 conjecture ; but with regard to the main facts, and to its being within the 
 precincts of this fortress that all these scenes took place, there seems to be 
 no reasonable doubt. 
 
 From the court of the fortress to the place of execution measures about 
 300 yards, a distance along which a strong man might be expected to bear 
 the cross on which he was to be executed ; but even that distance was too 
 great for Jesus. He sank under the load, and they compelled Simon, a 
 Cyrenian, who passed by, “coming out of the country,” to bear his cross. 
 The expression in St. Mark, “ And when they had mocked him, they took off the 
 purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out ” ( k^dyovo-tv 
 avTov) “ to crucify him.” This accords perfectly with the parallel passage in 
 St. John, who says, “ And he, bearing his cross, went forth ” ( e^rjXOev ) “ into a 
 place called the place of a skull ” ; all tending to show that he was led out 
 
Chap. V. 
 
 THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE. 
 
 243 
 
 from the Prgetorium towards the country, and apparently to no great distance. 
 Such at least is the impression we gather from all the circumstances of the 
 case as narrated by the Evangelists. The soldiers who mocked him while on 
 the cross, and who brought him vinegar, 1 do not seem to have been the guard 
 detached specially to see the execution properly carried out, but the idle 
 soldiers of the neighbouring garrison, who, with the people, had assembled 
 to see the execution. 
 
 The vinegar here spoken of is evidently the posca, which, when mixed 
 with water, was the ordinary drink of the Roman soldiers, and must have been 
 administered by them, rather than by the Jews, who did not and would not 
 have been allowed to interfere with the execution when once it had taken place. 
 This is even more apparent in the last moments of his agony, when Jesus 
 exclaimed, “ Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” which of course the soldiers did not 
 understand. One of them ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and gave 
 it him to drink, the obvious inference being that he ran to his barracks, which 
 could not be far off, and fetched what was there to be had in abundance. 
 
 We gather the same impression from the conduct of the priests and the 
 people throughout all these transactions. They went together to the Roman 
 governor to clamour together for his execution, but there is no hint that any 
 of the priests accompanied him to the place of execution. He was followed 
 there by a great crowd of people ( 7 roXv TrXrjOos tou Xaov) ; but the priests 
 apparently kept apart, and “ mocking him, with the scribes and elders, 
 said, He saved others; himself he cannot save.’' 2 Where, then, were these 
 priests ? The answer seems easy ; they were looking on, from the roof of 
 the northern cloister of the Temple. There at least they could easily see all 
 that passed, and gloat in security over the sufferings of their victim. 
 
 All the scenes of the Passion are so familiar to every educated Christian 
 that it is needless to recapitulate or enlarge on them here 3 further than to 
 point out that, in order to understand their topographical bearing, it seems 
 indispensable that in the immediate vicinity of the place of execution there 
 should be, first, the Temple with its vindictive priesthood, next the Prgetorium, 
 with its idle and insolent soldiery, and, lastly, a public road leading from one 
 of the gates of the city, or of the fortress, along which crowds of people 
 were passing between the country and the town. It is also indispensable 
 that the place of execution should be outside the walls ; and this we know 
 was the case with the locality now indicated, as the wall that enclosed the 
 cemetery, which before was unprotected, was erected by Herod Agrippa 
 
 1 Luke xxiii. 36. 
 
 2 Matt, xxvii. 41, 42. 
 
 3 The whole of this argument has been admirably 
 
 stated, and with great fulness, by the Rev. George 
 Sandie, in his work entitled Horeb and Jerusalem, 
 published by Edmonston and Douglas, 1864. 
 
244 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 thirteen years after the time of the Crucifixion, “when those parts that were 
 situated to the northward of the Temple stood all naked.” 1 
 
 From the absence of distinct topographical indications in the New Testa- 
 ment, it may he difficult to prove this with such mathematical clearness as 
 to defy contradiction. But this, I think, may be asserted without the smallest 
 fear of refutation, that there is not one word in the narratives of the four 
 Evangelists which is not perfectly and easily intelligible on the assumption 
 that the localities are those which are pointed out in the preceding pages ; 
 while it may be asserted with equal confidence that there is not one word 
 in the Bible narrative, which can be applied to the sepulchre in the town, 
 without beiug twisted to an extent beyond the fair limits of reasonable 
 interpretation. If, indeed, it were only the truth or reasonableness of the Bible 
 narrative that were at stake, few, I believe, would doubt the correctness of what 
 has just been stated ; but, unfortunately, a sacred tradition has to be defended, 
 that thousands and tens of thousands have implicitly relied upon during the 
 last eight hundred years. On the other hand, the discovery that the Dome of the 
 Rock was built by Constantine, and for seven centuries enjoyed the reputation 
 of being the sepulchre of Christ, is only a new truth of no saving help to 
 any man’s faith, even though it explains much in the Bible narrative that 
 was hitherto obscure and unintelligible. Under these circumstances, it is little 
 to be wondered at that, with nine men out of ten, especially among the 
 clergy, it is considered better that the Bible should stand on one side. It 
 can take care of itself, hut the tradition must be carefully nursed, or it may 
 die, and by its death cause a vacancy that, with the multitude at least, it 
 would be difficult to replace. 
 
 1 Josephus, B. J. v. 4, 2. 
 
Chap. VI. 
 
 JUSTINIAN’S CHURCH AND THE MOSQUE EL AKSA. 
 
 245 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 JUSTINIAN’S CHURCH AND THE MOSQUE EL AKSA. 
 
 The fourth of the great churches which adorned the Haram area in the 
 early ages of Christianity belongs to a totally different category from the 
 three just described, which were built by Constantine or his mother. They 
 were erected in honour of the Son, to commemorate his Passion, and to 
 sanctify the spots where he suffered and was buried, and they sufficed for 
 the faith of that age. Before Justinian’s time, however, a new article of 
 faith had been added to the creed, and Mariolatry had assumed an import- 
 ance almost equal to the worship in earlier times only accorded to the Son. 
 No ecclesiastical establishment could consequently be considered complete 
 without a church dedicated to the Mother of Clod (jfj OeoTOKoi). This want 
 Justinian undertook to supply. In doing so, however, he was not, like his 
 predecessor, bound to any particular spot, but it was deemed indispensable 
 it should be near, practically attached, to the other churches erected by 
 CoDstantine. 
 
 We do not know sufficiently how the northern portion of the Haram 
 area was occupied at that time to be able to explain why he did not place 
 his church on the north side of the Basilica of Constantine. Possibly it may 
 have been occupied by the residences or other ecclesiastical offices belonging 
 to that establishment. In the time of the Crusades, this certainly seems to 
 have been the case , 1 and it may have been so in Justinian’s time. But, from 
 whatever cause, it is certain that he chose the south-eastern angle, notwith- 
 standing the difficulties it presented in consequence of the inequality of its 
 levels, and of its being hemmed in between the Temple and the steep valley 
 of the Kidron. The description of the building by Procopius and the hints we 
 get from Antoninus are so circumstantial and so distinct that no author of 
 any importance, that I am acquainted with, doubts that the church stood in 
 the southern portion of the Haram area. Some, it is true, like De Vogue , 2 
 place it actually within the precincts of the ancient Temple, and assume that 
 the present mosque El Aksa is, or was, Justinian’s church, converted into a 
 mosque. Of all the strange theories which the defenders of the present sepulchre 
 
 1 “ Ab aquilone ” (from the Templum Domini) “ idem atrium angustatur in parte propter adjunctionem 
 
 claustri dominorum.” John of Wurzburg, Tobler’s ed. p. 129. 2 Vide Appendix V. 
 
246 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Part III. 
 
 have been forced to adopt, this is one of the most absurd and untenable ; 
 in the first place, because it is known and universally admitted that, from 
 the time of Julian’s frustrated attempts in the fourth century till the time of 
 Euty chius, in the eighth at least ( ante , page 182), the site of the Temple of the 
 Jews was held to be accursed by the Christians, and the idea, of Justinian 
 building his Mary Church within it, is too preposterous to be for one moment 
 entertained. In the next place, it is contradicted by every word in the 
 description of Procopius. What he tells us is that the site he chose was so 
 uneven that he was obliged to expend immense treasures to bring up the 
 foundation to a sufficient height for a situation for his church. 1 Had he 
 chosen the position of the Aksa, all he would have had to do would have 
 been to clear away some ancient remains, “ veterum ruinarum reliquias,” as 
 Arculfus tells us Abd-el-Malek did, and he would have secured a foundation 
 so solid and level as not to require the expenditure of one penny piece for this 
 purpose. Had he elected to erect it on the site of the ancient Temple, there 
 was a perfectly level and solid foundation 600 feet square, on any part of which 
 he might have erected buildings of double the extent we are led to expect he 
 ever contemplated. And, thirdly, we have, after Justinian’s time, a detailed 
 account of the cession of the Temple area, by the patriarch Sophronius to 
 Omar, on his undertaking to erect only one place of prayer in Jerusalem, and 
 we have detailed accounts of the buildings of Omar and Abd-el-Malek, 
 which make it quite certain that the Aksa was built by them from the 
 foundations, while there is absolutely no hint or complaint before the eleventh 
 century that the Moslems had violated the terms of Omar’s treaty, and had 
 appropriated Justinian’s or any other church to their purposes. 
 
 Most of the facts bearing on this question have already been alluded to 
 in the preceding pages, and I shall have again occasion to recur to them in 
 Appendix V., when noticing De Yogiie’s views on the subject; meanwhile, 
 the three facts just quoted will probably suffice to show that the Aksa is 
 not Justinian’s church, nor situated in the same locality. If, therefore, this 
 church stood within the southern limits of the Haram area, there is absolutely 
 no place for it but in that angle, where, as is shown above, it seems now 
 quite certain that Solomon’s palace once stood. 
 
 Among the minor points connected with the topography of Jerusalem, 
 there are few more perplexing or mysterious than our utter ignorance of how 
 this angle was occupied from the time of the Captivity to that of Justinian. 
 That the palace was burnt when the city was taken is more than probable ; 
 but even supposing it was not rebuilt and occupied as a palace after the 
 return, it is most improbable that so valuable a site would have been allowed 
 to lie waste or covered with ruins. It must have been utilised in some way 
 
 1 Vide Appendix III. 
 
Chap. VI. 
 
 JUSTINIAN'S CHUKCH AND THE MOSQUE EL AKSA. 
 
 247 
 
 or other ; yet we have not in Josephus or any other author a hint that 
 would guide us to a knowledge of the manner in which this was done. The 
 east front of the Temple is not, apparently, mentioned in the ‘ Wars of 
 the Jews.’ The Romans never attacked that side of the Temple, though 
 it would appear to have been even more vulnerable than the front protected 
 by the tower Antonia. It almost seems as if Lewin 1 and Sandie 2 were right, 
 that there was a “ so-called Kidron ravine ” distinct from “ the Kidron valley,” 
 which ran past this front or angle, and that the north-east angle really stood 
 on a precipice, as Josephus asserts. 3 This, however, can only be ascertained 
 when excavations are made, which have not yet been attempted, and will 
 hardly be allowed while the present state of affairs lasts. 
 
 What Procopius tells of this building, is this. 4 The Emperor, having 
 determined to erect a temple to the Mother of Grod, chose a site which, unlike 
 that of the other churches of the city, was steep and rugged, and did not 
 possess either on the south or east sides sufficient space for an establishment 
 such as he wished to erect ; he, consequently, was obliged to carry up v 7 alls 
 or piers from the foundation, and join them with arches till the structure 
 reached the level of the rest of the sacred area ( kvOiixevot o-wdurovcrL tt)v 
 oiKoSofj-iav tco dWco tov re/xevovs IS d<f>eb), so that one half of the structure rested 
 on the solid rock, one half hung in the air on the substructure so raised. 
 This description fits exactly with the state of affairs we now find in this angle 
 of the Haram area, but does not apply in the remotest degree to anything 
 known to exist elsewhere ; especially so as regards the levels, for the 
 pavement supported by the arches in the south-east angle is exactly on the 
 
 same level (contours 2409, 2412) as the floor of the Grolgotha Church and 
 
 that of the Basilica of Constantine. He then goes on to narrate how the 
 Emperor, in order to get stones of sufficient size for this great undertaking, 
 was obliged to open new quarries for the new work, and chariots so large 
 as to require 40 chosen oxen to draw them ; all which would justify the belief 
 that the whole substructure of the south-east angle, 80 feet below the present 
 surface, was the work of Justinian, if it were not, as stated above, that we 
 have strong reasons for believing it to be the work of Solomon. Then follows 
 a description of the pains he took, and at what enormous cost he got timbers 
 
 of sufficient length and sufficient scantling for the roof of his church, and 
 
 marble pillars of great beauty to adorn the interior. He then describes the 
 arrangement of the parts, but without dimensions, and in such a manner 
 that, as in the case with almost every verbal description that has come down 
 to us from antiquity, it is impossible to feel much confidence in any restoration. 
 
 1 Sketch of Jerusalem, pp. 208, 217. 
 
 2 Horeh and Jerusalem, p. 259. 
 
 3 B. J. vi. 4, 2. 
 
 * De ^Edificiis Justiriiani, v. 6. The passage is too 
 
 long to print in extenso in the text, but a translation of 
 it will be found in Appendix III., to which the reader is 
 referred. 
 
AREA jr : 0FW JEW 
 
 73. — Diagram explanatory of the Probable Arrangement of Justinian’s Buildings in the 
 South-east Angle of the Haram. 
 
Chap. VI. 
 
 JUSTINIAN’S CHUKCH AND THE MOSQUE EL AKSA. 
 
 249 
 
 That shown in the woodcut on the opposite page must be considered as only 
 tentative, and open to any amount of criticism and emendation. 
 
 It seems probable that the church itself stood on that part of the founda- 
 tion which is solid, and lay in a direction east and west ; not only because 
 eastern orientation was then becoming fashionable in the Greek Church, but 
 because Procopius mentions that it was surrounded by external colonnades on 
 all sides except the east, which favours this idea. The narthex, consequently, 
 would face the west ; but whether accessible from the Triple Gateway, or whether 
 that incline was closed, it is not now easy to determine without excavation. 
 
 Among other peculiarities, Procopius mentions two enormous pillars “ un- 
 surpassed by any in the world,” which stood before the door of the church 
 externally. This, however, occurs in the text after describing the interior, 
 but before alluding to the narthex. There must, therefore, have been another 
 door not on the west, but most probably where I have placed it at the northern 
 end of the transept, where it would be both convenient and appropriate. I 
 have assumed there was a transept from the spacing of the arches in the 
 southern vaults. When I last wrote on the subject, I assumed that this spacing 
 — 21, 30, and 21 feet — indicated the existence of an octagonal cupola over the 
 church supported on pendentives. 1 A more careful study, however, of the 
 text of Procopius leads me now to believe that the roof was wholly of wood, 
 and the spacing would, therefore, indicate the existence of a transept. Except 
 as regards the design, the matter is not of much consequence, as no part of 
 the church stood actually over the vaults now open ; but their piers, either 
 partially opened or filled in, may reach quite across the church to the northern 
 side. 
 
 The vaults to the southward of the church were far too weak to support 
 either the Stoa Basilica, as Captain Warren supposes, or even the walls of a 
 church such as that just described ; but they are quite sufficiently strong to 
 support a cloister and the one-storeyed buildings of an Oriental monastery. 
 As such I have restored it, this theory being consonant with what Procopius 
 tells us of the Emperor’s intention and the general arrangement of such 
 buildings. 
 
 To the north I have placed the hospital and guest apartments ; but, 
 again, these arrangements are left very much to imagination. Though we 
 cannot believe that the hospital contained three thousand beds, as Antoninus 
 asserts, it was and must have been by far the most extensive establishment 
 of its class in Jerusalem, and seems to have been erected to supply the pilgrims 
 to the holy places with that accommodation which Constantine had neglected to 
 afford. 
 
 One other peculiarity is mentioned by Antoninus (570 a.d.), which is the 
 
 2 K 
 
 Topography of Jerusalem, p. 123. 
 
250 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 tradition that the Prsetorium was situated here, and that in this church, along- 
 side Solomon’s Porch, was the judgment seat on which Pilate sat when Christ 
 was brought before him. 1 This tradition is interesting as showing that the 
 memory of Solomon’s judgment seat still lingered — perhaps even the building 
 — down to the sixth century, and that the position of Solomon’s Porch was 
 then perfectly well known ; a fact that at once clears away a vast amount of 
 ingenious, but very unsound speculation. 
 
 In the plan of Justinian’s buildings (woodcut No. 73), I have reproduced 
 the judgment seat of Solomon as shown in the plan of his buildings (Plate I.), 
 merely altering its name to that of Sancta Sophia, which seems to be what it 
 bore in the middle ages. It is, of course, impossible to prove that this was 
 so, but it not only fits admirably with all we know of the locality, but also 
 with all the written indications we have regarding these buildings. The point 
 is, however, well worthy of further investigation, for if the identity of the 
 two buildings could be established, it would do more to connect the earliest 
 with the latest buildings in the Haram area than almost any other theory 
 that can be suggested. 
 
 Although the site chosen by Justinian was only about half the extent 
 of that occupied by the Temple of the Jews as rebuilt by Herod, it seems to 
 have been ample for the accommodation of a first-class religious establishment 
 as arranged in his day. There was room for a church as large as almost any 
 one we know of that age, always, of course, excepting his own Sancta Sophia 
 in his capital. Beyond that to the southward there was space enough — more, 
 indeed, than seems to have been required — for the accommodation of a very 
 large monastic establishment. To the north there was also abundant room for 
 a hospice or guest hall, and for a hospital for sick or infirm persons. Whether 
 these were arranged exactly as shown in the plan, it is impossible to say. All 
 that is proposed in the drawing is that it shall accord with Procopius’ description 
 as nearly as it is possible to understand it; and, secondly, that it shall be 
 convenient, and accord with the usual distribution of such establishments in 
 so far as they are known to us. Any attempt to carry it further into detail 
 would be, not only a waste of time, but in reality deceptive, as leading to the 
 presumption that materials did really exist for a more complete restoration. 
 As nothing except the arches and the piers that support them in the south- 
 east corner of the Haram area now exists on the spot, and there is nothing 
 beyond the description of Procopius, and one or two hints from other authors, 
 to guide us in our restoration, it seems in vain to hope for much greater 
 
 1 “ De Sion venimus in basilicam Sanctas Marias ubi 
 est congregatio magna monacborum, ubi sunt et xeno- 
 dochia virorum ac mulierum; mensas innumerabiles, 
 lecti asgrotorum sunt amplius tria millia. Et oravimus 
 in Prastorio ubi auditus est Dominus, et modo est basi- 
 
 lica Sanctas Sopliiae. Ante ruinas templi Salomonis 
 sub platea aqua decurrit ad fontem Siloam. Secus por- 
 ticum Salomonis in ipsa basilica est sedes, in qua sedit 
 Pilatus quando Dominum audivit,” &c. Ant. Mart. ed. 
 Tobler, p. 25. 
 
Chap. VI. 
 
 JUSTINIAN’S CHUECH AND THE MOSQUE EL AKSA. 
 
 251 
 
 precision than is shown in woodcut No. 73, unless excavations should reveal 
 something which is at present hidden from us, and which, unfortunately, is not 
 under present circumstances likely to be disclosed to us within any reasonable 
 limit as to time. 
 
 If anything like fair dealing were tolerated in a controversy of this sort, 
 or the same logic were applied to buildings in Jerusalem that is applied to 
 buildings elsewhere, this one fact — which no one disputes — of Justinian erecting 
 his Mary Church where he did, would be considered as final in the controversy. 
 No reason can be assigned — at least, none has yet — for the Emperor choosing 
 the most difficult and expensive site about Jerusalem for this purpose, except it 
 was that all the Christian churches at that date were within the Haram area, 
 and it was consequently indispensable that his should be there also. Had the 
 Sepulchre then been where it now is, he probably would have acted as his 
 successors did, and placed his church where that of Sancta Maria Latina stood, in 
 the same relative position to the new holy places that Sancta Maria Gfrmca did 
 to the older Constantinian buildings, and he never would have thrust his great- 
 establishment between Solomon’s Porch of the Temple, and the brow of the 
 valley of Kidron. This, however, is one of those important questions which 
 writers about Jerusalem have taken special care to avoid answering. They 
 know perfectly well its difficulty, and that an incautious answer might betray 
 the weakness of their cause. Silence in that case is far safer, and they fancy 
 they may surely trust to the ignorance and indifference of their readers. They 
 are probably right, but if any one is really in earnest, and anxious for the 
 truth, perhaps he will try at least to explain what is now so mysterious. 
 
 El Aksa. 
 
 After all that has been said above about the selection by Omar of a 
 site for the erection of his mosque within the precincts of the Jewish Temple, 
 and of its erection there by Abd-el-Malek, under the name of El- Aksa, 
 a very few words will suffice to explain its bearing on the question of 
 its identity with the church of Justinian, with which it has been so frequently 
 confounded. Except for its situation and bearing on the questions now 
 occupying us, the Aksa has no claim on our attention. Its history, as above 
 explained, is perfectly well known, and is of no particular interest; and 
 whether looked at from a constructive or artistic point of view, there is 
 probably no building — certainly none of the same dimensions erected by the 
 Moslems — in any part of the world so totally devoid of merit of any class or 
 kind. No building, in fact, more richly deserved the description of it given 
 by Arculfus, who saw it in its first bloom, but said it was “ vili fabricata 
 
252 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 opere.” 1 So badly, indeed, was it constructed that the whole of the south- 
 eastern angle fell down fifty-eight years after its completion (a.d. 747), and 
 when that was repaired, it tumbled down again thirty years afterwards. 2 
 In both these cases the historian excuses the architect by throwing the blame 
 on an earthquake. The shock, however, must have been very slight and 
 extended over a very limited area, as it has not caused a crack or any 
 perceptible damage to either the Dome of the Rock or the Golden Gateway, 
 which, except in Jerusalem, would have been equally exposed to its violence. 
 
 74. — Mosquf. et, Aksa. (From a plan by Mr. Catherwood.) 
 
 The greatest damage, most probably, was done by the Knights Templar, 
 who took their name from their adopting this mosque as a residence and 
 stable, and were not at all likely to respect or spare a building that professed 
 to be either the accursed Temple of the Jews or the place of prayer of their 
 Paynim foes. But be this as it may, it is certain that the principal repairs 
 which the Aksa has undergone were executed after the destruction of the 
 neighbouring buildings erected by Justinian. The two pillars drawn by 
 De Vogue, plate xxxii. — one of which may be one of the two described 
 
 1 Ante, page 192. 
 
 Sauvnire’s translation of Mejr eel Din, pp. 59, 60. 
 
Chap. VI. 
 
 JUSTINIAN’S CHURCH AND THE MOSQUE EL AKSA. 
 
 253 
 
 by Procopius as adorning the portal of the church — certainly were, at 
 
 all events, executed in the age of Justinian, and as certainly belonged to 
 
 some building of his. It is at the south end of the mosque, however, that 
 
 capitals and pillars of Justinian’s age, or copied from his style, are most 
 frequent (woodcut No. 56), and which, if his, could, consequently, only have been 
 placed there either in the tenth or eleventh century, or after the Crusades. 
 Unfortunately we do not know when Justinian’s great establishment was 
 broken up. We have no complaint, however, of any destruction of any 
 Christian buildings in Jerusalem anterior to the time of Moez, 969 a.d. It 
 certainly was in its glory when the monk Bernhard visited the place, 
 
 870 a.d. 1 His description of it is so nearly identical with that of Antoninus 2 
 that there can be no doubt that they are describing the same building, and 
 as little that the latter, at least, is speaking of those just erected by Justinian. 
 It may, however, have been one of the first to suffer in the persecution that 
 set in at the end of the following century. 
 
 Another evidence of the existence of Justinian’s church contemporaneously 
 with the Aksa is derived from the statistical account of the clergy of Jerusalem, 
 compiled in a.d. 808, and published by Tobler, in his valuable collection of tracts 
 relating to this subject. 3 At that time this church seems to have ranked third 
 among the ecclesiastical establishments in Jerusalem. 4 * Curiously enough, it 
 still bore, in the ninth century, the epithet of “ New,” which Procopius tells 
 us was apjilied to it in the sixth. Whether the various places mentioned in the 
 text were chapels in this establishment, or separate places of worship, is not 
 quite clear. My impression is that they were chapels of this one church. 
 
 Some may have been induced to give a hasty assent to the idea of the Aksa 
 being Justinian’s church from a cursory inspection of the plan, and from the 
 idea generally entertained, that a building with a central and side aisles, and 
 a clerestory over the central one, can only be a church. In the first place, 
 however, there is now, at least, no clerestory. The two ranges of windows 
 shown in De Yogiie'’s plate xxxi. are mere niches, and do not open to the 
 exterior, while some, at least, of the side aisles have been added long after 
 the original building was complete. It is, indeed, extremely difficult to say 
 what the original plan of the building may have been, but one thing, probably, 
 must be admitted, that, if Justinian had built it, he would not have turned the 
 apse to the south. It is quite true that Eastern orientation was not, in early 
 times, the absolute law it has become now on this side of the Alps ; but when 
 nothing interfered, it certainly was usual, 6 especially in the Eastern Church ; and 
 
 1 Tobler’s edit. p. 91. 
 
 2 Ant. Mart., Tobler’s edit. p. 25. 
 
 3 Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae ex sceculo viii, ix, xii 
 et xv, pp. 77 et seqq. 
 
 4 “ In Sancta Maria Nova, quam Justinianus impe- 
 
 rator extruxit xn, in sancto Thalelaeo i, in Sancto Gre- 
 
 gorio ii, in Sancta Maria ubi nata fuit in probatica 
 v, inclusse Deo sacrata: xxv.” Tobler, Descript, p. 78. 
 
 5 Paulinus of Nola, in the very beginning of the 
 fifth century, apologises for the church not being turned 
 to the east, “ut mos usitatior est” (Paulini Nola? 
 Epist. xn ad Scverum). 
 
254 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 as nothing prevented its being adopted here, there is little doubt that the apse 
 would have been turned to the east, had the Aksa originally been a Christian 
 church. Besides this, the fact must not be overlooked that the Arabs had no 
 architecture of their own, and, wherever they went, were dependent on the 
 natives of the countries they spread over, not only for the construction, but 
 for the plans, of their edifices. Even as late as the thirteenth century 
 (605 h.) we find them, in India, forced to employ Hindu builders to erect 
 their mosques, and in the first century of the Hegira they were entirely 
 dependent on Byzantine architects for any designs they might wish to carry 
 out. But it is useless pursuing this line of argument further here. Those 
 who believe that Justinian erected his Mary Church within the precincts of 
 the Temple of the Jews will believe anything, and certainly will not be 
 turned from their faith by any architectural or archaeological arguments that 
 may be addressed to them. 
 
Part III. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 255 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Although the plates and woodcuts in the text of this work may, when 
 carefully studied, be sufficient to explain the plans of the various buildings 
 described in the preceding pages, it may add to the clearness of the narrative if 
 the whole of the later ones are grouped together as shown in Plate VII., so 
 that their relative positions and importance may be seized at a glance. The 
 position and dimensions of the area of the Temple as enlarged by Herod is, 
 of course, the foundation of the whole. If it was either greater or smaller 
 than here shown, or occupied any other portion of the Haram area, the whole 
 argument falls to the ground ; but enough has, I believe, been said to prove that 
 point beyond dispute. Though not quite so certain, or so well defined, the 
 position and dimensions of the Temple fortress — the Antonia — seem to have 
 been very nearly what they are represented in the plan. Beyond that, any 
 remains of ancient masonry that may exist on the west side of the Haram area 
 certainly belonged to the second wall, which, at the time of the Crucifixion, 
 was the external wall of the town. It extended northward from the Antonia 
 to some point of the present wall, eastward of the Damascus Gate, near which 
 its junction, probably, might be found, if looked for. That gate certainly 
 belonged to it, and the arch of the “ Ecce Homo ” now, probably, occupies the 
 position of one of its ancient gates. The first-named has been rebuilt by the 
 Saracens ; the second, probably, in the time of Hadrian, when the Romans 
 were too strong to require the walls any longer for defence, and used them 
 more for fiscal or police purposes ; or it may be that, after the building of 
 the third wall by Agrippa, this gate became an inner gate, and was rebuilt 
 as we now see it merely as the “ Temple Bar ” of an inner ward. 
 
 All the space eastward of the second wall, northward from the Temple, 
 and extending down to the brook Ividron, was, if I am not mistaken, the 
 great cemetery of the people of Israel, from the time when they wrested 
 the city from the Jebusites till its destruction by Titus. If this is so, the 
 relative positions of the Anastasis, the Basilica, and the Church of Golgotha, 
 are easily understood, and all the events of the Passion they were erected to 
 commemorate can be followed without difficulty or hesitation. 
 
 This being so, the reason also becomes perfectly plain why Justinian 
 chose the south-eastern angle of the Haram area for the erection of the fourth 
 great church which completed the Christian establishments of Jerusalem during 
 
256 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 the Middle Ages. But more than all this, Plate VII. enables us to understand 
 without difficulty the events that followed on the capitulation of the city to 
 the khalif Omar in the seventh century. The site of the Temple had been 
 left desolate, and the Altar-stone covered with filth. But when Omar had 
 prayed on the steps of the Basilica of Constantine, he was led out by the 
 Golden Gateway, round to the Huldah or Water Gate, and, penetrating by it, 
 lie found the true Sakhra, which the Moslems worshipped till they inherited the 
 building Constantine had erected over the greater Sakhra, which he believed 
 to cover the sepulchre of Christ. 
 
 Whether looked at from an historical, a topographical, or an archaeological 
 point of view, the arrangement of the various buildings in all their successive 
 changes shown in this plate seems to me so consistent, and so easily intelligible, 
 that it is difficult to understand their being considered doubtful. On the other 
 hand, no other scheme, so far as I know, meets or even pretends to meet the 
 exigencies of the case in anything like the same fulness. 
 
 In addition to the considerations of an historical or a topographical nature, 
 there is still one of an artistic character, which can hardly be too often or 
 too strongly insisted upon, and to which it may be as well again to allude 
 to before concluding. It is the extreme beauty both of the design and 
 decoration of the Dome of the Rock as compared with the total absence 
 of these characteristics in the Aksa. The difference is curiously illustrative of 
 the history of art, and has never, so far as I know, been sufficiently insisted 
 upon by writers on Jerusalem. 
 
 Even now, notwithstanding recent discoveries, we have very little means 
 of forming correct views of what the external appearance of the Dome of the 
 Rock may have been when first erected. The lower casing of marble is 
 certainly jDart 0 f the original design, though a good deal damaged by modern 
 repairs and alterations, and by the insertion of fragments from other buildings. 
 
 The upper arcade is, also, certainly part of the original design ; but how 
 the intermediate storey was adorned is not so clear. We ought not, however, 
 to expect much, as it was by no means the fashion to adorn the exterior of 
 Christian buildings to any great extent in Constantine’s time. In order, 
 apparently, to distinguish them from Pagan buildings of the same class, all 
 their wealth of ornament was lavished on their interiors, leaving the outside 
 comparatively plain, and a simple fa<^ade of ashlar work may consequently 
 have been all that was originally designed. 
 
 Unlike the confused patchwork of the Aksa, few buildings have been so 
 little altered internally as the Dome of the Rock, and its effect must have 
 been, when first erected, very much what it is now. The one great change 
 has been the introduction of those beautiful windows of Persian stained glass 
 in the sixteenth century. They are beautiful works of art in themselves, and, 
 by subduing the light, add very much to the solemn effect of the interior. The 
 
Part III. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 257 
 
 windows may, however, have been originally filled with pierced marble slabs, 
 like those drawn in De Vogue’s ‘ Syrie Centrale ’ (plates 13 and 14), or those 
 figured by Nesbitt on plates xi.-xiv. of the 40th volume of the ‘ Archaaologia.’ 
 These last are admirably adapted, especially plates xiii. and xiv., to subdue the 
 light sufficiently, while the white light so introduced would be more favourable, 
 to the effect of the mosaics, than the coloured light of the present windows, and 
 would have displayed the richness of the verde antique and other marble columns 
 to more advantage than is now possible. It is not, however, only to mosaics 
 and marbles that this interior owes its effect, but to the exquisite proportions 
 of the parts, and to the mode in which the whole design is so admirably 
 adapted to its one purpose of fixing the attention on the Sacred rock and its 
 Holy cave, and of proclaiming in the most unmistakable manner that it was 
 to honour them that it was erected. 
 
 As before stated, except the Taje Mahal and one or two of the great 
 Indian sepulchres, I know of no tomb or tomblike building in the whole 
 world that can compare in beauty of proportion, or in solemnity of effect, 
 with this, the earliest effort of purely Christian architectural art. 
 
 When from this beautiful building we turn to the Aksa, we find a 
 totally different state of things — a heterogeneous mass of incongruous parts 
 thrown together without either elegance of proportion or beauty of detail, 
 making up a structure of a totally dissimilar class, and belonging certainly to 
 quite a different age from the beautiful octagon in its immediate proximity. 
 It is a curious fact that in none of the various rebuildings of the Aksa do the 
 Saracens seem to have introduced any of those exquisite details which are found 
 in all their mosques at Cairo or Damascus. The finest part of the building is 
 undoubtedly the northern fa<j:ade and porch, but this was added after the 
 Crusades, and its lines are not carried round on either flank. The present 
 dome, too, seems a comparatively modern addition, and though the same is 
 true of that over the Rock, this is very inferior to that one either in extent 
 or in beauty of outline. 
 
 It may of course be difficult for those who have never visited Jerusalem 
 to realise the differences existing between these two buildings, especially as 
 the Aksa has never been properly illustrated. De VogikTs work, and Karl 
 Haag’s and Karl Werner’s drawings, have made the features of the Dome of 
 the Rock familiar to the public; but no artist would waste his time on such 
 a building as the Aksa. De Vogue gives only two sections (plate xxxi.), and 
 these on so small a scale as not to convey any real idea of the style. In my 
 ‘ Ancient Topography of Jerusalem’ I have given views of the interiors of both, 
 which are sufficient for the purpose {ante, woodcuts Nos. 55 and 5(3) ; but from 
 the fact of their being engraved in different styles, the comparison is not so 
 obvious as it might have been made if both had been either line engraving 
 or both mezzotints. There are, however, two photographs of these interiors 
 
 2 l 
 
258 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. 
 
 Part III. 
 
 published by the Palestine Exploration Fund, which are easily procurable, and 
 the examination of which ought to satisfy any one that the buildings are neither 
 in the same style nor of the same age ; and if this is so, all the myths about 
 their being both built by Abd-el-Malek fall at once to the ground, even if 
 there were not such a complete catena of written evidence to establish how 
 utterly untenable any such hypothesis can be proved to be. 
 
 Nothing has been said in the preceding pages regarding the so-called 
 Holy Sepulchre in the town, for the simple reason that, if I am right in 
 supposing it proved that the four great churches of Jerusalem originally stood 
 in the Harare area, this church is a convicted forgery. This has, indeed, 
 been suspected by many of the best topographers of Jerusalem, from the days 
 of Korte 1 downwards, owing to the impossibility of reconciling the situation 
 with the facts as narrated by the Evangelists ; but the argument has hitherto 
 generally failed to carry conviction to most minds, from the inability of those 
 who maintained it to provide a substitute. Now, however, that it can be 
 proved to demonstration that the Dome of the Rock is the building which 
 Constantine built over what he, at all events, believed to be the sepulchre of 
 Christ — cadit queestio — Constantine did not build two sepulchres in Jerusalem. 
 A choice must consequently be made ; and when the subject is honestly and 
 fairly approached, there is little doubt that most people will select that one 
 which accords with every word of the Bible narrative, in preference to the 
 other, with which the events of the Passion, as narrated by the Evangelists, 
 cannot possibly be reconciled. 
 
 During the last thirty years, nothing has occurred to throw any fresh light 
 on the subject of the transference of the Holy Sepulchre, from the eastern to the 
 western hill. There is therefore little or nothing to be added to what was stated 
 at length in the third part of ‘ The Ancient Topography of Jerusalem’ (pp. 156, 
 187). The principal facts connected with this transaction were then clear, as 
 they are now. There is no complaint anywhere, before the time of El-Hakim, 
 the mad khalif of Egypt, of the Saracens having been guilty of any infraction 
 of the treaty made by the khalif Omar with the patriarch Sophronius. He, in a.d. 
 1009, destroyed the Basilica of Constantine — “ solo co-sequavit” — and appropriated 
 the tomb of Christ to the purposes of his own religion, as is abundantly confirmed 
 by the Kufic inscription afterwards added, in mosaic, on its walls by one of his 
 successors. At the time that El-TIakim committed this outrage on their holy 
 places, he expelled the Christian inhabitants from Jerusalem, and allowed them no 
 access to the place during his lifetime. When they crept back after his death, 
 they naturally built for their own purposes a church in their own quarter of 
 the town, and erected therein a Sepulchre at which the Easter rites might be 
 
 1 Jonas Kortens Reise nacli dem Gelobten Lande, &c., Altona, 1741-48. 
 
Part III. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 259 
 
 performed. As time wore on, this became, as a matter of course, the Sepulchre 
 of Christ at Jerusalem, and pilgrims made their offerings, and had their faith 
 strengthened by worshipping at this shrine. Besides being securely situated in 
 their own quarter of the town, the spot selected for the new church had the 
 further advantage of being in the immediate proximity of a group of ancient 
 Jewish graves 1 still existing there, which gave apparent authenticity to the 
 tradition that the “ Tegurium ” they had erected was really nigh to the “ place of 
 a skull.” 
 
 In addition to these advantages, the arrangements of the new church were, 
 according to the ideas then prevalent, in many respects superior to those of the 
 old group. It united under one roof, besides the place of Crucifixion and the Holy 
 Sepulchre, all the localities of the Passion described by the Evangelists, and had 
 — what was an almost indispensable adjunct to a sacred locality in Palestine — 
 a cave in which the Cross was found in some mysterious manner by Holy 
 Helena. It had also a choir and apse turned towards the east, which, in the 
 eyes of mediaeval churchmen, was a very superior arrangement to that of 
 the Basilica of Constantine with its western hemicycle. 
 
 With all these advantages, it is little to be wondered at that the Christian 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem willingly accommodated themselves to the new locality, 
 and that pilgrims in the eleventh century were easily persuaded that the localities 
 pointed out to them were really those in which the scenes of the Passion had 
 actually been enacted. Ninet}^ years had elapsed since the destruction of Constan- 
 tine’s Basilica by El-Hakim before these Western pilgrims came back, with arms in 
 their hands, to rescue from the hands of the infidels, the Sepulchre where they had 
 worshipped. At that time, no one was living in Jerusalem who could have re- 
 membered the buildings in the Haram being in the possession of the Christians, 
 and they and their fathers had always worshipped in the church in the town. In 
 the illiterate East, memory soon fades, and the growth of tradition is much more 
 rapid than in the soberer West. The time was therefore ample for the obliteration 
 of the knowledge of the true facts of the case in so far as the general public were 
 concerned ; nor should we feel surprised or indignant at the conduct of the priests, 
 or of those who knew the truth, on this occasion. They acted in precisely the 
 same manner, and were actuated by the same motives, as nine-tenths of those who 
 have taken up the controversy in the nineteenth century, and who think that the 
 faith of the multitude must be protected against the inopportune suggestions of 
 scientific investigations. 
 
 Notwithstanding its being a counterfeit, if the sepulchre in the city 
 possessed any beauty of design or detail, or any evidence of antiquity, it 
 might have been useful to introduce it in an illustration of some things, 
 
 1 Described by M. Ganneau, in the Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund for April 1877 
 and by Major Wilson, in the July number of the same publication of that year. 
 
260 
 
 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Part III. 
 
 or as a means of comparison. But it has nothing of the sort. On its 
 southern fa£ade there is a Corinthian cornice, used unsymmetrically as a string 
 course, and evidently borrowed from the ruins of the Basilica of Constantine 
 after it was destroyed by El-Hakim in the beginning of the eleventh century. 
 In the interior there are one or two capitals borrowed in like manner from 
 the buildings of Justinian after their destruction, probably, about or before the 
 same time. Beyond this, everything is avowedly subsequent to the age of 
 the Crusades, and not good of its kind even then ; and what little merit it 
 may have had was wiped out by the fire of 1808, when the present modern 
 abomination was substituted, in the rotunda, for what had the respectable 
 antiquity of seven centuries, though this, even then, was less than half of that 
 of the Dome of the Rock. 
 
 To all this it is needless to revert again after all that has been said 
 
 above. So long as the Dome of the Rock and the Golden Gateway remain, 
 
 the latter more especially, as a festal portal of the age of Constantine, every one 
 who desires truth, and truth only, must admit that it was on the eastern 
 hill that the sepulchre was situated, in the words of Eusebius : — “ On the very 
 spot which witnessed the Saviour’s sufferings, a new Jerusalem was con- 
 
 constructed over against the one so celebrated of old, which since the foul 
 
 stain of guilt brought upon it by the murder of the Lord had experienced 
 the extremity of desolation, the effect of divine judgment on its impious people. 
 It was opposite to that city that the Emperor began to rear a monument to the 
 Saviour’s victory over death, with rich and lavish magnificence.” 1 And there 
 it stands now, and there any one may see it who cares to realise how nobly 
 Constantine fulfilled the pious aspirations he had conceived. 
 
 1 Kar’ auro to (tu>ti][hov paprvpiov i) via KareaKevdpTO. 
 'lepovaaXrjp ; avTiTTpocronTros ttj ttoXci jSoiopevp, t) perd rp 
 KvpioKTovov piai(j)oviav eprjpias en ea\ara TrepiTpaneicra, 
 Biktjv enae dvaaeftcov oiKrjTopw. T avry S’ ovv dvriKpvs 
 
 3acn\evs t p Kara roO davdrov aoirpiov viktjv nAouarair 
 cat dapiXiaiv avinfeov (piXoripiais. Vita Constantini, 
 ii. 33. 
 
APPENDICES 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 THE MIDDOTH . 1 
 
 JPUasurcnmtts of tfie temple. 
 
 Chapter I. 
 
 1. The priests guarded the Sanctuary in three places, in the House Abtinas, 2 in the 
 House Nitzus, 3 and in the House Moked ; 4 and the Levites in twenty-one places, five at 
 the five gates of the Mountain of the House, four at its four corners inside, five at the five 
 gates of the Court, four at its four corners outside, and one in the chamber of the Offering, 
 and one in the chamber of the Yail, and one behind the House of Atonement. 
 
 2. The captain of the Mountain of the House went round to every watch in succession 
 with torches flaming before him, and to every guard who did not stand forth, the captain said, 
 “ Peace be to thee.” If it appeared that he slept, he beat him with his staff; and he had 
 permission to set fire to his cushion. 5 And they said, “ what is the voice in the Court ? ” 
 “ It is the voice of the Levite being beaten, and his garments burned, because he slept 
 on his guard.” 6 Piabbi Eleazer, the son of Jacob, said, “ once they found the brother 
 of my mother asleep, and they burned his cushion.” 
 
 3. There were 'five gates to the Mountain of the House, two Huldah gates in the 
 south which served for going in and out, Ivipunus in the west served for going in and 
 out ; Tadi 7 in the north served for no (ordinary) purpose. Upon the east gate -was 
 portrayed the city Shushan. Through it one could see the High Priest who burned the 
 heifer, and all his assistants going out to the Mount of Olives. 
 
 1 Printed, with his kind permission, from the Eev. 
 Dr. Barclay’s work on the Talmud just published by Mr. 
 Murray. The Hebrew words in italics and in brackets 
 have been inserted by me for convenience of reference, 
 as they are quoted in the text. — Jas. F. 
 
 2 A famous maker of incense. 
 
 3 Sparkling. 
 
 4 Burning. The watch at certain gates seems to 
 
 have been hereditary in certain families. Just as at the 
 
 present time the custody of Rachel’s tomb is the privi- 
 lege of a certain family in Jerusalem. Each guard 
 consisted of 10 men, so that there were 210 Levites in 
 the 21 stations. The three more important places con- 
 tained guards of both Levites and Priests ; 30 of each. 
 There were therefore 240 Levites on guard each night. 
 
 6 He rolled up his overcoat and laid it down for a 
 cushion. 
 
 6 Rev. xvi. 15. 
 
 7 Obscurity. 
 
262 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix I. 
 
 4. In the court were seven gates — three in the north, and three in the south, and 
 
 one in the east. That in the south was called the gate of Flaming, the second after it, the 
 
 gate of Offering ; the third after it the Water-gate. That in the east was called the gate 
 Nicanor. And this gate had two chambers, one on the right, and one on the left ; one the 
 chamber of Phineas, the vestment keeper, and the other the chamber of the pancake maker. 
 
 5. And at the gate Nitzus on the north was a kind of cloister with a room \Alijah ] 
 built over it, where the priests kept ward above, and the Levites below ; and it had a door 
 into the Chel. 1 Second to it was the gate of the offering. Third the House Moked. 
 
 6. In the House Moked were four chambers opening as small apartments into a saloon 
 
 — two in the Holy place, and two in the Unconsecrated place ; and pointed rails 
 
 separated between the Holy and the Unconsecrated. And what was their use ? The 
 south-west chamber was the chamber for offering. The south-east was the chamber for 
 the shew-bread. In the north-east chamber the children of the Asmoneans deposited the 
 stones of the altar which the Greek Kings had defiled. 2 In the north-west chamber they 
 descended to the house of baptism. 
 
 7. To the House Moked were two doors ; one open to the Chel, and one open to the 
 court. Said Rabbi Judah, “ the one open to the court had a wicket, through which they 
 went in to sweep the court.” 
 
 8. The House Moked was arched, and spacious, and surrounded with stone divans, 
 and the elders of the Courses slept there with the keys of the court in their hands ; and 
 the young priests each with his pillow on the ground. 
 
 9. And there was a place a cubit square with a tablet of marble, and to it was fastened 
 a ring, and a chain upon which the keys were suspended. When the time approached for 
 locking, the priest lifted up the tablet by the ring, and took the keys from the chain and 
 locked inside, and the Levites slept outside. When he had finished locking, he returned the 
 keys to the chain, and the tablet to its place, laid his pillow over it, and fell asleep. If 
 sudden defilement happened, he rose and went out in the gallery that ran under the arch, 
 and candles flamed on either side, until he came to the house of baptism. Rabbi Eleazer, the 
 son of Jacob, says, “ in the gallery that went under the Chel, he passed out through Tadi.” 
 
 OUR BEAUTY BE UPON THEE IN THREE PLACES. 
 
 Chapter II. 
 
 1. The Mountain of the House was five hundred cubits square. The largest space was 
 on the south, the second on the east, the third on the north, and the least westward. In the 
 place largest in measurement was held most service. 
 
 2. All who entered the Mountain of the House entered on the right-hand side, and went 
 round, and passed out on the left : except to whomsoever an accident occurred, he turned 
 to the left. “ Why do you go to the left ? ” “I am in mourning.” “ He that dwelleth 
 in this House comfort thee.” “ I am excommunicate.” “ He that dwelleth in this House 
 put in thy heart (repentance), and they shall receive thee.” The words of Rabbi Mayer. 
 
 1 Platform or rampart. 
 
 2 1 Macc. ii. 25. 
 
Appendix I. 
 
 MEASUREMENTS OF THE TEMPLE. 
 
 263 
 
 To him said Rabbi Jose, “ tbou bast acted as though they had transgressed against him 
 in judgment ; hut, may He that dwelleth in this House put in thy heart that thou hearken 
 to the words of thy neighbours, and they shall receive thee. 
 
 3. Inside of the (Mountain of the House) was a reticulated wall, ten hand-breadths 
 
 high ; and in it were thirteen breaches, broken down by the Greek kings. The 
 
 (Jews) restored, and fenced them, and decreed before them thirteen acts of obeisance. Inside 
 of it was the Chel, ten cubits broad, and twelve steps were there. The height of each 
 step was half a cubit, and the breadth half a cubit. All the steps there were in height half 
 a cubit, and in breadth half a cubit, except those of the porch. All the doors there were in 
 height twenty cubits, and in breadth ten cubits, except that of the porch. All the gateways 
 there had doors, except that of the porch. All the gates there had lintels, except Tadi ; 
 there two stones inclined one upon the other. All the gates there were transformed into 
 gold, except the gate Nicanor, 1 because to it happened a wonder, though some said, “ because 
 its brass glittered like gold.” 
 
 4. And all the walls there were high, except the eastern wall, that the priest who 
 burned the heifer, might stand on the top of the Mount of Olives, and look straight into the 
 door of the Sanctuary when he sprinkled the blood. 
 
 5. The court of the women was one hundred and thirty-five cubits in length, by one 
 hundred and thirty-five in breadth. And in its four corners were four chambers, each forty 
 cubits square, and they had no roofs ; and so they will he in future, as is said, “ Then he 
 brought me forth into the utter court, and caused me to pass by the four corners of the 
 court ; and, behold, in every corner of the court there was a court.” 2 In the four corners 
 of the court there were courts smoking, yet not smoking, since they were roofless. And 
 what was their use ? The south-east one was the chamber of the Nazarites, for there 
 the Nazarites cooked their peace-offerings, and polled their hair, and cast it under the pot. 
 The north-east was the chamber for the wood, and there the priests with blemishes gathered 
 out the worm-eaten wood. And every stick in which a worm was found, was unlawful 
 for the altar. The north-west was the chamber for the lepers. The south-west ? Rabbi 
 Eleazer, the son of Jacob, said, “ I forget for what it served.” Abashaul said, “ there they 
 put wine, and oil.” It was called the chamber of the house of oil. And it was open at first 
 and surrounded with lattice work, that the women might see from above and the men from 
 beneath, lest they should be mixed. And fifteen steps, corresponding to the fifteen steps in 
 the Psalms, ascended from it to the court of Israel ; upon them the Levites chanted. They 
 were not angular, hut deflected like the half of a round threshing-floor. 
 
 6. And under the court of Israel were chambers open to the court of the women. 
 There the Levites deposited their harps, and psalteries, and cymbals, and all instruments 
 of music. The court of Israel was one hundred and thirty-five cubits long, and eleven 
 broad ; and likewise the court of the priests was one hundred and thirty-five cubits long, and 
 eleven broad. And pointed rails separated the court of Israel from the court of the priests. 
 Rabbi Eleazer, the son of Jacob, said, “ there was a step a cubit high, and a dais [ Dukan | 
 placed over it. And in it were three steps each half a cubit in height.” We find that 
 the priests’ court was two cubits and a half higher than the court of Israel. The whole 
 court was one hundred and eighty-seven cubits in length, and one hundred and thirty-five 
 
 1 So called either because Nicanor, a Pharisee, had the 
 
 gate made in Alexandria, and though it was thrown 
 overhoard from a ship in a storm, it yet came safe to 
 
 land: or because Nicanor, a Greek prince, was slain 
 there in the time of the Asmoneans. 
 
 2 Ezekiel xlvi. 21. 
 
264 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix I. 
 
 cubits in breadth, and the thirteen places for bowing were there. Abajose, the son of 
 Chanan, said, “ in front of the thirteen gates.” In the south near to the west were 
 the upper gate, the gate of flaming, the gate of the firstborn, the water gate. And 
 
 why is it called the water gate ? Because through it they bring bottles of water 
 
 for pouring out during the feast of Tabernacles. Babbi Eleazer, the son of Jacob, said, 
 “ through it the water returned out, and in future it will issue from under the threshold 
 of the house.” And opposite them in the north, near to the west, the gate of Jochania, 
 the gate of the offering, the gate of the women, the gate of music. And “ why was it 
 called the gate of Jochania?” “ Because through it Jochania went out in his captivity.” 
 In the east was the gate Nicanor, and in it two wickets, one on the right, and one on 
 the left, and two in the west which were nameless. 
 
 OUR BEAUTY BE UPON THEE, 0 MOUNTAIN OF THE HOUSE. 
 
 Chapter III. 
 
 1. The altar was thirty-two cubits square. It ascended a cubit, and receded a cubit. 
 This was the foundation. It remains thirty cubits square. It ascended five cubits, and 
 receded one cubit. This is the circumference. It remains twenty-eight cubits square. The 
 place for the horns was a cubit on either side. It remains twenty-six cubits square. The 
 place of the path for the feet of the priests was a cubit on each side. The hearth remains 
 twenty-four cubits square. Babbi Jose said, “at first it was only twenty-eight cubits 
 square.” It receded and ascended until the hearth remained twenty cubits square ; but 
 when the children of the captivity came up, they added to it four cubits en the north, and 
 four cubits on the west, like a gamma it is said ; and the altar was twelve cubits long by 
 twelve broad, being a square. One could say it was only “ a square of twelve ” 1 as is said. 
 Upon its four sides we learn that it measured from the middle twelve cubits to every side. 
 And a line of red paint girdled it in the midst to separate the blood sprinkled above from 
 the blood sprinkled below. And the foundation was a perfect walk along on the north side ; 
 and all along on the west, but it wanted in the south one cubit, and in the east one cubit. 2 
 
 2. And in the south-western corner were two holes as two thin nostrils, that the blood 
 poured upon the western and southern foundation should run into them ; and it commingled 
 in a canal and flowed out into the Kidron. 
 
 3. Below in the plaster in the same corner there was a place a cubit square, with 
 a marble tablet, and a ring fastened in it. Through it they descended to the sewer and 
 cleansed it. And there was a sloping ascent 3 to the south of the altar, thirty-two cubits 
 long by sixteen broad. In its western side was a closet, where they put the birds unmeet 
 for the sin-offering. 
 
 1 Ezekiel xliii. 16. 
 
 2 As this corner would have been in the tribe of 
 Judah, it was not added, that the whole altar might 
 remain in the tribe of Benjamin. Gen. xlix. 27. 
 
 3 This sloping ascent to the altar was strewn with 
 salt. This salt was brought from the mountain of 
 
 Sodom at the south of the Dead Sea. The salt was 
 intended to keep the priests from sloping and falling, 
 which might easily happen, as they were obliged to 
 minister barefooted. The coldness of the pavement 
 in winter, and eating so much flesh of the sacrifices, 
 brought various diseases on the priests. 
 
Appendix I. 
 
 MEASUREMENTS OF THE TEMPLE. 
 
 265 
 
 4. Either the stones of the sloping ascent, or the stones of the altar, were from the 
 valley of Bethcerem. 1 And they digged deeper than virgin soil, and brought from thence 
 perfect stones over which iron 2 was not waved. For the iron defiles by touching. And a 
 scratch defiles everything. In any of them a scratch defiled, hut the others were lawful. 
 And they whitewashed them twice in the year ; once at the passover, and once at the feast of 
 Tabernacles. And the Sanctuary (was whitewashed) once at the passover. The Rabbi said, 
 “ every Friday evening they whitewashed them with a mop on account of the blood.” They 
 did not plaster it with an iron trowel, “ mayhap it will touch and defile.” Since iron is 
 made to shorten the days of man, and the altar is made to lengthen the days of man, it is not 
 lawful, that what shortens should be waved over what lengthens. 
 
 5. And there were rings to the northern side of the altar, six rows of four each : 
 though some say four rows of each. Upon them they slaughtered the holy beasts. The 
 slaughter-house was at the north side of the altar. And in it were eight dwarf pillars with 
 a beam of cedar wood over them. And in them were fastened iron hooks — three rows to 
 each pillar. Upon them they hung up (the bodies), and skinned them upon marble 
 tables between the pillars. 
 
 6. The laver was between the porch and the altar, but inclined more to the south. 
 Between the porch and the altar were twenty-two cubits, and there were twelve steps. The 
 height of each step was half a cubit, and its breadth a cubit — a cubit — a cubit — a landing- 
 
 three cubits — a cubit — a cubit and a landing three cubits. And the upper one a cubit a 
 
 cubit, and the landing four cubits. Rabbi Jehudah said, “the upper a cubit, — a cubit, 
 and the landing five cubits.” 
 
 7. The doorway of the porch was forty cubits high, and twenty broad. Over it were 
 five carved oak beams. The lower one extended beyond the doorway a cubit on either side 
 The one over it extended a cubit on either side. It results that the uppermost was thirty 
 cubits ; and between each one there was a row of stones. 
 
 8. And stone buttresses 3 were joined from the wall of the sanctuary to the wall of the 
 porch, lest it should bulge. And in the roof of the porch were fastened golden chains, upon 
 which the young priests climbed up, and saw the crowns. As is said, “ And the crowns shall 
 be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen, the son of Zephaniah, for a 
 memorial in the temple of the Lord.” 4 And over the doorway of the Sanctuary was a 
 golden vine supported upon the buttresses. Every one who vowed a leaf, or a berry, 
 or a cluster, he brought it and hung it upon it. Said Rabbi Eleazer, the son of Zadok, 
 “ it is a fact, and there were numbered three hundred priests to keep it clear.” 
 
 OUR BEAUTY BE UPON THEE, 0 ALTAR. 
 
 1 House of the vineyard. 
 
 2 Deut. xxvii. 5. 
 
 3 “ Malteraoih shel milah. Malterali or ammaltera, 
 
 from the Greek peXadpov; milah, the Greek melia.” Note 
 from the Rev. Dr. Edersheim’s Jewish Social Life, 
 p. 304; but most important if the identity of the 
 Hebrew and Greek words can be maintained; which, 
 
 however, I see no reason for doubting. Although there 
 were four at least of these melathra in Herod’s screen, 
 and only one in Solomon’s, still the fact of their 
 existing in both goes far to justify the restorations 
 shadowed out in woodcut No. 35 . — Jas. F. 
 
 4 Zechariah vi. 14. 
 
 2 
 
 M 
 
266 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix 1. 
 
 Chapter IV. 
 
 1. The doorway of the Sanctuary 1 was twenty cubits in height, and ten in breadth. 
 And it had four doors, two within and two without, as is said, “ Two doors to the temple and 
 the holy place.” 2 The outside (doors) opened into the doorway to coyer the thickness of the 
 wall, and the inside doors opened into the Sanctuary to coyer (the space) behind the doors, 
 because the whole house was overlaid with gold excepting behind the doors. Eabbi Judah 
 said, “ they stood in the middle of the doorway, and like a pivot these folded behind them 
 two cubits and a half ; and of those two cubits and a half, half a cubit and a jamb on this 
 side, and half a cubit and a jamb on the other side.” It is said, “ two doors to two doors 
 folding back, two leaves to one door and two leaves to the other.” 3 
 
 2. And the great gate had two wickets, one in the north, and one in the south. 
 Through the one in the south no man ever entered. And with regard to it Ezekiel declared, 
 as is said, “ The Lord said unto me ; this gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no 
 man shall enter in by it ; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, 
 therefore it shall be shut.” 4 The priest took the key, and opened the wicket, and went into 
 the little chamber, and from the chamber to the Sanctuary. Eabbi Judah, “he went in the 
 thickness of the wall, until he found himself standing between the two gates, and he opened 
 the outside gates from inside, and the inside from outside.” 
 
 3. And there were thirty-eight little chambers, fifteen in the north, fifteen in the south, 
 and eight in the west. The northern and southern ones were (placed) five over five, and five 
 over them ; and in the west three over three, and two over them. To each were three doors : 
 one to the little chamber to the right, one to the little chamber to the left, and one to the 
 little chamber over it. And in the north-eastern corner were five gates : one to the little 
 e*hamber on the right, and one to the little chamber over it, and one to the gallery, and one 
 to the wicket, and one to the Sanctuary. 
 
 4. The lowest row was five cubits, and the roofing six cubits, and the midle row six, 
 and the roofing seven, and the upper was seven, as is said, “ the nethermost chamber was 
 five cubits broad, and the middle six cubits broad, and the third seven cubits broad.” 5 
 
 5. And a gallery (winding stair) ascended from the north-eastern corner to the south- 
 western corner. Through it they went up to the roofs of the little chambers. One went up 
 in the gallery with his face to the west. So he proceeded all along the northern side, till he 
 reached the west. On reaching the west, he turned his face southward, going along the west 
 side, till he reached the south. On reaching the south, with his face to the east, he went 
 along the south side till he arrived at the door of the upper storey \Alijaii], because the door 
 of the upper storey \Alijah\ opened in the south side. And at the door of the upper 
 storey [ Alijali ] were two cedar beams. By them they went up to the roof of the upper 
 storey [Alijali], and on its summit rails separated between the Holy and the Holy of Holies. 
 And in the attic \_Alijah\ trapdoors opened to the Holy of Holies. Through them they let 
 down the workmen in boxes, lest they should feast their eyes in the Holy of Holies. 
 
 1 The Kabbis say that “ the world is like an eye. 
 
 The ocean is the white of the eye. The pupil is 
 
 Jerusalem. And the image in the pupil is the Sanctuary.” 
 
 2 Ezekiel xli. 23. 
 4 Ezekiel xliv. 2. 
 
 3 Ezekiel xli. 24. 
 6 1 Kings vi. 6. 
 
Appendix I. 
 
 MEASUREMENTS OF THE TEMPLE. 
 
 267 
 
 6. The Sanctuary was a square of one hundred cubits, and its height one hundred. The 
 foundation six cubits, and the height (of the wall) forty cubits, and the string course 1 one 
 cubit, and the rain channel two cubits, and the beams one cubit, and the covering plaster 
 one cubit ; and the height of the upper storey \Alijah~\ was forty cubits, and the string 
 course one cubit, and the rain channel two cubits, and the beams one cubit, and the covering 
 plaster one cubit, and the battlement three cubits, and the scarecrow one cubit. Babbi 
 Judah said, “ the scarecrow was not counted in the measurement ; but the battlement was 
 four cubits.” 
 
 7. From east to west was one hundred cubits, the wall of the porch five, and the porch 
 eleven, and the wall of the Sanctuary six, and the interior forty, and the partition space 
 (between the Vails) one, and the Holy of Holies twenty cubits. The wall of the Sanctuary 
 was six, and the little chamber six,. and the wall of the little chamber five. From north to 
 south was seventy (cubits). The wall of the gallery five, the gallery three, the wall of the 
 little chamber five, the little chamber six, the wall of the Sanctuary six, its interior twenty, 
 the wall of the Sanctuary six, the little chamber six, the wall of the little chamber five, the 
 place for the descent of the water three, and the wall five cubits. The porch was extended 
 beyond it fifteen cubits in the north, and fifteen in the south ; and this space was called 
 “ the house of the instruments of slaughter,” because the knives were there deposited. And 
 the Sanctuary was narrow behind and broad in front, and it was like a lion, as is said, 
 “Ho! Ariel, the city where David dwelt, 2 as a lion is narrow behind and broad in front, so 
 the Sanctuary is narrow behind and broad in front.” 
 
 OUR BEAUTY BE UPON THEE, DOOR OF THE SANCTUARY. 
 
 Chapter V. 
 
 1. The length of the whole court 3 was one hundred and eighty-seven cubits. The 
 breadth one hundred and thirty-five. From east to west one hundred and eighty-seven. 
 The place for the tread of the feet of Israel was eleven cubits. The place for the tread 
 of the priests eleven cubits. The altar thirty-two. Between the porch and the altar 
 twenty-two cubits. The Temple one hundred cubits ; and eleven cubits behind the House of 
 Atonement. 
 
 2. From north to south, one hundred and thirty-five cubits. From the sloping ascent 
 to the altar sixty-two. From the altar to the rings eight cubits. The space for the rings 
 twenty-four. From the rings to the tables four. From the tables to the pillars four. 
 From the pillars to the wall of the court eight cubits. And the remainder lay between the 
 sloping ascent and the wall and the place of the pillars. 
 
 3. In the court were six chambers, three in the north, and three in the south. In the 
 north, the chamber of salt, the chamber of Parva, the chamber of washers. In the chamber 
 of salt they added salt to the offering. In the chamber of Parva they salted the skins 
 
 1 Curiously graven and gilt. 
 
 2 Isaiah, xxix. 1. 
 
 3 “ The king only, and no man else ” (remarks Mai- 
 monides) “ might sit in the court of the temple in any 
 
 place ; and even this privilege was confined to a king of 
 the family of David.” Cunseus further observes, “ that 
 the king was esteemed nearer to God than the priests 
 themselves, and a greater president of religion.” 
 
268 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix I. 
 
 of the offering ; and upon its roof was the house of baptism for the High Priest on the day of 
 atonement. In the chamber of washers they cleansed the inwards of the offerings ; and 
 from thence a gallery extended up to the top of the house of Parva. 
 
 4. In the south were the chamber of wood, the chamber of the captivity, and the 
 chamber of hewn stone [Gazith]. The chamber of wood, said Eabbi Eleazer, the son of 
 Jacob, “ I forget for what it served.” Abashaul said, “ the chamber of the High Priest was 
 behind them both, and the roof of the three was even. In the chamber of the captivity was 
 sunk the well with the wheel attached to it, and from thence water was supplied to the 
 whole court. In the chamber of hewn stone [Gazith] the great sanhedrin of Israel sat, and 
 judged the priesthood, and the priest in whom defilement was discovered, clothed in black, 
 and veiled in black, went out and departed ; and when no defilement was found in him, 
 clothed in white, and veiled in white, he went in and served with his brethren the priests. 
 And they made a feast-day, because no defilement was found in the seed of Aaron the Priest, 
 and thus they said, “ Blessed be the place. Blessed be He, since no defilement is found in 
 the seed of Aaron. And blessed be He who has chosen Aaron and his sons to stand and 
 minister 1 before the Lord in the House of the Holy of Holies. 
 
 OUR BEAUTY BE UPON THEE, WHOLE COURT ; 
 
 AND COMPLETION TO THEE, TRACT 
 
 MEASUREMENTS. 
 
 1 The Temple services were arranged by the council 
 of fourteen. This council was composed of the High 
 Priest, the Sagan (the deputy or Suffragan of the High 
 
 Priest), two Katholikin, who had charge of the treasuries, 
 three Gfizbarim, who were assistants of the Katholikin, 
 and seven Ammarcalin, who had charge of the gates. 
 
Appendix II. 
 
 KUFIC INSCRIPTION IN DOME OF THE ROCK. 
 
 269 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 TRANSLATION OF KUFIC INSCRIPTION IN THE DOME OF THE ROCK. 
 
 By E. H. Palmer, M.A. 
 
 (Quarterly Reports, Palestine Exploration Fund, 1870-71, pp. 164, 165.) 
 
 § 6. — Mosaic Inscription in the Cubbet es'Sakhrah. 
 
 The erection of the Cubbet es Sakhrah, JanTi el Aksa, and the restoration of the temple 
 area by £ Abd el Melik, are recorded in a magnificent Kufic inscription in mosaic, running 
 round the colonnade of the first-mentioned building. The name of £ Abd el Melik has been 
 purposely erased, and that of Abdallah el Mamun fraudulently substituted ; but the 
 short-sighted forger has omitted to erase the date, as well as the name of the original 
 founder, and the inscription still remains a contemporary record of the munificence of 
 £ Abd el Melik. The translation is as follows: — 
 
 “ In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate ! There is no god but God 
 alone ; He hath no partner ; His is the kingdom, His the praise. He giveth life and death, 
 for He is the Almighty. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate ! There is 
 no god hut God alone ; He hath no partner ; Mohammed is the Apostle of God ; pray God 
 for him. The servant of God, ‘Abdallah, the Imam al Mamun [ read £ Abd el Melik], 
 Commander of the Faithful, built this dome in the year 72 (a.d. 691). May God accept it 
 at his hands, and he content with him, Amen ! The restoration is complete, and to God be 
 the praise. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate ! There is no god but God 
 alone ; He hath no partner. Say He is the one God, the Eternal ; He neither begetteth nor 
 is begotten, and there is no one like Him. Mohammed is the Apostle of God; pray God 
 for him. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate ! There is no god but 
 God, and Mohammed is the Apostle of God; pray God for him. Verily, God and His angels 
 pray for the Prophet. Oh, ye who believe, pray for him, and salute ye him with salutations 
 of peace. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate ! There is no god, but God 
 alone ; to Him be praise, who taketh not unto Himself a son, and to whom none can be a 
 partner in His kingdom, and whose patron no lower creature can be; magnify ye Him. 
 Mohammed is the Apostle of God ; pray God, and His angels, and apostles for him ; and 
 peace be upon him, and the mercy of God. In the name of God, the Merciful, the 
 Compassionate ! There is no god but God alone ; He hath no partner ; His is the kingdom, 
 and His the praise; He giveth life and death, for He is Almighty. Verily, God and His 
 angels pray for the Prophet. Oh ye who believe, pray for him and salute him with 
 salutations of peace. Oh ! ye who have received the Scriptures, exceed not the bounds 
 in your religion, and speak not aught but truth concerning God. Verily, Jesus Christ, the 
 son of Mary, is the Apostle of God, and His word which He cast over Mary, and a spirit 
 from Him. Then believe in God and His apostles, and do not say there are three gods ; 
 
270 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix II. 
 
 forbear, ancl it will be better for yon. God is but One. Far be it from Him that He should 
 have a son. To Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heaven and in the earth, and God is a 
 sufficient protector. Christ doth not disdain to be a servant of God, nor do the angels who 
 are near the throne. Whosoever then disdains His service, and is puffed up with pride, God 
 shall gather them all at the last day. 0 God, pray for Thy apostle Jesus, the son of Mary ; 
 peace be upon me the day I am born, and the day I die, and the day I am raised to life again. 
 That is Jesus, the son of Mary, concerning whom ye doubt. It is not for God to take unto 
 Himself a son ; far be it from Him. If He decree a thing, He doth but say unto it, Be, and 
 it is. God is my Lord and yours. Serve Him, this is the right way. Glory to God, there 
 is no god but He, and the angels and beings endowed with knowledge, stand among the just. 
 There is no God but He, the Mighty, the Wise. Verily, the true religion in the sight 
 of God is Islam. Say praise be to God, who taketh not unto Himself a son ; whose partner 
 in the kingdom none can be ; whose patron no lowly creature can be. Magnify ye Him ! ” 1 
 
 1 This inscription, which is composed chiefly of 
 Coranic texts, is interesting both from a historical point 
 of view, and as showing the spirit in which Christianity 
 was regarded by the Muslims of these early times. It 
 has never before been published in its entirety. Its 
 preservation during the subsequent Christian occupation 
 of the city may occasion some surprise, as the Latins 
 (by whom the Cubbet es Sakhrah was turned into a 
 
 church) could not but have been offended at quotations 
 which so decidedly deny the Divinity of Christ and the 
 doctrine of the Trinity. It is probable, however, that 
 the Cufic character, in which it is written, was as unin- 
 telligible to the Christian natives of that time as it is 
 now, even to most of the learned Muslims of the present 
 day. 
 
Appendix III. 
 
 PROCOPIUS’ ‘DE iEDIFICIIS.’ 
 
 271 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 TRANSLATION OF PARAGRAPH IN PROCOPIUS’ ‘ DE fEDIFICIIS.’ 
 
 By the Rev. George Williams . 1 
 
 (Holy City, vol. ii. pp. 369 et seqq.) 
 
 In Jerusalem, too, lie dedicated a Temple to the Virgin, to which no other can be 
 compared, and which is called by the natives, the “ New Church.” I will describe its 
 character, after premising that the city is for the most part hilly. The hills however 
 are not of earth, but rise up roughly and precipitously, with passages like a ladder, 
 stretching from the steep to the descent. 
 
 Now it so happens, that all the other buildings of the city are on one kind of ground, 
 being either built on the hill or on the level where the earth expands. But this Temple 
 alone is not so placed. The reason is, that the Emperor Justinian ordered it to he built on 
 the most prominent of the hills, with directions what character he required it to have 
 generally, and what breadth and length. The hills however had not sufficient space for 
 the completion of the work according to the Emperor’s order ; hut a fourth part of the Temple 
 was deficient, towards the South and the East, just where it is lawful for the priests to 
 perform their rites. Hence, the following device was conceived by the persons who had 
 charge of the work. They laid the foundations at the extreme of the flat ground, and 
 raised a building with equal height with the rock. When, then, they had brought it as 
 high as its extremity, they placed over the intervening space arches from the top of the 
 walls, and connected the building with the remainder of the Temple’s foundation. In this 
 way the Temple is in part founded on solid rock, and in part suspended ; the Emperor’s power 
 having contrived a space in addition to the hill. 
 
 The stones too of this building are not of such a size as we know elsewhere. For 
 the workmen who had charge of the task, contending against the difficulty of the site, 
 and labouring to gain a height equal and opposite to the rock, disdained all ordinary modes, 
 and had recourse to strange and altogether unprecedented devices. They hewed therefore 
 rocks of immense size from the mountains, which rise to an extraordinary height immediately 
 before the city, and having carved them skilfully, carried them thence as follows. First, 
 they made wagons of a size equal to the rocks, and placed a single stone in each wagon ; 
 when oxen, chosen by the Emperor’s order for their excellence, drew the stone with the 
 wagon, forty to each. Then, as it was impossible for the roads leading to the city to 
 bear these great wagons, they cut out to a considerable extent the mountains, and made 
 
 1 As there is no recognised translation of Procopius 
 into English, I have borrowed that from Mr. Williams’ 
 work. As he is a firm believer in the identity of the 
 
 Aksawith the Church of Justinian, his translation will 
 not he suspected of any leaning towards my heretical 
 views. — Jas. F. 
 
272 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix III. 
 
 a passage for tlie wagons, as they arrived. Thus they completed the Temple to an extra- 
 ordinary length, according to the wishes of the Emperor. 
 
 They also made its breadth in proportion, hut had the greatest difficulty to place 
 a roof upon the Temple. They went round, therefore, all the woods and thickets, and 
 whatever spot they could hear of as planted with trees of extraordinary height, until they 
 found a shady wood producing cedars which reached ever so great a height. With these, 
 then, they roofed the Temple, having raised its height equal in proportion to its width 
 and length. 
 
 So much was accomplished by the Emperor Justinian by the means of human power 
 and art. His pious confidence, however, which requited him with honour and co-operated 
 in this effort, went further : That is to say, the Temple had need of columns all round, not 
 inferior in appearance to the beauty of the precinct, and of such a size as might be likely 
 to support the weight of the superstructure. The place, however, being situated inland, 
 at a distance from the sea, and fenced off with abrupt mountains on all sides, as I have 
 described, rendered it difficult for the contrivers of the Temple to introduce columns from 
 elsewhere. But, as the Emperor was distressed at the difficulty of the task, Gfod shewed 
 a kind of stone in the nearest mountains well adapted for the purpose, whether it existed 
 and was concealed previously or was now created. In either case, there is credibility in 
 the account to those who refer the cause to God. For though we, measuring everything 
 by human power, believe many things have been excluded as impossible ; yet nothing 
 could be either difficult or impossible to the God of all. 
 
 Hence, then, extraordinary columns of great size, and resembling in their colour 
 the brightness of flame, support the Temple on all sides, some from beneath, some from 
 above ; and others about the porches which surround the whole Temple, except on the 
 eastern side. Two of these stand before the gate of the Temple, of exceeding splendour 
 and inferior perhaps to no column in the world. From thence proceeds another porch, 
 called Narthex, as I imagine from its want of width. After this is an atrium raised upon 
 like columns in a square. The intermediate doors are of such grandeur as to give those who 
 enter in an idea what a great spectacle they are about to encounter. The propylmum from 
 hence is of wonderful beauty, and has an arch raised upon two columns to an immense 
 height ; while, as you go forward, two semicircular buildings stand facing each other on 
 each side of the way to the Temple. There are two hospices on either side the other way, 
 the work of the Emperor Justinian. The one is a lodging-house for visitors from a distance, 
 the other a resting place for the sick poor. 
 
 This Temple of the Virgin was endowed also by the Emperor Justinian with a 
 revenue of large amount. The works then of the Emperor Justinian in Jerusalem were 
 of this kind. 
 
Appendix IV. 
 
 ITINElARIUM BURDIGrALA HIERUSALEM USQUE. 
 
 273 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 ITINERARIUM BURDIGALA HIERUSALEM USQUE. 1 2 
 
 1 V. Hierusalem, piscinae, Bethsaida, crypta Salomonis, turris excelsa, lapis reprobatus, palatium 
 Salomonis, exceptoria aquas, locus templi, statuas Hadriani, lapis pertusus, domus Ezecliiee. 
 
 Sunt in Hierusalem piscinae magnae duae ad latus templi, id est, una ad dexteram, alia 
 ad sinistram, quas Salomon fecit ; interius vero in civitate sunt piscinae gemellares, quinque 
 porticus habentes, quae appellantur Bethsaida. Ibi aegri multorum annorum sanabantur ; 
 aquam autem babent piscinae in modum cocci turbatam. Est et ibi crypta, ubi Salomon 
 daemones torquebat. Et ibi est angulus turris excelsissimae, ubi Dominus ascendit, et dixit 
 ei, qui tentabat eum : Si Alius Dei es, mitte te deorsum. Et ait ei Dominus : Non tentabis 
 Dominum Deum tuum, sed illi soli servies. Ibi est lapis angularis magnus, de quo dictum 
 est : Lapidem, quern reprobaverunt aedificantes, bic factus est ad caput anguli. Et sub 
 pinna turris ipsius sunt cubicula plurima, ubi Salomon palatium babebat. Ibi etiam constat 
 cubiculum, in quo sedit et Sapientiam descripsit ; ipsum vero cubiculum uno lapide est 
 tectum. Sunt ibi et exceptuaria magna aquae subterranea et piscinae magno opere aedificatae. 
 Et in aede ipsa, ubi templum fuit, quod Salomon aedificavit, in marmore ante aram sanguinem 
 Zacbariae dicunt bodie fusum ; etiam parent vestigia clavorum militum, qui eum occiderunt, 
 per totam aream, ut putes in cera fixum esse. Sunt ibi et statuae duae Hadriani, et est non 
 longe de statuis lapis pertusus, ad quern veniunt Judaei singulis annis, et unguent eum, 
 et lamentant se cum gemitu, et vestimenta sua scindunt, et sic recedunt. Est ibi et domus 
 Ezechiae, regis Judae. 
 
 V. Piscina Siloe. 
 
 Item exeunti Hierusalem, ut ascendas Sion, in parte sinistra et deorsum in valle, 
 juxta murum, est piscina, quae dicitur Siloa et babet quadriporticum, et alia piscina grandis 
 foras. Hie fons sex diebus atque noctibus currit, septimo vero die, qui est sabbatum, 
 in totum nec nocte, nec die currit. 
 
 VI. Sion, locus domus Caipjhse, palatium David, synagoga. 
 
 Inde eadem via ascenditur Sion, et paret, ubi fuit domus Caipbae sacerdotis, et columna 
 adbuc ibi est, in qua Christum flagellis ceciderunt. Intus autem, intra murum Sion, paret 
 locus, ubi palatium habuit David. Ex septem synagogis, quae illic fuerant, una tantum 
 remansit ; reliquae autem arantur et seminantur, sicut Isaias propbeta dixit. 
 
 1 From Palaestinae Descriptiones ex Sseculo iv, v et vi, by Titus Tobler, St. Gallen, 1869. 
 
 2 N 
 
274 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix IV. 
 
 VII. Porta Neapolitana, parietes prsetorii veteris, Golgotha, sepulcrum Domini, 
 
 basilica Constantini. 
 
 Inde ut eas foras murum de Sion, ennti ad portam Neapolitanam ad partem dexteram, 
 deorsum in valle sunt parietes, nbi dornus fuit sive praetorium Pontii Pilati : ubi Dominus 
 auditus est, antequam pateretur. A sinistra autem parte est monticulus Golgotha, ubi 
 Dominus crucifixus est. Inde quasi ad lapidis missum est crypta, ubi corpus ejus positum 
 fuit, et tertio die surrexit. Ibidem modo jussu Constantini imperatoris basilica facta est, 
 id est, dominicum mirse pulcbritudinis, babens ad latus exceptoria, unde aqua levatur, et 
 balneum a tergo, ubi infantes lavantur. 
 
 VIII. Vallis Josaphat, petra traditionis, palma Ghristi, monumenta Isaise et Ezechiee. 
 
 Item ab Hierusalem eunti ad portam, quae est contra orientem, ut ascendatur in montem 
 Oliveti, vallis, quae dicitur Josaphat. Ad partem sinistram, ubi sunt vineae, est et petra, ubi 
 Judas Iscarioth Christum tradidit ; ad partem vero dexteram est arbor palmae, de qua 
 infantes ramos tulerunt et, veniente Christo, substraverunt. Inde non longe, quasi ad 
 lapidis missum, sunt monumenta duo, monubiles mirae pulcbritudinis, facta : in unum positus 
 est Isaias propheta, qui est vere monolithus, et in alium Ezechias, rex Judaeorum. 
 
 IX. Mons Oliveti, locus discipulorum Dominum audientium, basilica Constantini, 
 
 locus visionis, Bethania. 
 
 Inde ascendis in montem Oliveti, ubi Dominus ante passionem discipulos docuit. Ibi 
 facta est jussu Constantini basilica mirae pulcbritudinis. Inde non longe est monticulus, 
 ubi Dominus ascendit orare, et apparuit illic Moyses et Elias, quando Petrum et Joannem 
 secum duxit. Inde ad orientem passus mille quingentos est villa, quae appellatur Bethania. 
 Ibi est crypta, ubi Lazarus positus fuit, quern suscitavit Dominus. 
 
 INNOMINATUS I . 1 
 
 Incipit Descriptio Sanctorum Locorum. 
 
 I. Si quis ab occidentalibus partibus Jerusalem adire voluerit, solis ortum semper teneat 
 et Hierosolymitani loci oratoria ita inveniet, sicut hie notata sunt. 
 
 II. In Jerusalem est cubiculum uno lapide coopertum, ubi Salomon sapientiae librum 
 scripsit, et ibi inter templum et altare in marmore ante aram sanguis Zacharise fusus est. 
 Inde non longe est lapis, ad quern per singulos annos Judsei veniunt et unguentes eum 
 
 1 Theodorici Libellus de Locis sanctis. Cui accedunt breviores aliquot descriptiones Terraj Sanctie. Titus 
 Tobler. St. Gallen, 1865. P. 118. 
 
Appendix IV. 
 
 NOTE ON ‘ ITINERAKIUM ’ AND ‘ INNOMINATUS.’ 
 
 275 
 
 lamentantur et sic cum gemitu receclunt. Ibi est domus Ezechiae, regis Juda, cui ter quinos 
 annos ad vitam Dominus dedit. Deinde est domus Caiphae, et columna, ad quam Christus 
 ligatus, flagellatus, caesus fuit. Ad portam neapolitanam est prsetorium Pilati, ubi Christus 
 a principibus sacerdotum judicatus fuit. Inde non procul est Golgotha vel Calvariae locus, 
 ubi Christus, filius Dei, crucifixus fuit, et primus Adam sepultus ibi fuit, et Abraham ibi 
 Deo sacrificavit. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 With the assistance of the maps and plans attached to this work, there is now no 
 difficulty in following the steps of the Bordeaux Pilgrim in his peregrinations through 
 Jerusalem. His description is partly historical, partly topographical. He begins with a 
 description of the Palace and Temple of Solomon, and all the various objects he mentions are 
 easily distinguishable on Plate I. ; and, in so far as any such authority is to be depended 
 upon, are a valuable confirmation of the statements made in the text. He then ascends Zion, 
 apparently by the stairs of the city of David, or rather by the bridge or causeway which 
 Herod had erected to supply their place. He leaves the fountain of Siloam on his left hand, 
 and, by inference, though it is not expressly so stated, the house of Caiaphas on his right, and 
 thus may refer to the column in the Masonic Hail (woodcut No. 46), though this is hardly 
 sufficient to prove that it was so. After this, it is added that within the wall of Zion are 
 seven synagogues, thus indicating that, as early as a.d. 333, this name had been transferred 
 from the eastern to the western hill. Having thus disposed of both ancient and modern 
 Jewish antiquities, the Pilgrim returns to the eastern hill to describe the Christian buildings 
 then in course of erection by order of Constantine. 
 
 Those who adopt the view that the present church in the town is the one in progress 
 of erection when the Pilgrim was in Jerusalem, as a necessary consequence, assume that 
 the Damascus Gate was the Porta Neapolitana, and justify this by saying that, as Nablous or 
 Neapolis was on the north of Jerusalem, this gate was, of necessity, so called. If nothing 
 depended upon it, this is a very innocent guess, which might be allowed to stand ; but when 
 it is used to prove that a set of buildings are what they certainly are not, some further 
 proof is indispensable ; but none is forthcoming. During the fifteen centuries that have 
 elapsed since the Pilgrim’s time, no single instance has been adduced of that name being 
 applied to that gate. Sancta Paula and numerous other pilgrims entered by it, but do not call 
 it by that name. We have several descriptions of the gates of Jerusalem, but the name 
 does not appear again. According to my view, it was an internal gate, and would not be 
 enumerated among the city gates of Jerusalem, and was so called because, according to 
 Eusebius, it led from that old and accursed city, to the new Jerusalem, which had been 
 erected opposite to it. 
 
 The sequel of the narrative makes it almost certain that this was so. The Pilgrim was 
 not going towards the northern gate of the city, but towards the eastern, in order to ascend to 
 Olivet. It is not possible now to say exactly where the eastern gate was situated, as the whole 
 of the wall between what was the Palace of Solomon and the Golden Gateway has been 
 entirely rebuilt, probably in the time of the Crusades. It could not, however, be very far 
 
276 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix IY. 
 
 from where it is marked on the plan (Plate VII.), as he mentions on his right hand the 
 palm-trees from which the children cut branches and strewed them before Christ, and not far 
 from thence the well-known tombs of Absalom and Zacharias, though then known by different 
 names. It probably was the Porta Tecuitis of Arculfus, which is mentioned immediately 
 after the Portula, whose position is well ascertained as immediately to the south of the 
 Golden Gateway. 
 
 The passage from the Innominatus I., quoted at the end of the Bordeaux Pilgrim’s 
 account, confirms this view to the fullest possible extent. Both authors point most distinctly 
 to the Turris Antonia as the Preetorium of Pilate, and the latter distinctly asserts that the 
 Porta Neapolitana was attached to {ad) the Preetorium. No one, I fancy, will contend that 
 the Preetorium was at the Damascus Gate, or anywhere near it ; yet if it was not, the usual 
 theory is wholly untenable. It probably was the gate which, in the time of the Crusades, 
 became the Porta Speciosa, described by John of Wurzburg as that in which Peter and John 
 cured the lame man. 
 
Appendix V. 
 
 LE TEMPLE DE JERUSALEM. 
 
 277 
 
 APPENDIX V 
 
 LE TEMPLE DE JERUSALEM: MON OGRAPHIE DU HARAM ECU CHERIF. 
 
 By Count Melchior de Vogue. 
 
 Having in tlie preceding pages stated my views with regard to the plans and disposition 
 of the various buildings in the Haram area, it may he interesting to explain briefly the con- 
 clusions arrived at, on this same subject, by so competent an authority as the Count de Vogue, 
 especially as these are in every important particular diametrically opposed to mine, and 
 if they cannot be shown to be erroneous, those announced in this work have no claim 
 to the consideration of those interested in the subject. An examination of his views, however 
 slight, will at all events enable others to judge more correctly of what is stated in the text, 
 by having the pleadings on both sides placed before them, while the woodcut on the next 
 page, which is reduced by photography from one of his plates, will enable readers to see 
 at a glance where and to what extent we differ from- one another. 
 
 While stating my reasons for differing from him, I am quite prepared to admit that 
 there is probably no man living who is so well entitled to be listened to on this subject 
 as the Count de Vogue. By his position, he is a gentleman, above all suspicion of stating 
 anything with intentional unfairness. By education, he is a scholar, especially learned 
 in the languages bearing on this subject ; and besides these qualifications, he has devoted 
 a considerable time to the stmty of the antiquities of Syria on the spot, so as probably 
 to know more about them personally than any one else. In 1854 he first visited the Holy 
 Land, and studied with infinite care the church at Bethlehem, and that known as the 
 Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, besides most of the churches then accessible in their 
 neighbourhood. On his return home, he published, in 1860, a work entitled £ Les Eglises 
 de la Terre Sainte,’ which, for minuteness of detail and beauty of illustration, leaves little 
 to be desired. It certainly is the most valuable contribution to our knowledge of the 
 subject of which it treats that has yet been published. Again, in the latter end of 1861, 
 he revisited the East. After spending six months in exploring the Hauran, and the north 
 of Syria, he settled, in June 1862, in Jerusalem, with the intention of thoroughly investi- 
 gating the Haram and studying its history. In these explorations he was accompanied 
 by his friend, M. Waddington, now Minister for Foreign Affairs in France, a scholar of 
 considerable eminence ; and M. Duthoit, an artist perfectly capable of drawing anything he 
 saw with elegance and accuracy. The results of these journeys were first given to the world 
 in a work entitled ‘ Syrie Centrale,’ commenced more than ten years ago, the text of 
 which, however, was only given to the world while the present work was passing through the 
 press. At an earlier date (1864), M. de Vogue published the results of his investigations in the 
 Haram in a work entitled ‘ Le Temple de Jerusalem : Monographie du Haram ecli Cherif,’ which 
 is the work that especially interests us at present. In scope and intention it is almost identical 
 
50 !03 
 
 1 1 — i -i 1 — i — i — i — i 1 1— 
 
 300 METRES 
 
 a 
 
 Temple of Herod as Restored by the Count de Vogue. (Photographed from his plate xv.) 
 
Appendix Y. 
 
 LE TEMPLE DE JERUSALEM. 
 
 279 
 
 with, the present volume, and differs from it only in the conclusions it arrives at, and in the 
 beauty and magnificence of its illustrations. In these it far surpasses anything I have 
 attempted. Indeed, I doubt much if artists could be found in this country capable of 
 executing anything combining so much accuracy with such artistic elegance. 
 
 It would of course be both tedious and unprofitable to attempt to examine all the 
 points raised in this discussion. I propose, therefore, to select three, and to treat of these 
 only, in this Appendix ; but I think it will be admitted that these three are the most 
 important, and typical of all, and their determination involves that of all the others. 
 They are : — 
 
 First. The position and dimensions of Herod’s Temple. 
 
 Second. The age and origin of the Holden Hateway, involving, of course, that of the 
 Dome of the Kock. 
 
 Third. The question whether the Aksa is or is not Justinian’s church, or built on its site. 
 
 The first of these is a Jewish, the second a Christian, the third a Saracenic question, 
 and the three together involve, practically, the history of all the buildings treated of in the 
 preceding pages. 
 
 The principal difficulty in this case is to state the Count de Vogue’s argument with 
 fairness, for its logic appears to me so strange that I confess I have considerable difficulty 
 at times in following it, and may consequently unintentionally misrepresent his meaning. 
 This cannot, however, be done to any great extent, as his work is generally accessible, 
 and the woodcut No. 75, being a photograph from his own plate, will be sufficient to check 
 any extensive misconception of his argument. 
 
 In the first place, the Count fully admits (page 19) the distinctness of Josephus’ 
 statement, that the Temple was a square, the perimeter of which was 4 stadia, each side 
 measuring 1 stadium, 1 but this he assigns to Solomon’s, not to Herod’s, Temple. To me 
 it is inconceivable that any one reading the whole work can understand Josephus, as 
 describing Solomon’s Temple, in his 15th book, after he had finished with him and his 
 works in his 8th. I quite admit the clumsiness of his introducing Solomon’s name, in 
 the middle of the chapter, and not inserting Herod’s name, when he resumed the description 
 of his works, but this is unfortunately only too characteristic of this author. 
 
 Though I cannot see it in any other light, the Count does, and we must therefore 
 let it stand for the present, and see what it leads to. The principal assertion is that 
 the Temple was a square, and there is nothing whatever either in Josephus or the 
 Talmud to lead us to suppose it ever was anything else, whatever its dimensions may 
 have been, but there are two paragraphs in Josephus which are so clumsily expressed 
 as to allow a considerable latitude of interpretation. The first is, “ He (Herod) rebuilt 
 the Temple, and took in a space of ground double of what it occupied before, and surrounded 
 it with a wall.” 2 The question here is, what did Herod double ? I have already given 
 my reasons (page 74) for believing that the Temple which existed when Herod rebuilt it 
 was that described by Hecataeus, and I feel convinced that, if Count de Vogue had gone 
 as carefully through the earlier Temples as I have done, he would never have assumed 
 that Solomon’s Temple was 400 cubits square, or that a Temple of these dimensions existed 
 in Jerusalem in the first century b.c. If this is granted, however, there can be no great 
 
 1 Ant. xv. 11, 3. 
 
 2 tov vaov eVeo't'evacre xai rrjv nep\ avTov aveTei)(icraTO \wpav rr/s ovarjs bmXacriav. k.t.A. B. J. i. 21, 1. 
 
280 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix V. 
 
 objection to the use the Count makes of the second ambiguous passage, where it is said, 
 “ That the porticos of the Temple, with the Antonia, measured 6 stadia in circumference ” ; 1 
 provided it can be made to agree with the other indications. 
 
 The argument Count de Vogue founds on these two passages is this. As Solomon’s 
 Temple was 1 stadium square, Herod added another enclosure of the same form to the 
 southward of it (see his woodcut, page 22), and made the Temple, in theory, a parallelogram, 
 400 cubits east and west, by 800 cubits north and south, the length of the Stoa Basilica, 
 1 stadium, fixing the dimension of its southern side. 
 
 The first objection to this theory is, that there is not a single expression either in 
 Josephus or the Talmud that would lead us to suppose that the Temple of Herod was 
 anything but a square. The latter is quite distinct on the subject. “ The Mountain of the 
 House was a square of 500 cubits each way.” If you reject the description in Josephus’ 
 15th book as not applying to Herod’s Temple, because the assertion there is not perfectly 
 distinct, you have nevertheless the certainty that the Stoa Basilica that occupied the 
 south side was 1 stadium in length, and. that Solomon’s Porch, on the eastern side, 
 was 400 cubits ; 2 and, to say the least of it, there is the extremest improbability that the 
 eastern porch was really 800 cubits long, and that only half of it was ascribed to Solomon. 
 
 In addition to this, there is the prophecy mentioned in the 6th book of the ‘ Wars of 
 the Jews,’ 3 that “their city should be taken as well as their holy house, when once their 
 Temple should become four square,” which Josephus explains it became by the destruction 
 of the Antonia. The destruction of that fortress as drawn by De Vogue (woodcut No. 75) 
 would be far from having that effect, and consequently the prophecy would have no 
 meaning ; though it is just one of those incidental pieces of evidence that are most valuable 
 in such circumstances. 
 
 Another objection is its extreme improbability. According to the Kabbis, as practically 
 adopted by De Vogue, the Temple, properly so called, viz. without the Court of the Grentiles, 
 was 342 cubits east and west, and only 215 cubits north and south. If, consequently, an 
 extension were wanted, it would most probably be in its major axis, and not at right angles, 
 as shown in De Vogue’s plan (woodcut No. 75), which is awkward in the extreme. 
 
 In order to accommodate the statement of the Babbis, that there was most space 
 on the south, next on the east, third on the north, and least space in the west, the Count 
 has felt constrained to place the Temple in the northern position of his parallelogram, 
 making Herod’s extension consequently in the south. This statement is in direct con- 
 tradiction to Josephus, who tells us that, when they wanted to enlarge the Temple, they 
 took down the northern wall to get as much room as was required. Besides this, as pointed 
 out above (ante, page 118), this tradition regarding the spaces round the Temple is one of 
 the vaguest in the Talmud, and one of the least to be depended upon. It is not stated 
 where they were measured from, nor are the measurements given in any direction ; and 
 it seems to me quite inadmissible that one of the haziest passages in the Talmud should 
 be relied upon, while one of the most distinct — that the Temple was square — should be 
 rejected without any reason given. 
 
 Again, why should Herod take in that large area marked as “ Court of the Grentiles ” 
 on the south of the Temple ? Of what use was it ? Why go to the enormous expense of 
 building up the south-east and south-west angles of the Haram from 100 to 150 feet above 
 
 1 B. J. v. 5, 2. 
 
 2 Ant. xx. 9, 7. 
 
 3 B. J. vi. 5, 4. 
 
Appendix Y. 
 
 LE TEMPLE DE JERUSALEM. 
 
 281 
 
 these foundations when, by restricting the hypasthral part of the Court of the Gentiles, 
 which the Count makes 600 feet in width, to 100 feet or less, he might have saved all this 
 useless expenditure ? There could be no service in the external court, and it is very 
 unlikely that the Jews would have tolerated, even if Herod had wished it, that so large 
 a portion or portions of the Temple should be devoted to the Gentiles. 
 
 It would be easy to multiply these objections to almost any extent. The whole plan 
 looks to me so unnatural — if the expression may be used — and so unlike anything any 
 one would expect from the study of the authorities, that I could give fifty reasons for 
 rejecting it; but, after all, the most tangible one will be its external dimensions, which, 
 so far as I can see, cannot be made to agree with any of our authorities. Assuming for 
 the nonce that De Yogue is right, that the area of the Temple was a parallelogram 
 2 stadia or 1200 feet north and south, and 600 feet east and west, 1 or 3600 feet in 
 perimeter, including the Antonia, and protracting that on the map, we are still a very long 
 way from occupying the whole Harare area. Count de Vogue is aware of this, but gets 
 over the difficulty by the following calculation. Josephus, he says, makes the southern 
 face of the Temple 1 stadium, which is true ; but the southern face measures 280 metres 
 (933 feet). He must therefore have been speaking only loosely— making a guess, in fact 
 — but, following up the same system when he said the perimeter was 6 stadia, including 
 the Antonia, he meant six times 280 or 1680 metres, equal to 5580 feet as the perimeter 
 of the Haram area, including the Antonia, as drawn by him, or nearly 2000 feet in excess 
 of anything our authorities would lead us to expect, on even the widest interpretation. 
 Without the Antonia, he makes the perimeter of the Temple 1525 metres, or, in round 
 numbers, 5000 feet, or more than double the 2400, which is really the highest figure that 
 can be extracted from Josephus, and 2000 feet in excess of even the exaggerated calculation 
 of the Talmud. I confess, when I first read this, it took my breath away, and it was not 
 till I had turned the metres into feet, and tried them in the Survey, that I could 
 convince myself I understood the author rightly. Except Captain Warren’s theory, that 
 the Jewish cubit was 21 inches, and that Josephus meant cubits when he said feet, I 
 do not know of any theory that seems so baseless as this. To assume that a stadium 
 was 933 feet, without attempting to prove it, and then to apply this stadium to a theory 
 already strained beyond the endurable limits of tension, does appear to me to be throwing 
 overboard all those principles which ought to guide us in investigations of this sort. 
 
 If there existed in the Haram area any remains or local indications which it was 
 found impossible to reconcile with the litera scripta, it might be necessary, and consequently 
 justifiable, to strain the meaning of the texts in order to try and get rid of the discrepancies. 
 As it is, however, according to the Count de Vogue’s own showing, the facts are all against 
 his interpretation. In plate i. of his ‘Temple de Jerusalem,’ he marks, in solid back 
 shading, all those parts which were ancient, and could consequently have belonged to 
 the old Temple. According to this authority, the whole of the southern wall with its 
 adjuncts is ancient. So is the western wall past the Wailing Place, to the extent of about 
 500 feet from the south-western angle. So, too, is the eastern wall for about 260 feet from 
 the south-eastern corner of the Haram. Northward of these parts there is absolutely nothing 
 
 1 As the theory of De Vogiid is all contained in one 
 short chapter of his work, pp. 17-25, it has not been 
 thought necessary to repeat the reference every time it 
 is mentioned. In like manner, as all the references to 
 
 Josephus and other authors are given in the text of 
 this work, they have been omitted here unless when 
 specially wanted. 
 
282 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix Y. 
 
 that is marked as ancient, except the two monolithic door-posts of the Golden Gateway. 
 These, however, are wholly without carving or moulding of any sort, and may consequently 
 be of any age. To them we shall return presently, and beyond them there is a tower 
 adjacent to the Birket Israel. There is, however, absolutely no reason for supposing that 
 this ever formed part of the Temple. No north-eastern tower is anywhere mentioned as 
 attached to that building, and this is just such a tower as we would naturally look for in 
 this situation from Josephus’ description of the wall built here by Agrippa 1 thirteen years 
 after the Crucifixion. 
 
 Close to this tower is the Birket Israel, which the Count assumes to be a ditch meant 
 to protect the northern face of the Temple. It is not, however, a fortification ditch in any 
 sense of the term. As Salzmann showed, as long ago as 1856, it is essentially a cistern 
 meant to receive the drainage of a valley trending from the north-west, and to store its 
 waters. The walls are carefully and artistically prepared for that purpose, as shown in 
 the annexed woodcut, and certainly not for defence. Captain Warren has since then found 
 its outlet 2 so arranged as to prove this beyond doubt, if proof were wanted. 
 
 A, Hewn stones 18 to 20 inches thick. 
 
 B, Smaller stones dovetailed into the 
 
 joints of the inner course. 
 
 C, Concrete, formed of pebbles and broken 
 
 brick with very bad cement. 
 
 D, A coating of impermeable cement. 
 
 76. — Section op Masonry lining the Birket Israel. (From Salzmann’s Jerusalem, p. 11.) 
 
 Assuming it, however, to be a fortification ditch, as Count de Vogue wishes, its existence 
 here is absolutely fatal to his theory of the Temple area. Nothing is more clear than that 
 Titus erected mounds against the northern wall of the Temple before the fall of the Antonia, 
 and fought the Jews in front of the monument of King Alexander. 3 Had a ditch of this 
 sort existed during the siege, 75 feet deep and 120 feet wide, it is impossible he could 
 have erected his engines against the northern face of the Temple, or indeed attacked it 
 in any form, without filling up the ditch, as Pompey had done that on the north of the old 
 Temple when he besieged it. 4 That he did not fill up this one is clear, because it is open 
 to the present day, and it rendered the Haram area impregnable on that side before the 
 introduction of fire-arms. 
 
 As Count de Vogiie insists (page 21) that the Temple of Herod was identical in size and 
 form with that of Solomon, this fact, of all the ancient remains being in the southern portion 
 of the Haram area, and none in the northern, where he places it, is almost as strong an 
 
 1 B. J. v. 4, 2. 
 
 2 Recovery of Jerusalem, 165. 
 
 3 B. J. v. 7, 3. 
 
 4 Ant. siv. 4, 2. 
 
Appendix Y. 
 
 LE TEMPLE DE JERUSALEM. 
 
 283 
 
 argument as could well be used against bis view of the site. It is not final, of course, 
 because it may have happened that all the northern ones may have been removed, in some 
 mysterious manner, and all the southern ones preserved, we know not why; but it is, to say 
 the least of it, strange and unlikely that it should be so. 1 Curiously enough, the Count makes 
 no use of the Sakhra in determining the site of the Temple. According to his plan, it was 
 buried partly under the floor of room No. 9, partly under the entrance between that room and 
 No. 10, on the south side of the Temple, where I have marked it in woodcut No. 75 by a shaded 
 patch. If this was so, the whole of the area of the inner Temple must have been raised con- 
 siderably above contour of 2440 feet ; and it seems very improbable indeed that such a mass 
 of masonry should have so entirely disappeared ; still more so that it should have vanished 
 so entirely before the seventh century that Omar and Abd-el-Malek should have mistaken 
 this buried rock for something they were looking for. What they were searching for, 
 so far as I can make out, was something very unlike this, so much so that no Mahomedan 
 historian mentions it and its cave in any terms by which it can now be recognised. 
 
 Assuming for the nonce that all these scriptural and local difficulties can he got over, 
 though many more could be stated if it were worth while, 2 let us now try how far Count 
 de Vogue’s disposition of the parts of the Temple accords with what we know of its uses in the 
 probable appropriation of its various parts. The following table, though not minutely 
 correct, as the scale of De Vogue’s plan is not sufficiently large to make it so, is sufficiently 
 near to explain the relative importance of the various parts. 
 
 Dimensions of Herod’s Temple according to De VoguL. 
 
 ^°Temple and Altar ^ Inc "* u< ^ 10 = : |-176 cubits by 135 cubits = 264 feet by 202J feet, or 53,328 square feet. 
 
 Court of the Men of Israel 
 
 . 11 
 
 ,, 135 ,, — 164 „ 
 
 202i „ 
 
 3,341 
 
 
 Court of the Women . 
 
 . 135 
 
 „ 135 „ - 202 „ 
 
 202 „ 
 
 41,000 
 
 99 
 
 Temple including Chel 
 
 . 197 metres hy 130 metres = 650 „ 
 
 430 „ 
 
 280,000 
 
 99 
 
 Court of the Gentiles . 
 
 . 470 
 
 „ 297 „ =1540 „ 
 
 980 „ 
 
 1,509,200 
 
 99 
 
 Deduct Antonia .... 
 
 . 67 
 
 „ 100 „ = 220 „ 
 
 330 „ 
 
 72,600 
 
 99 
 
 Area of Temple . 
 
 
 
 
 1,436,600 square feet. 
 
 From this it results 
 
 that 
 
 the area of the Temple, 
 
 properly 
 
 so called, 
 
 includin 
 
 the Temple, Altar, and all that was sacred, covered little more than 50,000 square 
 feet. In addition to this was a court accessible to the men of Israel, covering some 
 
 1 At the time he wrote, the Count was not aware of 
 Captain Warren’s discoveries, which make it so probable 
 that the south-east angle of the Haram was the work of 
 Solomon. As he has — so far as I am aware — expressed 
 no opinion on the subject since they were made public, 
 we must wait to know how far he accepts them, and 
 also to what extent they may modify his views. 
 
 2 To mention only one of these. The Count carries the 
 Stoa Basilica east and west along the whole southern 
 front of the Haram, which is 933 feet, including two angle 
 towers. Whether the western of these towers did or 
 did not exist cannot well be proved. It is not mentioned 
 anywhere, and its position there is, to say the least of 
 
 it, most improhable. The eastern one, we may say, 
 certainly had no existence, or its foundations up to the 
 level of the Haram area would have been found. 
 Between it and the Triple Gateway, there is absolutely 
 nothing on which the pillars of the Stoa could stand, as 
 shown on page 75, and no proposition appears to me 
 more clear than that it never extended there. That one 
 objection is, to my mind, fatal to the whole theory, as 
 the facts now stand. If it can be explained away, it 
 ought to be done at once, for, as it now stands, it proves 
 that all eastward of the Triple Gateway was a void then 
 as it is now. 
 
284 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix Y. 
 
 3300 square feet, and one appropriated to the women of Israel, covering 41,000 square feet, or 
 twelve times more than the space allotted to the men, a piece of gallantry on the part 
 of the Jews we were hardly prepared for. 
 
 I reject at once, as wholly at variance with our usual authorities, the Count de Vogue’s 
 position of the Soreg. Even assuming that the position in which I have placed it, at the 
 top of the stairs, was open to doubt, Josephus most distinctly states, that it, enclosing the 
 inner court, was not far from the porticos of the outer court ( aire-^wv ov 7roA.fi), 1 and 
 evidently concentric with it. As drawn by him, it is sometimes near to, sometimes far from, 
 the inner, and has as little symmetrical reference to the outer court, and seems utterly devoid 
 of meaning or symmetry. Taking therefore the whole area of the Temple, exclusive of the 
 Antonia, in round numbers, as 1,440,000 square feet, and deducting from that the area of the 
 Temple with its Chel, or 280,000 square feet, we arrive at the rather startling conclusion, 
 that, after enclosing this immense space at enormous expense, especially on the south side, 
 the Jews modestly reserved less than one-fifth part to themselves, and ceded the whole of the 
 rest to the Gentiles. 
 
 These things, I confess, fill me with astonishment, and when I see such theories generally 
 accepted without question, I feel that there is something in all this that is quite beyond 
 the reach of my intellectual capacity. It is true, of course, that it so happens that, if the 
 whole of the Harare area were occupied by the Temple of the Jews, there is an end of all 
 theories regarding Constantine’s building — the Dome of the Bock — or the Golden Gateway, or 
 making any mistakes about the Sepulchre of Christ being on the eastern hill. But I 
 do not believe that the Count de Vogue could be influenced by any idea of this sort in 
 restoring the Temple. He is far too clever a man, and too good a tactician, not to know that 
 to attempt to hold an extended position with a garrison so weak as not to be sufficient to 
 defend it effectually is not only to risk the loss of the post, but the capture of the defenders, 
 and the consequent loss and damage to the cause. He must have convinced himself that 
 the Temple occupied the whole area, with the same sincerity that I have convinced myself 
 that it occupied only one quarter of the space he allots to it ; and having each of us 
 stated our views, it must he left to others to judge between us. By a comparison of my 
 Plate II. with the woodcut No. 75 at the beginning of this Appendix, the comparison ought 
 not be to difficult. 
 
 1 Ant. xv. 11, 3. 
 
Appendix V. 
 
 THE GOLDEN GATEWAY. 
 
 285 
 
 77. — West Front of Golden Gateway. (From a photograph.) 
 
 The Golden Gateivarj. 
 
 As mentioned in the text of this work (page 195), no English author that I am acquainted 
 with has attempted to answer the question — Who built the Golden Gateway ? All have 
 been content to pass it by in silence ; yet it is no mean building. Its- dimensions are 
 considerable, 80 by 55 feet over all, or those of a small parish church, and its ornamentation, 
 especially internally, is rich and elaborate to an unusual degree. This is fully admitted 
 by the Count de Vogue, who devotes six beautiful plates to its illustration, while he only 
 devotes three to the architecture of the Dome of the Eock, exclusive of its mosaic and 
 coloured decorations. Such a building as this could not be smuggled into existence without 
 its being known who built it, and being a gateway, and a gateway only, it must be part 
 of some group of buildings, and led to some building which may not now exist. 
 
 Whether mistaken or not, the Count de Vogue is too much of a gentleman ever to 
 adopt the tactics of silence in order to escape from a difficulty. He consequently faces 
 this one boldly. “ J’ignore,” he says, “ ce qui fut construit au rv e siecle, mais au v e ou au 
 vi e on batit un monument qui subsiste encore, et qui, sauf quelques restaurations partielles, 
 est parvenu intact jusqua nous ” (page 64). In the same paragraph he goes on to explain 
 that it was built by the Christians, who believed it to be on the site of the Beautiful Gate 
 of the Temple, and they erected it in this faith, in honour of the miracle performed by 
 St. Peter and St. John in curing the lame man, as narrated in the 3rd chapter of the Acts 
 of the Apostles. 
 
 Here, therefore, we have two distinct questions raised : first, as to the age of the 
 monument, and, secondly, as to the probability of the Christians, between the age of 
 Constantine and that of Justinian, re-erecting a part of the Jewish Temple to commemorate a 
 miracle performed within its precincts. 
 
 In the first place, we may safely put on one side the idea that the Golden Gateway was 
 built by Justinian; if for no other reason, because it is not mentioned by Procopius, which 
 it certainly would have been, had his patron erected it, but more so because the style 
 is so totally unlike anything erected during his reign. We know enough of his style to feel 
 quite sure of this. The Golden Gateway is built with concave pilaster capitals of a 
 
286 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix Y. 
 
 tolerably pure Corinthian acanthus, quite unlike the convex capitals such as those shown in 
 woodcuts Nos. 59 and 60, which are so characteristic of Justinian’s reign. But more than 
 even this, the Golden Gateway retains the three indispensable parts of the classical orders, 
 the architrave, frieze, and cornice, a combination that had ceased to exist before the sixth 
 century. On the other hand, we know exactly what the Boman orders were down to the 
 time of Diocletian, from his buildings at Spalatro and elsewhere. The question, therefore, 
 is, Does the architecture of the Golden Gateway resemble more that of Diocletian or 
 of Justinian, and what is the probable interval that may have elapsed before or after the 
 time of either of these emperors when it was erected ? 
 
 In order to establish the exact position of the Golden Gateway in the architectural 
 sequence, it is hardly necessary to go beyond the plates of the Count de Vogue’s own ‘ Syrie 
 Centrale.’ They indeed would be quite sufficient for the purpose if it were not that there 
 seems to have been a pause in the building activity in Syria during the half-century 
 that elapsed between the time of Aurelian (a.d. 270), and Constantine (say, a.d. 320), and 
 it is consequently necessary to supplement his series by examples from Mylasa and Spalatro 
 in order to supply the necessary links in the chain of evidence. 
 
 During the three centuries that elapsed from the first introduction of the Boman form 
 of the Corinthian order at Borne till it ceased to be employed at Palmyra, Baalbec, and 
 Gerash, down indeed to the building of the Basilica at Bethlehem, the forms of the order 
 were stereotyped ; and it requires a practised eye to detect the difference between the earlier 
 and later examples of the style. The Golden Gateway is one of the first instances of 
 deviation from the established form. All the essentials of the order are still there, but 
 used somewhat differently, aud with an evident tendency towards emancipation from the 
 familiar Pagan forms. 
 
 If the six plates illustrating the Golden Gateway had been engraved in the ‘ Syrie 
 Centrale,’ instead of in ‘ Le Temple de Jerusalem,’ they would have been inserted after 
 plate 29, representing the arch at Latakiah, and numbered as 29 a, b, c, &c., as the 
 last of the classical examples, though, as just mentioned, there is a slight hiatus here in 
 the series. With plate 30 we enter on a totally different state of affairs. The buildings 
 at Serdjilla, Moudjileia, and El Barah (plates 31-76) belong to the Byzantine order, 
 without a single specimen that can be called classical. They are in fact hardly so 
 classical as the Bomanesque style of the South of France and North of Italy in the 
 tenth and eleventh centuries, which certainly cannot be called Boman. If, for instance, 
 w r e take the capital at El Barah (plate 62), which is the one in the wdiole series 
 most like those of the Golden Gateway, it hardly requires an educated eye to see that a 
 century at least must have elapsed after the erection of the Golden Gateway before the 
 true Corinthian order could have become so denaturalised. Yet this is dated fourth or 
 fifth century by De Vogue. 
 
 I would, however, be content to rest the whole argument on the details of the Great 
 Pyramid at El Barah (plates 75 and 76), which is likewise dated as erected in the 
 fifth century. There is absolutely nothing classical about it. There is no entablature 
 with its three members, no modillion cornice ; nothing, in fact, to remind us of the Boman 
 order we are so familiar with. On the other hand, there are the full convex Byzantine 
 cornices, the rude contorted scrolls, and all those features of the new order which culminated 
 in the erection of Sancta Sophia at Constantinople. The question remains, Is the Golden 
 Gateway nearer in style to the buildings of Diocletian at Spalatro, or those at El Barah, 
 
Appendix Y. 
 
 THE GOLDEN GATEWAY. 
 
 287 
 
 or the others comprehended in the Count de Vogue’s plates 30-76? So far as I 
 am capable of judging, it is a very short step from the styles of Spalatro to that of 
 Jerusalem ; hut a very long stride, which it is extremely difficult to measure, between 
 Jerusalem and El Barah. 1 Till, indeed, I became acquainted with De Vogue’s work, I had 
 no idea the transition was so rapid. In Europe it took five or six centuries to transform 
 the Roman style into the Romanesque. In Syria it was converted into the Byzantine 
 in a century, or a century and a half. I hardly know of any transition so rapid in the 
 whole history of architecture. But granting that it was so, it seems to me ignoring all 
 the principles of architectural criticism to assert that less than a century or a century and 
 a half elapsed between the Byzantine buildings at El Barah and the quasi-Roman ones 
 at Jerusalem ; and if the former were erected in the fifth century, as Count de Vogue 
 states — and I see no reason for doubting — it seems impossible that the Golden Gateway can 
 be later than the first half of the fourth century. 
 
 The second part of Count de Vogue’s theory of the Golden Gateway seems even more 
 untenable than the first. His contention, that it was erected, as the Beautiful Gate of the 
 Temple — the Porta Speciosa or the Nicanor of the Talmud — -to commemorate the miracle 
 therein performed by the apostles Peter and John, seems quite opposed to all we know of the 
 history of the building or of the surrounding localities. 
 
 In the first place, we have between Eusebius and Procopius a great number of writers — 
 Chrysostom, Socrates, Sozomen, Jerome, and others — all who knew Jerusalem, or knew 
 at least what was passing there, and in none of their -works is there any hint of anything 
 of the sort. The city was Christian, and ruled by Christian bishops, for the whole period 
 from Constantine to Justinian, and neither before nor afterwards is there any hint that 
 any one ever erected or intended to erect any part of the old Temple for this or for 
 any other purpose. We have, indeed, ample evidence that, down at least to the time of the 
 Arab conquest, in the seventh century, the site of the Jewish Temple was held accursed in 
 consequence of the denunciation of our Lord (see ante, page 187) ; and it is almost impossible 
 that any attempt to re-erect any part of it could be entertained by any Christian bishop or 
 potentate of any sort. We know, too, how generally in that age Julian’s attempt to rebuild 
 it, in the fourth century was considered an impiety so great as to require the direct 
 interposition of the Divine Providence to stop it. With the remembrance of the miracle 
 still fresh, it does, indeed, seem strange that the rebuilding of a portion of it should be 
 successfully carried out by Christians, and passed over sub jsilentio by all contemporary 
 writers, nor even alluded to by any one until the time of the Crusades. 
 
 It is quite true that John of Wurzburg, writing in 1170 a.d., points out what was then 
 believed to be the Porta Speciosa of the Temple, and for the first time, I believe, attaches 
 to it the tradition of its being the identical spot where the miracle was performed. 2 
 Unfortunately, however, for Count de Vogue’s theory, this gateway was situated on the 
 west side of the Haram area, while the Golden Gateway is on the east; and had the latter 
 
 1 In the text to his work, Le Temple de Jerusalem, 
 p. 68, the Count introduces as a woodcut a pulvinated 
 lintel from El Barah, as proving the similarity of style 
 between the buildings there and the Golden Gateway. 
 To me, it produces exactly the opposite effect. To my 
 eye, they seem at least a century apart. 
 
 2 “Ab occidente ” (from the Templum Domni) “ etiam 
 
 habet .ostium versus sepulchrum Domini, uhi est Porta 
 Speciosa per quam Petrus, cum Johanne transiens, 
 respondens pauperi eleemosynam ab eis petenti, cum 
 esset claudus dixit, Argentum et aurum non est 
 mihi,” &c. Tobler’s edition, p. 125. De Vogiid, Les 
 Eglises de la Terre Sainte, p. 286. 
 
288 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix Y. 
 
 been expressly erected to commemorate this miracle, it seems incredible that the tradition 
 should not have clung to it. It required more than the usual blundering of that uncritical 
 age to forget entirely the purpose of the erection of the Golden Gateway, and to transfer it 
 to one which never belonged to the Temple at all, but probably was the Porta Neapolitana of 
 the Bordeaux Pilgrim, 1 or of Tobler’s Innominatus I. 2 
 
 The topographical and mechanical difficulties in the way of accepting the Count de 
 Vogue’s theory of the Golden Gateway are even greater than those derived from either its 
 architectural ordinances or its history. As before mentioned, the only evidence the Count 
 adduces for its antiquity is the existence of two monolithic door-posts in the north-east and 
 south-east angles of the interior (page 12). These, however, are totally devoid of any 
 ornament or architectural moulding from which their age might be inferred. They are, in 
 fact, as wanting in intrinsic evidence of age as the stones of Stonehenge, or any Bude-Stone 
 monument. The grooves upon them are not rustications, but merely mechanical sinking for 
 some mechanical purpose. What that may have been, is not quite clear. It may have 
 been that they were put there to catch the bars in the doors, so as to allow them to 
 open wider, or to receive the attachments of some bronze or other metal fixing connected 
 with the hinges, or for any other purpose. All I contend for is that they are not 
 architectural, but mechanical, and, consequently, cannot be used as an index of age. They 
 are an undoubted part of the present structure, whatever its age may be ; but certainly there 
 is no evidence that they belonged to any earlier one existing on the spot. 
 
 Whether this was so or not, the Count de Vogue was perfectly justified in assuming, 
 what indeed was inevitable, that any gateway existing on this spot which was a part of the 
 Temple must have been subterranean, a tunnel, in fact, like the Huldah and the Prophet’s 
 Gateways, the sills of which are nearly on the same level. This being so, the flight of 
 steps in front of it must have exceeded the extraordinary height of 50 feet, as the 
 level of the floor of the Temple, according to De Vogue, was above contour 2440, as 
 just pointed out, while that of the floor of the Golden Gateway is 2389, or 51 feet less. 
 This immense mass of earth and masonry was afterwards removed, “ deblaye a cet effet ” 
 (page 12), apparently in the fourth or fifth century, to make room for this gateway, 
 which is admitted to stand, and to have stood, always free, and with architectural 
 features on all its four sides. It may be so ; but it seems to me strangely improbable, 
 the more so as the hypothesis involves the belief that the whole of the vast substructions 
 of the Temple, 50 feet above the level of one of its gateways, had been so entirely 
 removed that the plan and features of the Temple were no longer recognisable, a fact which 
 the evidence he himself adduces (page 64) is in itself sufficient to refute, without even 
 referring to the further evidence I have adduced on this subject in the body of the work. 
 
 In order that this theory can be admitted, it is indispensable that the destruction of the 
 Temple must have been complete, and the obliteration entire, in the fifth century ; otherwise 
 it is impossible to conceive any person, at that time, mistaking a gateway on this site as the 
 “Porta Speciosa ” of the Temple. According to his own showing (woodcut No. 75), the 
 Count, in the nineteenth century, was able to ascertain the true position of this gate, 
 430 feet to the westward of the Golden Gate and of the Gate Shushan, or, at all events, 
 of the gate of the Court of the Women, still 200 feet from it. At the very best, a gate on 
 the site of the Golden Gateway must have been an external gateway of the Court of the 
 Gentiles, placed unsymmetrically with the Temple in a position where it was impossible it 
 
 1 Tobler’s edition, p. 5. 
 
 Tobler’s edition, p. 114. See Appendix IV. 
 
Appendix V. 
 
 THE MOSQUE EL AKSA OR JUSTINIAN’S CHURCH. 
 
 289 
 
 should, in the fifth century, be mistaken for the Beautiful Gate of the Temple, had one 
 vestige of that vast building been visible above ground. 
 
 All this may he as the Count de Vogue states it; and as no one questions his facts, or 
 disputes the conclusions he draws from them, I presume there must he something in it all 
 that I fail to perceive. If it is so, however, I am hopelessly and helplessly in error. I see 
 the facts with different eyes, and draw conclusions by a different process of reasoning, and 
 the reader must be left to choose between us, for I fear any reconciliation of our ideas 
 is impossible, or nearly so. 
 
 7S. — Capital op Dome op the Rock. 
 (From a drawing by De Vogiie'.) 
 
 79. — Capital op Pillar in the Aksa. 
 (From a drawing by Arundale.) 
 
 The Mosque El Aksa or Justinian’s Church. 
 
 It now only remains to say a few words regarding the third proposition of Count 
 de Vogiie, which I undertook to examine in this Appendix, viz. whether the Aksa is 
 practically identical with Justinian’s Church or erected at least on the same site. 
 
 The Count does not appear to feel the cogency of the objection I have so often urged 
 against this identification, that the Aksa is avowedly situated within the precincts of the 
 Jewish Temple, and it appears to me impossible that a Christian emperor, in less than two 
 centuries from Julian’s unsuccessful attempt to rebuild that Temple, should erect a church in 
 honour of the Virgin Mary in the same locality, unmindful of the denunciations and prophecy 
 of Christ, so often referred to in the body of this work. Had he felt the importance of 
 this objection as I do, it is impossible he should have passed it over sub silentio, and 
 without any attempt to explain why Justinian should choose this site in preference to 
 any other, with all Jerusalem open to him. To me it is fatal to the Count’s theory, and 
 final ; hut as neither he nor others see it in the same light, it must, for the purpose of 
 discussion, be assumed that I am over-estimating its importance, and we must argue 
 the case on the basis of the information afforded by Procopius regarding this celebrated 
 building. 
 
 What Procopius tells us (Appendix III.) is that the site chosen by the Emperor was on 
 
 2 p 
 
200 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix Y. 
 
 tlie south and east, rugged and uneven beyond any other site in Jerusalem ; and the burthen of 
 his description is a narrative of the trouble and expense he was at to bring it up to the level 
 of the rest of the “ Temenos,” so as to provide a foundation for the church and other 
 buildings he proposed to erect. If I object to this, that the position in which the Aksa 
 stands is, and always was, a solid mass, since Herod’s time at least, it will be objected that 
 that is my view of the position and dimensions of the Temple, and not necessarily correct. 
 Count de Vogue cannot, however, avail himself of this objection, inasmuch as he carries 
 the Stoa Basilica across the whole southern front of the Haram area, from valley to valley, 
 and any foundations that were strong enough to support that splendid porch could easily 
 have carried any structure Justinian might have wished to erect. 1 
 
 Assuming, however, that for some good reason, at present unexplained, Justinian 
 determined to build his church within the precincts of the Jewish Temple, why should he 
 have chosen this particular spot? It was the only one that retained any manifest evidences 
 of Herod’s or of Julian’s handiwork, and consequently the most hateful to Christians. It was 
 inconvenient, because it forced him to trace the axis of his church north and south, instead of 
 east and west, “ ut mos usitatior fuit.” It allowed no space for the all-important hemicycle 
 and its indispensable chalcidicas. Why, in fact, should he have chosen this most inconvenient 
 site, while he had the whole area, 1500 by 1000 feet, at his disposal? 
 
 According to the Count’s theory of the Golden Gateway, as just pointed out, the Temple 
 was so completely destroyed and obliterated that the position of its gates and courts 
 could not be ascertained in the fifth and sixth centuries ; but even supposing this not to have 
 been quite the case, there still remained an area nearly 1000 by 800 feet to the southward 
 of the Temple properly so called, within its Chel, where De Vogue places it, which was 
 unencumbered with buildings of any sort, and on any part of which he was at liberty 
 to erect his church and other buildings. As nearly the whole of this portion is practically 
 level, and the rock comes up to the surface, or near to it, over a greater part of it, it is 
 inconceivable that Justinian should have taken all the pains and incurred all the expense 
 Procopius describes, when he could have obtained all he wanted, and a great deal more, 
 without the outlay of a single drachma. 
 
 If I apprehend the Count de Vogue’s line of argument correctly, one of the principal 
 reasons he adduces (page 71) for identifying the Aksa with Justinian’s church is that he 
 believes the four domes of the vestibule of the Double Gateway with their pendentives to be 
 of Justinian’s age. He admits that the monolith in the centre, with its capital, may belong 
 to Herod’s time, and also that one of the pendentives belongs to the same age, though he 
 describes it as “fragment romain encastre dans un des pendentifs” (woodcut No. 7, page 9). 
 He also admits that the external masonry of the discharging arch may also be old. 
 Except these fragments, however, according to his view, the triangular placage outside 
 (woodcut No. 46) and the vaults internally belong to Justinian. 2 He further assumes that, 
 
 1 I do not know whether it is from inadvertence or 
 intention that the Count de Vogue speaks of the 
 “ magnifiques terrasses de Tangle sud-ouest ” (page 70) 
 as particularly suited or the purposes of this erection. 
 Procopius says south and east. 
 
 ~ At page 10 he quotes the inverted inscription 
 dedicated to “Aelio Hadriano ” as a proof of his views. 
 To me, it appears that, if it had been utilised by either 
 
 Julian or Justinian, or any one who understood Latin, 
 they would certainly have put it so that it could be 
 read. No one but an ignorant Saracen could have 
 turned it upside down. To me it seems clear that it, 
 with the upper part of the wall, was built by Abd-el- 
 Malek, as part of the foundation of the Aksa, or it may 
 be subsequently. 
 
Appendix V. 
 
 THE MOSQUE EL AIvSA OR JUSTINIAN’S CHURCH. 
 
 291 
 
 as the roof of the Golden Gateway is somewhat similar — small domes resting on pendentives 
 — it, too, must he of the same age. There is in all this, as it appears to me, a jumble of 
 ideas regarding styles that takes one’s breath away. The works of Herod, of Constantine, 
 of Julian and Justinian, all reduced to one common denomination, and all relegated to the 
 fifth and sixth centuries ! It is evident that the Count and I have no common ground 
 from which to take a departure, or on which to base any conclusions. Merely to repeat what 
 is said in the text would convey no conviction to his mind, nor to that of any one not 
 intimately familiar with the whole subject, and to go over it again, and adduce fresh examples, 
 w r ould not only be very tedious and very expensive, but useless. Those who are not 
 convinced by the arguments already brought forward will not be moved by any amount of 
 reasoning of this class ; and, after all, the argument of site is far simpler and more easily 
 intelligible. When it is got over, it will be time enough to refer again to the architecture. 
 Although, therefore, the direct proof of the erroneousness of this theory would be too 
 tedious and laborious to be attempted here, the negative proof is easy, and easily stated. 
 There is not one word in Procopius or in any other author that can be so construed as to 
 mean that Justinian ever undertook to erect such domes as those of the Huldah Gateway, 
 nor can any reason be assigned why he should do so, or to what use he would apply such a 
 subterranean apartment if he possessed it. There is no Christian church, I am aware of, 
 in Justinian’s or any other age, possessing such an underground entrance. There is nothing 
 like it to be found in any of the churches in Syria, explored so exhaustively by the Count 
 himself. No ornamentation of the same class interspersed with the vine is to be found in 
 the Count’s works, nor in any other I am acquainted with, except those quoted in the text, or 
 similar buildings, and none of these are Christian, or found connected with any church. 
 No traces of the vine or of the queer conventional patterns of the Huldah Gateway are found 
 in the Golden Gateway. Their style, indeed, is as different as that of any two buildings 
 used for the same purpose can well be. I can understand, however, that Constantine’s 
 architects, when asked to design a quasi- secular building for the Haram enclosure, may have 
 taken a few constructive hints from the very beautiful example of the same class that already 
 existed there, and that this may have given rise to more similarity of form than would be 
 found in examples situated farther apart. I am also free to admit that Julian’s attempt to 
 rebuild the Temple may have introduced features into the Huldah Gateway which belong to 
 the fourth century, consequently to the same age as the Golden Gateway ; but, with all this, 
 I see no reason for doubting that the chronology of styles introduced into the body of this 
 work is the only true one, and the only one that lends us a thread to guide us through the 
 labyrinth of styles found in the various buildings still existing in the Haram area. 
 
 There is still another point of view from which the matter may be regarded before 
 leaving it. There is no point on which all the historians of the period, both Mahomedan and 
 Christian, are so thoroughly agreed as that when the patriarch Sophronius granted the site 
 of Solomon’s Temple to Omar, that he might build a mosque upon it {ante, page 187), that it 
 had been up to that time considered accursed by the Christians. They had heaped dung on 
 the Sakhra, whatever or wherever that was, and had left the place desolate in fulfilment of 
 the prophecy. Is it probable — is it possible, indeed — that under these circumstances it really 
 was occupied by the church of Justinian, and the establishments described by Procopius as 
 appertaining thereto? 
 
 A stronger point than even this is, however, established by the terms of the treaty by 
 which the site of Solomon’s Temple was ceded to Omar. By it, it was expressly stipulated 
 that it was granted for the purpose of erecting one place of prayer, and which was to be the 
 
292 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix V. 
 
 only one, for liis co-religionists in Jerusalem. This took place in 638 a.d. ; yet we are now 
 asked to believe that, within fifty years from that time, when many inhabitants of Jerusalem 
 who were present at the capitulation might still he living, the Arabs had not only violated 
 the conditions of the treaty, but seized upon and desecrated one of the four principal 
 churches of the place, and appropriated it to their own purposes, and all this without 
 one whisper of complaint on the part of the Christians. If this were so, the Christians of 
 Jerusalem were a much milder and more pacific race than those of Damascus and elsewhere, 
 who called out lustily when the Saracens attempted to appropriate their sacred edifices. 
 In Jerusalem, however, it was not till three centuries after the conclusion of the treaty that 
 we have a hint of any attempted infraction of it, either by building a second mosque or by 
 appropriating any building belonging to the Christians. 
 
 More than even this, however. The French bishop Arculfus was in Jerusalem between 
 688 and 695 a.d., while the building of the Aksa was in progress, and describes in 
 unmistakable terms “ the square house of prayer which the Saracens were erecting on some 
 ancient ruins ” of the Temple (ante, page 192), but not one word about the church of 
 Justinian either in the way of description or complaint. 
 
 More, again, than even this. We know that, when the monk Bernhard visited Jerusalem 
 in a.d. 870, the church of Justinian, with its monastery, its xenodochia, and hospital, was 
 still in all its glory. If it is contended this was not the building intended, because he 
 ascribes its foundation to Charlemagne, instead of to Justinian, we have the distinct and 
 positive testimony of the statistical account of the churches of Jerusalem, that in 808 a.d. 
 the “new church built by Justinian” was still in existence, and had twenty-five priests 
 and servitors attached to it (ante, page 254). 
 
 In addition to these facts, drawn from the history of the building, which seem 
 conclusive against the identity of the two buildings, there are others derived from the 
 architecture of the mosque which seem equally so. After quoting the description of the 
 building by El Hamawi and other Mahomedan historians, the Count adds : — “ Tout me porte 
 a croire que la mosquee d’Abd-el-Malik avait la forme de toutes les mosquees primitives ; 
 c’est a dire, la forme d’une cour entouree des portiques, d’une largeur variable. Telles sont 
 les plus anciennes mosquees du Caire, de la Mecque, de Damas, de Bostra ” (page 77). 
 All which may be very true, and I am not prepared to dispute it ; but what then becomes 
 of the basilica-formed church of Justinian, which certainly was not a court ? Besides, this 
 theory leaves the fact entirely unexplained how the court of Abd-el-Malek took the basilican 
 form it now possesses; which is the architectural fact, if I understand him rightly, on which 
 the Count principally relies for the identity of the two. 
 
 I do not think any argument pro or con can be drawn from the two capitals of pillars 
 engraved by the Count de Yogue (plate 32). Both may be frankly admitted to be of the age of 
 Justinian. That on the left, with the basket capital, most undoubtedly belongs to him; but 
 when it was introduced into the Aksa is quite another question. Its counterpart is found in 
 the chapel of the Armenians, in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in the town, and both 
 were probably taken from some ruined building of Justinian, it may be about the same time, 
 and, if so, that in the Sepulchre was certainly introduced there after the Crusades. 
 
 I have not the dimensions of these two pillars with sufficient correctness to prove it 
 directly, but I cannot help fancying that they are the identical pillars mentioned by 
 Procopius as set up in front of the north door of the Mary Church. But whether this is so 
 or not, they certainly were not removed from Justinian’s church to the places they now 
 occupy till after its ruin, and that certainly was not till after the visit of the monk Bernhard, 
 
Appendix V. 
 
 THE MOSQUE EL AKSA OR JUSTINIAN’S CHURCH. 
 
 293 
 
 in tlie latter half of the ninth century, and they, at least, cannot have belonged to the 
 original hypsethral court of the mosque of Abd-el-Malek. 
 
 It would he easy to continue these remarks to any required extent, but it is hardly 
 necessary to do so here. The above are probably sufficient to explain why we differ so 
 radically regarding the age and uses of the various buildings in the Haram area. On a 
 former occasion the Count de Vogue dismissed my views with a contemptuous “ Quoique par 
 l’excentricite des conjectures, et le ton de la discussion, cette theorie (de M. Fergusson) soit de 
 celles qu’on ne refute pas.” 1 I am unwilling he should be in a position to accuse me of a 
 similar discourtesy ; I have, consequently, examined his theories with care, and have stated 
 with sufficient fulness, but firmly and respectfully, my reasons for considering that his views 
 do not correctly represent the facts of the case, and for rejecting the conclusions he draws 
 from them as erroneous, and as confusing, instead of explaining, the true history of the 
 buildings in the Haram ash Sharif. 
 
 1 Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte, p. 119. 
 
NOTE. 
 
 Since the sheets of this work were printed off, I have been induced, from reading 
 Dr. Schliemann’s ‘ Mycenae ’ (pp. 43 et seqq.), to examine with more care than I had 
 hitherto done the question how the front of the Treasury of Atreus in that city had been 
 ornamented. The result has been a conviction on my mind that such a placage of marble 
 as that represented in elevation in plate v. vol. v. of Stuart’s ‘ Antiquities of Athens ’ is quite 
 inadmissible, and would hardly have ever been accepted, if a section had been published with 
 it. The decoration above the lintel of the doorway was undoubtedly of bronze, like that of 
 the interior, and the holes still exist into which the pins were inserted which retained it in 
 its position. At the same time, it seems certain that it was not a solid screen of bronze ; 
 for the triangular opening over the doorway, though primarily designed to discharge, to 
 some extent, the weight of the superstructure from the lintel, is so arranged as to make it 
 evident that it was intended, also, to be a window, to admit light into the interior. The 
 triangular part must consequently have been an open trellis — the Bible would call it — of 
 “ network.” How far the rest was open, how far solid, remains to be determined when there 
 is leisure to work out the design. Meanwhile, what I want to point out is that the two 
 elaborately ornamented semicolumns standing as mere ornaments on each side of the doorway 
 of this Treasury, and supporting a bronze epithema 20 by 12 feet, and partially, at least, 
 of open network, approaches more nearly to my idea of the Jachin and Boaz screen of 
 Solomon’s Temple than anything else in antiquity I know of. There certainly was a dis- 
 charging arch over the lintel of the doorway of Herod’s Temple, and my impression always 
 has been that a similar opening existed in Solomon’s, but whether semicircular or triangular 
 remains to he determined. It appears to me nearly certain that the Jachin and Boaz screen 
 was practically an ornamental grille or jalousie before that opening. 
 
 More of this hereafter ; but meanwhile the conviction is fast growing upon me, that the 
 materials may actually exist, which will one day enable us to substitute for the rough 
 diagram, woodcut No. 34, something very much more like the Toran of Solomon’s Temple. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abd-el-Malek, recognising its site, centres his 
 mosque on the Altar of the Jewish Temple, 
 78 ; and builds El Aksa in a.d. 795, 192. 
 
 Absalom, Tomb of, originally similar to that of 
 Zacharias, 142. 
 
 Agrippa, fortifications of, occupied a portion 
 of the east side of the Haram area, 41 ; 
 requested by the Jews to rebuild Solomon’s 
 Porch, 72. 
 
 Aksa, El, mosque, the greatest of those of the 
 first century of the Hegira, 2 ; intended 
 to be a reproduction of the Temple, 10 ; 
 double gates under, part of Herod’s Stoa 
 Basilica, 78 ; and, probably, the same as the 
 Huldah of the Talmud, ib.; centred by the 
 Mahomedans on the “ Lapis Pertusus ” of 
 the Jews. 124; the building of, probably the 
 chief cause of the clearing away the ruins 
 of the Temple, 192 ; all the pillars in, later 
 than the time of Justinian, 208 ; view in 
 the interior of, 208 ; has still many pillars 
 and capitals in it belonging to the age of 
 Justinian, ib. ; as a building, bad in design, 
 and weak in proportion and details, 209 ; 
 later than Santa Sophia, or the Dome of the 
 Pock, 211 ; supposed by the Crusaders to be 
 the “ Templum Salomonis,” and made the 
 residence of the Knights, who were hence 
 called “ Templars,” 226 ; view of Theodoricus 
 with regard to, 227 ; plan of, 250 ; capital of 
 pillar from, as drawn by Arundale, 289. 
 
 Alijah, the, or upper room of the Temple, one 
 of its most important parts, 128 ; perhaps 
 the coenaculum of the priests, who served the 
 Temple, 134; or the meeting-place of the 
 Great Synagogue, 135; entrance to, probably 
 from the Court of the Men of Israel, 13(5. 
 
 Altar and Holy of Holies, positions of, not 
 changed in the Temples subsequent to that 
 of Solomon, 34; but absolutely fixed, by a 
 line through the centre of the Huldah Gate, 
 103 ; base of, 32 cubits square and 1 cubit 
 
 high, 121 ; plan and elevation of, ib. ; the horns 
 of, according to Ezekiel, four in number, 
 1 22 ; said to have been constructed of un- 
 hewn stone, ib. ; the total height of, in 
 Solomon’s Temple, 10 cubits, ib. ; said to 
 have been enlarged after the return from 
 the CaptivRy, 123; had two openings, “like 
 nostrils,” at its south-west angle, ib. ; the 
 cornerstone of, or “ Lapis Pertusus,” the Sakhra 
 of the Jews and Saracens, 184; different 
 character of, in the times of Solomon and 
 Herod respectively, 225. 
 
 Ambrogio, Sant’, the apse and gallery of this 
 church almost the only parts remaining of 
 its original construction, 203 ; mosaic in, 
 with representation of the original building, 
 204. 
 
 Angeli, Santi, circular church of, similar in plan 
 and arrangement with the Dome of the 
 Rock, and of the fourth century, 199. 
 
 Antonelli, Cavaliere, remarkable work by, at 
 Turin, 147, note. 
 
 Antonia, the name given by Herod to the 
 castle of Baris, rebuilt by him, 64 ; its posi- 
 tion, 120 ; discovery by Major Wilson of an 
 arch and vaulted chambers belonging to, 600 
 feet from south-west angle of Haram area, 
 172; plan of, described by Josephus, 173; 
 tower of, at its south-east angle, inside the 
 north-west angle of the Temple, 174; two 
 northern towers, probably one at each end of the 
 Bazaar, 175 ; arch in the south-western tower 
 of, resembling that of the Gate of the Prophet, 
 ib. ; admitted, generally, to have been the 
 Prsetorium of the Romans, 180 ; its south- 
 eastern tower, the keep, ib. ; could not be 
 attacked by Titus till he had carried the 
 second wall, ib. ; considered also by the 
 Bordeaux Pilgrim and Innominatus I. as the 
 residence of Pilate, 276. 
 
 Antoninus Martyrus, account by, of his visit to 
 Jerusalem in a.d. 570, 186. 
 
296 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Araunah, the threshing-floor of, means now 
 available for fixing its site, 35 ; certainly not 
 where placed by Captain Warren, 36 ; position 
 of Temple behind it, and of the II ouse of the 
 Cedars of Lebanon in front of it, fixed by that 
 of the Altar, 52. 
 
 Architects, Jewish, failed to make the “ Mountain 
 of the House ” a perfect figure, 99 ; strong 
 predilection of, for even numbers, 104. 
 
 Architectural forms, in true style, change slowly, 
 170. 
 
 Architecture, the argument from, entirely reliable, 
 while, on the other hand, mosaics are easily 
 forged, 220. 
 
 Architecture, Jewish, a characteristic of, that the 
 Inner and most sacred part of the Temple 
 should be a perfectly regular figure, 99. 
 
 Arculfus, the last Christian author who refers 
 to Solomon’s Temple, 192; plan by, of the 
 four churches in the Haram area, 240 ; 
 Avith note of the spot where Abraham pre- 
 pared to sacrifice Isaac, 241 ; impossibility of 
 reconciling his statements, on the idea that 
 these sacred buildings were in the present 
 town, 242. 
 
 Asmonean kings, palace of, above the Xystus, 
 84. 
 
 Athaliah, Queen, slain “ by the king’s house,” 
 outside the Horse Gate, 49. 
 
 Atreus, Treasury of, 294. 
 
 Baalzamin, Temple of, at Siah, names of Herod 
 and of the early Agrippas inscribed on, 1 40 ; 
 most likely a copy of that of Jerusalem, ib. ; 
 bases of the columns of, really inverted 
 capitals, like that of the monolith at the 
 Huldali Gateway, 141 ; details of the fat^ade 
 of, ib. 
 
 Barah, El, capital from, shoAvs the denaturalisa- 
 tion of the true Corinthian style, 286. 
 
 Barclay’s Gateway, section of, north and south, 
 
 86 . 
 
 Bethesda, Pool of, section of masonry lining it, 
 282. 
 
 Bethlehem, mosaics in church executed by the 
 order of Manuel Comnenus Porphyrogenitus, 
 a.d. 1145-1180, 219. 
 
 Beth-Mokadh, importance of, and names of differ- 
 ent rooms in, 113 ; diagram explanatory of, ib. 
 
 Bible, the first and most important witness for 
 restoration of Solomon’s Temple, 7 ; with 
 Josephus’s paraphrase, the only witness for 
 the restoration of the Tabernacle, ib. 
 
 Bordeaux Pilgrim, evidence of, that the ruins of 
 the Temple were clearly determinable when he 
 visited Jerusalem, in the time of Constantine, 
 183. 
 
 Bosrah, plan of the cathedral of, 205 ; a copy, 
 on a someAvhat smaller scale, of the Dome 
 of the Eock, ib. ; section of the dome of, 
 206. 
 
 Buddhists and Essenes, much resemblance in the 
 tenets and practices of, 135. 
 
 Capitals, convex, invented in the time of Justi- 
 nian, 211. 
 
 Catlierwood, Mr. (Avith Messrs. Arundale and 
 Bonomi), spend six Aveeks in 1833, in drawing 
 buildings in the Haram, 4. 
 
 Chain, Dome of the, near the Dome of the Eock, 
 supposed to be the sepulchre of our Lord’s 
 brother, St. James, 227. 
 
 Chel, name given to platform surrounding inner 
 Temple, 92 ; considered by the Eabbis to in- 
 clude the Court of the Women as well as the 
 most sacred parts of the Temple, 101. 
 
 Chel, with its Soreg, probable extent of, 100. 
 
 Chorazin, ruined niche in the synagogue at, 168. 
 
 Christians, their motive for calling the Avestern 
 hill, Zion, 58. 
 
 Chrysostom, St., his views as to the meaning of 
 Christ’s prophecy of the destruction of the 
 Temple, 182. 
 
 Column, truncated, found by Captain Warren 
 under the Antonia, 176; perhaps, that at 
 which Christ was scourged, 177. 
 
 Constantine, uncertain how far he utilised the 
 materials of the Temple for his new buildings, 
 184; practically the first Christian builder, 
 203 ; plan of Baptistery of, at Eome, 216 ; 
 Basilica of, destroyed by El-IIakim in a.d. 
 1009, 222 ; double aisles of, like those in 
 the contemporary churches of San Lorenzo 
 Outside the Walls, and of Sant’ Agnese, at 
 Eome, 236 ; probably constructed a portico to 
 hide the Temple area from the sacred pre- 
 cincts of the Christians, 237 ; Eusebius’ state- 
 ment as to the position of its atrium, 238 ; 
 which it is now certain could not have been 
 joined to the Golden Gateway, ib. 
 
 Constantine’s buildings at Jerusalem, general 
 emplacement of, 238. 
 
 Cordova, mosque at, of Abd-el-Eahman (a.d. 
 786-796), the nearest, architecturally, to El 
 Aksa, 202. 
 
 Corinthian order, resemblance betAveen that of 
 
INDEX. 
 
 297 
 
 Lysicrates’ monument at Athens and the 
 capitals of Diocletian at Spalatro, 170; modi- 
 fications in, by the architects of the time of 
 Diocletian, 210. 
 
 Crucifixion, summary of the evidence with refer- 
 ence to, 242, 243 ; witnessed, probably, by the 
 priests from the roof of the northern cloister 
 of the Temple, 243 ; place of, obviously, but 
 a short distance from the Prastorium, ib. ; 
 and on ground not walled in, till thirteen 
 years later, by Herod Agrippa, 244. 
 
 Cubit, two forms of, used by the Jews, 15 ; 
 actual length of, determined by Ordnance 
 Survey, 16. 
 
 Cyprus, coin of, on which a temple of Venus, 
 with a pylon like that from Sanchi, 152. 
 
 Cyril, speculation by, how Christ’s prophecy of 
 the destruction of the Temple will be fulfilled, 
 183. 
 
 Cyrus, edict of, for the restoration of the Temple, 
 based on documents preserved in the record 
 chamber at Ecbatana, 30. 
 
 David, citadel built by, probably represented in 
 later times by the fortresses of Baris and 
 Antonia, 45. 
 
 David, palace of, on a lower level than the 
 Temple, and not on the same spot as that of 
 Solomon, 48. 
 
 David, sepulchre of, said to have been robbed by 
 Hyrcanus and Herod, and, therefore, at that 
 time, well known, 56 ; transferred, in Christian 
 times, to the western hill, which was, at the 
 same period, rechristened Zion, 57. 
 
 De Saulcy mistakes the sarcophagus found by 
 him in the Herodium for one of those of the 
 early kings of Judah, 162. 
 
 Diocletian’s palace at Spalatro, court in, 210. 
 
 Dome of the Bock, see Bock, Dome of. 
 
 East and West, early communications between, 
 much more frequent and minute than gener- 
 ally suspected, 160. 
 
 Eliashib, the high-priest, probable position of his 
 house, 45. 
 
 Entablature, classical, for a thousand years before 
 Constantine, had invariably consisted of three 
 chief parts, the architrave, frieze, and cornice, 
 231. 
 
 Eusebius, narrative of, with reference to the build- 
 ings of Constantine at Jerusalem, 236, 237. 
 
 Eutychius, reference by, to the state of the Haram 
 area in his times, 188. 
 
 Ezekiel protests against the burial of the kings 
 close to the Temple, 55 ; Temple of, a pro- 
 phetical description embodying what he re- 
 membered of the old Temple, 59 ; probably 
 intended to adhere as nearly as possible to 
 the dimensions of Solomon’s Temple, 60 ; size, 
 farther details, and diagram plan of, 61, 62 ; 
 points wherein the Temple of his vision and 
 that of Solomon differed, 64. 
 
 Ezra reads the Law to the people in front of the 
 Water Gate, 46. 
 
 Ezra and Esdras, specifications in, the same as 
 those in the Book of Kings, 66. 
 
 Fleury, G. B. de, excellent work by, on the 
 Lateran Baptistery, 217, note. 
 
 Ganneau, M. Clermont, inscription found by, 
 with the same Greek letters on it which are 
 mentioned by Josephus, 100. 
 
 Gate, Barclay’s, or that of Burak, the one whence 
 Mahomet is said to have ascended from 
 Jerusalem to Paradise, 85. 
 
 Gate, the central, called, by mistake, that of the 
 Women, 114. 
 
 Gate, outer, inference from its ornamentation 
 what that of the Temple must have been, 
 
 91. 
 
 Gates, probably ten, to the inner Temple, with 
 the Court of the Women, 108. 
 
 Gates, the Tadi or Teri, placed by the Rabbis, 
 it would seem, opposite the Gate Huldah, 
 87. 
 
 Gateway, the Double, or Huldah, probably iden- 
 tical with the Water Gate of the Temple, 35. 
 
 Gazith, the name of the chamber in which the 
 Sanhedrim sat, 110. 
 
 Gentiles, Court of, character of the columns m, 
 81 ; three double gateways leading from, into 
 the inner court on the south, 99. 
 
 Gilding, extent to which used, on the roof of the 
 Temple, 146. 
 
 Golden Gateway, of the same style of art as 
 the Dome of the Bock, 195 ; not a fortified 
 city gate, though placed in the city wall, ib. ; 
 no doubt the festal portal erected by Con- 
 stantine in front of his Basilica, 229 ; one 
 of the least altered buildings in Jerusalem, 
 ib . ; west face and interior of, 230, 231 ; 
 erected in an age of transition, when pagan 
 art was dying and Christian scarcely born, 
 231 ; arch and other buildings at Mylasa in 
 Caria have much resemblance to, 232 ; 
 
 2 Q 
 
298 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 capital and entablature of the interior of, ib. ; 
 the free-standing pillars of, boldly and origin- 
 ally Byzantine, 233 ; difference of level be- 
 tween it and the Dome of the Bock as much 
 as 50 feet, 234 ; direct statement of Euse- 
 bius that it was erected by Constantine, ib. ; 
 age or origin of, according to Count de 
 Vogue, 285, whose plates, in his ‘ Syrie Cen- 
 trale,’ sufficiently determine its architectural 
 sequence, 286 ; in style greatly resembles 
 the works of Diocletian at Spalatro, 288 ; its 
 two monolithic door-posts without any archi- 
 tectural moulding, 288 ; no ornamentation 
 found on it like that of the Huldah Gateway, 
 291. 
 
 Golgotha, Church of, belongs to the same group 
 as the Dome of the Bock and the Basilica of 
 Constantine, 238 ; church of, as described by 
 Arculfus, the monk Bernhard, and Anto- 
 ninus, 239, 240 ; the rock of, still honey- 
 combed by cisterns, as noticed by Antoninus 
 in the sixth century, 239 ; the so-called rock 
 (in the city) has no cisterns under it, nor any 
 outflow towards Siloam, 240. 
 
 Gospels, prophecy in, of the utter destruction of 
 the Temple literally fulfilled, 78. 
 
 Hadrian, said to have converted the Temple into 
 one for Jupiter, 183. 
 
 Haram area, of the highest religious and archi- 
 tectural interest, 1 ; site of the successive 
 Temples of Solomon and Herod, ib. ; and the 
 spot where David built his Altar on the 
 threshing-floor of Araunah, ib. ; magnificence 
 of the buildings erected on, by Constantine 
 and Justinian, 2 ; careful drawings of remain- 
 ing structures of, by Messrs. Catherwood, 
 Bonomi, and Arundale, 4 ; map of, from Mr. 
 Catherwood’s survey published in 1861, 4, 
 note; and, for the Ordnance Survey in 1868, 
 by Major Wilson, B.E., 5 ; various opinions 
 with reference to buildings on, by de Vogue, 
 Bev. G. Williams, Dr. Bobinson, Messrs. 
 Tobler, Bosen, Thrupp, and Lewin, ib. ; value 
 of the survey of, in 1864-5, 11; imaginary 
 contours of, as proposed by Captain Warren, 
 35 ; the south-eastern angle of, represents the 
 “ great tower that lieth out ” by the wall of 
 Ophel, 42 ; general agreement as to some parts 
 of the Haram area, 73, 74; southern wall of, 
 one of the walls of the Temple terrace, 74 ; 
 diagram of the vaults in its south-east angle, 
 7 5 ; the south-west angle of, the only one a 
 
 true rectangle, 78 ; several Corinthian columns 
 still standing in, perhaps those of Herod’s 
 Stoas, 88 ; western wall of, possibly, the eastern 
 wall of Antonia, 175; proved by Captain 
 Warren to have foundations 84 feet below 
 the present surface, 176 ; diagram expla- 
 natory of the probable arrangement of Jus- 
 tinian’s buildings, 249. 
 
 Hall, Masonic, so called, under the Antonia, cer- 
 tainly, one of its prison cells, 177. 
 
 Hecatseus of Abdera, important passage in, 7 ; 
 most of his statements confirmed by inde- 
 pendent testimony, 67. 
 
 Heifer, Bed, bridge so named, that connecting the 
 Temple and the Mount of Olives, 88 ; with an 
 outlet through the Shushan Gate, ib. 
 
 Helena of Adiabene, tomb of, probably in con- 
 struction like that of Zacharias, 162. 
 
 Herod, burial of, confused accounts in Josephus, 
 161 ; palace of, as also that of the Asmonean 
 princes and of Agrippa, in the city of Jeru- 
 salem, to the west of the Temple, 40 ; in his 
 rebuildings, probably did not trench on the 
 sacred ground of the old Temple, 47. 
 
 Herod’s “ Stoa Basilica,” position of, well ascer- 
 tained, 7 5 ; the vestibule or principal entrance 
 to the Temple, 83. 
 
 Herod’s Temple, only an enlarged copy of 
 Solomon’s, 31 ; difference of its area and of 
 that built by Zerubbabel after the return 
 from the Captivity, 68 ; like Solomon’s, with 
 its Altar on the threshing-floor of Araunah, 
 71 ; twice the size of that in Ezekiel’s vision, 
 74; character of the pillars in the cloisters 
 of, 81 ; Stoa Basilica, comparable in magni- 
 tude with York Minster, 83 ; architecture 
 of, can be estimated from the still extant 
 vestibule, 89 ; total dimensions of, east and 
 west, north and south, 94 ; western court 
 of, on new ground made by Herod, 105 ; 
 no admission allowed to the people from the 
 northern side, ib. ; northern facade, with 
 single gates, inferior to the southern, 115 ; 
 general plan of, 125 ; magnificent flight of 
 stairs leading to, ib. ; height of the whole 
 structure according to the Rabbis, 132 ; spikes 
 on ridge and cornices of, 136 ; door of, as 
 described in the Middotli, 148 ; pinnacle of, 
 where Satan placed Christ, 150; vine-bearing 
 toran in front of, 155; plan for the arrange- 
 ment of the pomegranates on, 159 ; looked on 
 as accursed by the Christians, owing to the 
 malediction of Christ, 182 and 246 ; many 
 
INDEX. 
 
 299 
 
 remains of, probably in existence till the 
 Saracens built El Aksa, and might have been 
 there still, like those of Baalbek, had Jeru- 
 salem not been always inhabited, 182 ; services 
 of, arranged by the council of fourteen, 
 Appendix I. 268, note. 
 
 Herod, Tomb of, like that of St. James in the 
 valley of Jehoshaphat, of debased Eoman 
 Doric, 162; its ornamentation like that of 
 the roof of the vestibule of the Huldah 
 Gate, ib. ; portion of the lid from sarcophagus 
 of, now at Paris, 163. 
 
 Herodium (sometimes called “ the Tombs of the 
 Kings ”), the most remarkable group of tombs 
 north of Jerusalem, 161 ; the Jebel Fureides 
 also so called, ib. 
 
 Hezekiah, stopped “ the upper watercourse of 
 Gihon, and brought it straight down to the 
 west side of the city of David,” 53. 
 
 Hiram, the two bronze pillars set up by, not of 
 the size stated, 157. 
 
 Holy of Holies, the, not altered when the Temple 
 was rebuilt, 124. 
 
 Holy Place, the, had no fittings for any liturgical 
 purposes, 134. 
 
 Horse Gate (now known as the Triple Gateway), 
 the position of, nearly as certain as that of 
 the Water Gate, 47 ; inclined plane to, pro- 
 bably like that to be seen on the monuments 
 from Khorsabad, ib. 
 
 Huldah, the, another name for the Double Gate- 
 way, probably the Water Gate of the Temple, 
 35. 
 
 “ Innominatus I.,” description of the Holy Places, 
 Appendix IV. 274, 275. 
 
 Inscription, Arabic, supposed by Professor Palmer 
 and Count de Vogue to fix the date of the 
 Dome of the Rock, 216; and attributed by 
 them to Abd-el-Malek, a.d. 691, ib. 
 
 Inscription, Kufic, there also, noticed by William 
 of Tyre, but now lost, as are also the Latin 
 inscriptions minutely described by John of 
 Wurzburg and Theodoricus in a.d. 1180, 
 220 . 
 
 Israel, southern Court of the Men of, tabulated 
 dimensions of, 99. 
 
 “ Itinerarium Burdigala Hierusalem usque,” 
 passages from the, Appendix IV. 273, 274. 
 
 James, St., Tomb of, in the valley of Jehoshaphat, 
 143 ; no reason why he should have been 
 buried near the Dome of the Rock, though 
 
 said to have fallen from a pinnacle of the 
 Temple, 228 ; elsewhere stated to have been 
 buried in the valley of Jehoshaphat, ib. 
 
 Jehoshaphat, position of tombs in the valley of, 
 144 ; made to face the Temple, as far as pos- 
 sible, ib. ; and certainly in some way connected 
 with it, 145 ; so-called Tomb of, probably 
 a rock-cut viliara or monastery, 164. 
 
 Jerusalem, walls on the north side determined by 
 the account in the 3rd chapter of Nelierniah, 
 53 ; probably left wholly desolate till the time 
 of Hadrian, 182 ; would have supplanted 
 Mecca had the Jews accepted Mahomet, 189; 
 from Constantine to Justinian a prosperous 
 Christian see, 233. 
 
 Jews, especial reverence of, for the stones sup- 
 porting Holy of Holies and Altai - , 184. 
 
 Josephus, value of his testimony with regard to 
 the Temple, 7 ; inclined to exaggeration with 
 the view of exalting his people in the eyes of 
 their Roman conquerors, 7 ; but would not 
 have dared to falsify the plan of the Temple, 
 8; probably wrote with a plan of Jerusalem 
 before him, ib. ; ascribes to Solomon the build- 
 ing of all the outer courts, ib.; asserts that 
 Herod’s Temple was twice the size of that of 
 Solomon, 9 ; sometimes uses cubits for feet, 
 16; assumed that Herod’s Temple was iden- 
 tical with Solomon’s, 66 ; always consistent in 
 stating that the Temple area was a square of 
 600 feet each way, 72 ; slight variation 
 between the dimensions given by, and those 
 of the Ordnance map, 77 ; minute description 
 by, of Herod’s Stoa Basilica, 80 ; states that the 
 city of J erusalem lay over against the Temple, 
 like a theatre, 83 ; does not notice any external 
 gateway on the north side of the Temple, 87 ; 
 or the width of the hypaethral part of the 
 Court of the Gentiles, 92 ; testimony of, to the 
 size of the single cloisters of the inner courts, 
 98 ; distinct statement of with reference to 
 the steps leading to the gates, 107 ; while, at 
 the same Jimc, exaggerating their size, 109; 
 not to be relied on for the height of the 
 Temple, 130 ; certainly considered the Antonia 
 as part of the Temple, 179. 
 
 Judges, the so-called Tombs of the, anterior to 
 the destruction by Titus, 163; doorway of 
 Tombs of the, 164. 
 
 Julian, unsuccessful attempt of, to restore the 
 Temple, 185 ; but chief work therein probably 
 the clearing away of the ruins, ib. ; a fragment 
 of his restoratioh still attached externally 
 
300 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 to the Huldah Gate, ib. ; failure of, a subject 
 of exultation to the Christians of his day, 186. 
 
 Justinian, erects his Mary Church on the pre- 
 sumed site of the palace of Solomon, 51 ; 
 position of the “weak vaults” of, 75; his 
 reason for placing his Church of St. Mary 
 at the south-east angle of the Haram area, 
 197 ; architecture of, totally distinct from 
 that of Constantine, 211; church of, still in 
 existence when the monk Bernhard visited 
 Jerusalem in a.d. 870, 292. 
 
 Kaaba, veneration of the Arabs for, like that of 
 the Jews for the Temple, 2. 
 
 Kefr Beiriin, doorway of the synagogue at, 
 167 ; probably much like that of the Temple, 
 ib. 
 
 Kerazeh, niche heads in synagogue at, resembling 
 the ornaments in the roof of the vestibule of 
 the Gate Huldah, 167. 
 
 Khorsabad, city gateways, plan of, 62. 
 
 Kidron, probably a ravine, as well as the greater 
 valley, 69 ; as suggested by Lewin and Sandie, 
 217. 
 
 Kings, Tombs of, their site not directly recorded 
 anywhere, 56. 
 
 Kitchener, Lieutenant, excellent photographs 
 by, of the Dome of the Bock and the mosque 
 El Aksa, 209, note. 
 
 Kub’r ul Mulk, the name given to the tombs of 
 the Herodian family, 56. 
 
 “ Lapis Pertusus,” noticed by the Bordeaux 
 Pilgrim, 184; its importance in the service 
 of the Altar, ib. ; afterwards the Sakhra of 
 Omar, and the Altar stone of the Crusaders, 
 191. 
 
 Lateran Baptistery, section of, 217 ; an exact 
 miniature copy of the Dome of the Rock, ib. ; 
 certainly commenced by Constantine, though 
 perhaps finished by St. Sixtus, a.d. 431-440, ib. 
 
 Lecomte, M., careful drawings by, of the galleries 
 over the Dome of the Bock, 207. 
 
 Liglitfoot, Dr., views of, with regard to the gates 
 or chambers of the Temple, 106, 107 ; good 
 suggestion of, with reference to the position of 
 the Temple — guard chamber, 111 ; correct in 
 supposing the Court of the Women the same 
 as the Treasury mentioned in the New 
 Testament, 119; states that the Treasuries 
 of the Temple were of a twofold nature and 
 capacity, ib. 
 
 Lorenzo, San, Church of, at Milan, of the fourth 
 
 century, with galleries like those of San Am- 
 brogio and of the Dome of the Bock, 240. 
 
 Maccabeus, Judas, copper coin of, 163. 
 
 Mahomedan historians knew where the Jewish 
 Altar was, and that the Temple was to the 
 east of it, 10. 
 
 Mahomet, legend of his ascent to Paradise 
 shows that the Mahomedans knew the site 
 of the Holy of Holies, 85. 
 
 Mary Church of Justinian, apparently not placed 
 on a previously sacred site, 242 ; important 
 as marking the introduction of Mariolatry, 
 244 ; admitted on all hands to have been on 
 the southern part of the Haram area, 245 ; 
 wrongly placed by Count de Vogue within 
 the area of the Temple, 246 ; detailed ac- 
 count in Procopius of the building of, 247 ; 
 probably stood on solid ground east and 
 west, with external colonnades on all sides, 
 except the east, 248 ; roof most likely 
 wholly of wood, ib. ; in size scarcely more 
 than half the extent of Herod’s Temple, 251 ; 
 tradition recorded by Antoninus (a.d. 570) 
 that this was the site of the Preetorium and 
 of Solomon’s Porch, ib. ; some arches and 
 supporting piers still visible, ib. 
 
 Mashita, Persian palace at, compartment of western 
 octagon, 169 ; motivo of the principal decora- 
 tions of, ib. 
 
 Moriah, Mount, the scene of Abraham’s intended 
 sacrifice of Isaac, hence always connected in 
 tradition with the Altar of David, 241. 
 
 Mosaics, difficulty of judging of their age, 207. 
 
 Mountain of the House, name given by the Babbis 
 to the outer court of the Temple, 92. 
 
 Mousmieh, apse in the Prsetorium at, resembles, 
 in decoration, parts of the Gate Huldah, 168. 
 
 Nazaro, San, Church of, at Milan, built a.d. 382, 
 with galleries like those of the Dome of the 
 Bock, 204. 
 
 Nimroud, Birs, small chambers behind, have 
 some resemblance to those round Solomon’s 
 Temple, 31. 
 
 Nitzus, Gate of, called also the Gate of Jeconiah, 
 114; the guard-room of the priests near it, 
 ib.; the most western of the gates, 115. 
 
 North wall, distance from, to the centre of the 
 Altar, according to the corrected Talmudic 
 measurements, 97. 
 
 Offering, Gate of, its position and name, 114. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 301 
 
 Omar, conquest of Jerusalem by, a.h. 636, 187 ; 
 reception of, by the Patriarch Sophronius on 
 entering the city, ib. ; probability that he 
 entered the Temple area through the Huldah 
 Gate, 188. 
 
 Omar, Mosque of, sufficient for the wants of the 
 Arabs in the first century of the Hegira, 189. 
 
 Ordnance Survey, general defect of, that no 
 dimensions are figured, 11 ; invaluable for the 
 restoration of the platform of the Temple, 76. 
 
 Palmer, E. H., translation by, of Kufic inscrip- 
 tion on the inside of the Dome of the Pock, 
 Appendix II. 269, 270. 
 
 Palmyra, temple of the sun at, like in its arrange- 
 ments to the Temple at Jerusalem, 82. 
 
 Passage, underground and secret, from the city 
 to the Temple, 177 ; probably constructed by 
 Herod for himself, 178. 
 
 Persepolis, great flight of steps up to, only half the 
 height of that to the “ house of the Lord,” 49 ; 
 many architectural forms derived from, appli- 
 cable for the restoration of the Temple, 171. 
 
 Petra, character of the works at, 147. 
 
 Pharaoh, daughter of, house built for, by Solomon, 
 44, 45. 
 
 Philoxenus, cistern of (at Constantinople), capital 
 from, 204 ; closely resembles those in the 
 gallery of the Dome of the Pock, 205. 
 
 Pomegranates, the ornament of the toran in Solo- 
 mon’s Temple, as the vine in that of Herod, 159. 
 
 Pompey attacked the Temple built after the 
 Captivity, but not Herod’s Temple, which was 
 erected subsequently, 68 ; takes advantage of 
 a Jewish Sabbath to fill up the northern ditch 
 of the Temple, ib. 
 
 Posca, i. e. vinegar and water, the ordinary drink 
 of Roman soldiers, and, hence, administered 
 by them to our Saviour on the cross, 243. 
 
 Procopius describes with great detail the church 
 built by Justinian, 10 ; general notice by, of 
 Justinian’s buildings at Jerusalem, 41, trans- 
 lation of passages referring to, Appendix III. 
 p. 271. 
 
 Prudentius, A., passage from, relating to the 
 Beautiful Gate of the Temple, 186. 
 
 Pabbis make the measures of Josephus and of 
 the Talmud the same, 15 ; endeavour to 
 reconcile the account of Ezekiel with that of 
 Herod, 59 ; give every dimension of the inner 
 Temple with the greatest minuteness, 92 ; but 
 afford no aid for the dimensions of the outer 
 
 court, ib. ; tabulated dimensions of the Temple 
 courts, as given by, 95 ; their account of the 
 chambers of the Temple not clear, 107; 
 yet correct in their details of the size of the 
 different gates, 108 ; many difficulties in their 
 account of the room in which the San- 
 hedrim sat, 110 ; consider the Temple and the 
 Altar as one and indivisible, 118; make the 
 back of the Temple as lofty as the front, 131 ; 
 are aware that the roof of the Temple was 
 not flat, 137 ; minute specifications by, for 
 storing the utensils used in the sacred service 
 of the Temple, 149. 
 
 Religion, the Christian, like the Mahomedan, 
 based upon the Jewish, 3. 
 
 Robinson, Dr., arch of, value of the measures 
 calculated from, 79 ; possibly that connecting 
 the Temple with the city, 83 ; his opinion 
 with reference to the position of the Golden 
 Gateway, 196. 
 
 Rock-cut tombs round Jerusalem, tympana of, 
 nearly approach the form of an equilateral 
 triangle, 164. 
 
 Rock, Dome of, great cavern under, not unlikely 
 the sepulchre of the kings from David to 
 Hezekiah, 56 ; the more so as much re- 
 sembling the cave of Machpelah at Hebron, 
 57 ; later than Diocletian’s octagonal “ Temple 
 of Jupiter” at Spalatro, 194; architecturally 
 two or three centuries older than El Aksa, ib. ; 
 buildings like this, in Christian countries, 
 usually called baptisteries, ib. ; the build- 
 ings over it certainly of the age of Con- 
 stantine, 195 ; long anterior to San Vitale, at 
 Ravenna, a.d. 547, ib. ; doubtless, therefore, 
 the church Constantine erected over what he 
 believed to be the Sepulchre of Christ, 198 ; 
 valuable discoveries made during its repair, 
 in 1873, 199 ; arcade of, described by John 
 of Wurzburg, really the front of a covered 
 gallery, ib. ; elevation and section of the 
 flank of, 200 ; no resemblance whatever be- 
 tween it and El Aksa, 202 ; M. Ganneau 
 states that some of the arcades of, had once 
 been formed into semicircular niches, 206 ; 
 view in the aisle of, 208 ; all the capitals in, 
 of the Corinthian order and much older 
 than Justinian, ib. ; as a tomb, one of the 
 most satisfactory in the world, 209 ; bronze 
 plaque from, with ornaments like those in the 
 frescos from the Catacombs or in the mosaics 
 of the tomb of Santa Costanza, 213 ; and like, 
 too, those on the lid of Herod’s sarcophagus, 
 
302 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 213, note; capital and entablature of the 
 intermediate range of pillars of, 213 ; the latter, 
 moreover, not resembling anything found 
 in any Mahomedan building, 214 ; capital 
 and cornice of the intermediate range of 
 columns in, not earlier than a.d. 300, nor after 
 a.d. 500, 215 ; not borrowed from any other 
 churches between the times of Omar and Abd- 
 el-Malek, 216 ; the bases of the pillars of, as 
 classical as their capitals, ib. ; Theodoricus 
 claims it as the Temple of “Our Lord” from 
 the band of mosaics under roof, 220 ; which 
 were destroyed by El-Hakim, but replaced by 
 Dhaher in a.d. 1027, 222 ; possible reasons 
 why ascribed to Al-Mamun by the Saracens 
 in their inscription, ib. ; but this un- 
 intelligible, if supposed to refer to Abd- 
 el-Malek or Al-Mamun, 223 ; the Crusaders, 
 in their treatment of it, were unconsciously 
 rehabilitating the Temple of the Jews, 226; 
 discovery that it was really built by Con- 
 stantine explains many things in the narra- 
 tive of the Evangelists, 244 ; the beauty of, 
 compared with the poverty of El Aksa, 
 strong evidence of its earlier construction, 
 257 ; beautiful windows of Persian stained 
 glass placed there in the sixteenth century, 
 ib. ; has been very little altered internally, 
 ib. ; comparable with the Taj-Mahal, and one or 
 two of the great Indian sepulchres, ib. ; gene- 
 ral character well shown in De Vogue’s work, 
 and in the drawings of Karl Haag and Karl 
 Werner, ib. ; capital from, as drawn by De 
 Vogue, 289. 
 
 Roofs, pyramidal, not uncommon in Syria, in 
 Herod’s time, 146. 
 
 Sakhra, cave under Dome of Rock, hole in the 
 top of, similar in position to that at Hebron, 
 57 ; Mahomedan stories about, unintelligible, 
 189; but support the tradition that Mahomet 
 ascended thence to heaven, 225 ; nowhere 
 stated in Mahomedan writings to be the 
 Altar of the Jewish Temple, 225. 
 
 Sanchi, northern gateway of the Tope at, 135 ; 
 the four torans at, belong to the first century 
 of our era, 160. 
 
 Santa Sophia, capitals of, 212. 
 
 Saracens, in the first century of the Hegira, 
 entirely dependent for their buildings on 
 Byzantine architects, 255. 
 
 Sepulchre, Church of the Holy, tombs known to 
 exist under its western boundary wall, 55 ; 
 
 transferred from the eastern to the western 
 hill (like Zion and the Tomb of David) after 
 fourth century a.d., 258 ; the present so-called 
 church (in the city) not only a forgery, but 
 destitute of any beauty of design or detail, 
 259. 
 
 Shewbread, the Chamber of, probably on the 
 eastern side of the inner court of the Temple, 
 112 . 
 
 Siah, in the Hauran, temple of Baalzamin at, 140. 
 
 Solomon, palace of, shown by recent researches 
 to have stood at the south-east corner of the 
 Haram area, 40 ; burnt at the time of the 
 Babylonian captivity, and not since clearly 
 traceable, 51. 
 
 Solomon, sepulchre of, still pointed out, and re- 
 corded on the Ordnance Survey, 57. 
 
 Solomon’s Temple, Bible account of, remarkable 
 for its minuteness of detail, 2 ; special reasons 
 for the veneration shown towards it by the 
 Jews, ib. ; remarkable for the beauty of its 
 carvings in cedar wood, ib. ; prophecy of its 
 entire destruction literally fulfilled, ib. ; diffi- 
 culty of its restorers, that they did not know 
 what belonged to Solomon and what to Herod, 
 ib. ; still less anything of the localities, or of 
 Syrian architecture in the time of Solomon, 4 ; 
 general belief that it stood within the Haram- 
 ash-Sherif, ib. ; table of the principal di- 
 mensions of, 16; allowing for certain neces- 
 sary modifications, the same as the Tabernacle, 
 26 ; plan of, with section, ib. ; evidently 
 possessed an upper room, 30 ; its Tabernacle 
 not of Egyptian origin, 33 ; though, with its 
 great propylon, may have resembled an 
 Egyptian temple, ib. ; the pillars, however, 
 called Jachin and Boaz, were not obelisks 
 of bronze, ib. ; but, being in metal, must have 
 had forms appropriate to that substance, 
 34; all the elements of, found also in the 
 Temples of Ezekiel and Herod, ib. ; account in 
 Book of Chronicles shows that its measures 
 were supposed to be double those of the 
 Tabernacle, ib.; arrangements of the buildings 
 and objects of the courts around, 37 ; site 
 of the Altar of, determinable from the re- 
 mains of Herod’s Temple, ib. ; outer court of, 
 100 cubits square, 38 ; general principles of 
 its construction, 43 ; the Water Gate of, de- 
 terminable with the greatest accuracy, 46 ; 
 its height very uncertain, 130 ; diagram ex- 
 planatory of the screen supported by the 
 Pillars of Jachin and Boaz in, 157 ; frontis- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 303 
 
 piece for, set up by Hiram, probably of two 
 bronze pillars 12 to 14 cubits apart, 158. 
 
 Sopbronius, tbe patriarch, address by, to the 
 khalif Omar, 187. 
 
 Soreg, a marble screen outside the Chel, richly 
 carved, 100. 
 
 St. John Studios, Church of, at Constantinople, 
 capitals like those in Dome of the Bock from, 
 a.d. 416, 216; retains the three parts of the 
 entablature as in classical times, 233. 
 
 Stoa Basilica of Herod, plan section of, with en- 
 closure of the inner Temple, 80; pillars of, 
 one cubit more in diameter than those of the 
 northern and other porches, 93. 
 
 Synagogues of Northern Syria, value of their re- 
 mains for the restoration of the Temple, 164; 
 analogy between their supposed upper rooms 
 and the upper room of the Temple, 166. 
 
 Syria, many fragments of architecture in, enabling 
 us to realise the style of Herod’s Temple, 170. 
 
 Tabernacle, the original, essentially the same at 
 all times, however much modified, 18 ; was, in 
 fact, a tent, with a ridge and sloping sides, 
 20 ; the movable temple of the nation, ib. ; 
 and, as such, accompanied the Israelites in all 
 their wanderings, ib. ; its general plan, 21 ; 
 so fully described in Exodus and Josephus 
 that it can be easily restored, ib. ; every 
 dimension of, either 5 cubits or a multiple of 
 that measure, 23 ; view of, 24 ; dimensions of 
 the court of, given in the Bible precisely, ib. ; 
 the Jews, throughout all ages, considered its 
 dimensions as divinely revealed to Moses, 25 ; 
 and these, therefore, are the foundation of 
 all we know of subsequent Temples, ib. ; yet, 
 as a tent, scarcely in itself an architectural 
 object, ib. ; Solomon, however, accepted it as 
 his model, ib. ; verandah of, becomes, in the 
 Temple, a series of small chambers of three 
 storeys, 27 ; no notice of constructive details 
 to he found anywhere, 28. 
 
 Talmud, the Jerusalem, compiled in second and 
 third centuries a.d., the Babylonian, in the 
 fourth or fifth, 9 ; compilers of, never exag- 
 gerate or misrepresent such facts as they 
 have, ib.; had, probably, measurements handed 
 down from father to son, ib. ; doubtful if any 
 of them ever saw even the ruins of the 
 Temple, ib. ; usually confine their measure- 
 ments to the inner courts, which Herod was 
 not allowed to enter, 10 ; and ignore tbe 
 additions made by him, ib. ; at the same time 
 
 fancying that their measurements must co- 
 incide with those of Ezekiel, ib. ; were not 
 aware that the courts of Solomon’s Temple 
 were double those of the Tabernacle, 96. 
 
 Tell Hum, synagogue of, plan by Major Wilson, 
 165 ; upper room above the ruins of, probably 
 the ceremonial or meeting-room, ib. 
 
 Testament, New, indications in, of small import- 
 ance for the topography of the Temple, 7. 
 
 Thessalonica, arcade from the Church of Deme- 
 trius at, a.d. 500-520, 211. 
 
 Titus erects two banks against northern face of 
 the Antonia, and two against the correspond- 
 ing face of the Temple, 180. 
 
 Tombs of the Kings of Israel, their position 
 depends on the interpretation of the 3rd chap- 
 ter of Nehemiah, 53 ; ten of them buried on 
 the eastern hill, or Mount Zion, 55 ; the later 
 kings buried in the city, but not in the 
 tombs of their forefathers, 55. 
 
 Tombs, classical, existing near Jerusalem, not 
 earlier than Herod nor later than Titus, 161 ; 
 none erected by the Saracens in the first and 
 second centuries of the Hegira, 202. 
 
 Toran, or screen, in the same place both in Herod’s 
 and in Solomon’s Temple, 33 ; in Herod’s 
 Temple what Jachin and Boaz were in Solo- 
 mon’s, 96 ; Japanese, sketch of a, 126, note ; 
 detailed notices of, 151-160 ; the oldest exam- 
 ple in the East about 200 years before Herod, 
 at Bharhut, 160 ; at Sanchi and Amravati, 
 probably of wooden origin, ib. 
 
 Tourmanim, fa9ade of the church at, 139. 
 
 Transference of Sepulchre from eastern to western 
 hill, 258. 
 
 Treasury of Atreus, 294. 
 
 Vaults, the, to the east of the Triple Gateway, 
 those erected by Justinian to support , his 
 buildings, 10. 
 
 Veneering walls with marble, a common practice 
 of the Bomans in their thermae, and other 
 secular buildings, 202 ; as also in later times 
 at Santa Sophia in Constantinople, 203. 
 
 Vestibule of southern entrance of Herod’s 
 Temple, capital of, 89 ; domes of, much 
 damaged by fire in Titus’s time, 90. 
 
 Vestibule of the Gate Huldah, quadrant of one 
 of the domes, 90; that under El Aksa, the 
 only remains of Herod’s Temple, 91 ; one 
 quadrant of the dome of, still remaining, ib. ; 
 interesting as an early specimen of the pen- 
 dentive dome, ib. 
 
304 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Viharas, the Buddhist, probably more like the 
 Jewish Temples in their arrangements than 
 any other buildings, 135. 
 
 Vine of gold spread over the gateway of the 
 Temple, 152 ; presented to Pompey by Aristo- 
 bulus, 156. 
 
 Vogue, Count M. de, notice by, of square build- 
 ings in Syria surmounted by circular domes, 
 92, note ; admits that the Golden Gateway 
 was built by Christians between the fourth 
 and sixth centuries, 195; misled in his 
 judgment of the mosaics in the Dome of the 
 Eock by the Arabic inscriptions, 218 ; faithful 
 drawings by, of those in the church at Beth- 
 lehem, 219 ; plan of Temple area as restored 
 by, Appendix V. 278; three principal views of, 
 selected for discussion, 27 9 ; assigns J osephus’ 
 measurements to Solomon’s instead of Herod’s 
 Temple, 279; view as to the position and 
 dimensions of Herod’s Temple, ib. ; places his 
 Temple in the northern part of his parallelo- 
 gram, 280 ; calculations by, with reference to 
 the measures given by Josephus, 281 ; sup- 
 poses the Birket Israel a ditch to protect the 
 northern face of the Temple, 282 ; dimensions 
 of Herod’s Temple according to, 283 ; identifies 
 the mosque El Aksa with Justinian’s church, 
 290. 
 
 Warren, Captain, value of excavations by, as 
 showing that the south-east angle of the 
 Haram area was one of the angles of Solomon’s 
 palace, 41 ; discoveries of, with reference to 
 Dr. Eobinson’s arch, 83 ; and of a terrace wall 
 50 feet in front of the Golden Gateway, 196; 
 and, further, that the floor of the Basilica was 
 30 feet below that of the upper platform, 234 ; 
 section of vaults discovered by, north of plat- 
 form of Dome of Eock, 235 ; in all probability 
 those of the double aisles of Constantine’s 
 Basilica, ib. ; theory of, that the Jewish cubit 
 was 21 inches, and that Josephus meant cubits 
 when he wrote feet, 281. 
 
 Water Gate, position of, certain from local indica- 
 tions, 108. 
 
 Well of the Leaf, position of, under the colonnade 
 of the inner Temple, 108. 
 
 Williams, Eev. George, translation by, of a para- 
 graph in Procopius’ ‘ De /Edificiis,’ Appendix 
 III. 271, 272. 
 
 Willis, the late Professor, erroneous inference by, 
 from a passage in Eusebius, about the Golden 
 Gateway, 196. 
 
 Wilson, Major, E.E., accurate map of the Haram 
 area made by, for the Ordnance Survey in 
 1868, 5 ; short notice by, of the synagogues 
 of Tell Hum, 164 ; arch of, and adjoining 
 chambers, section of, east and west, 177. 
 
 Winds, Tower of the, at Athens, capital from, 
 89. 
 
 Women’s Court, in Herod’s time, a partition taken 
 from the outer or less sacred portions of the 
 Temple, 101 ; tabulated measurements of, 
 102 ; not concentric with the Temple Court, 
 118 ; inner gate of, called the Beautiful, 119 ; 
 the scene of most of the events of the New 
 Testament, ib. 
 
 Wurzburg, John of, his testimony to the position 
 of the Altar in the Temple, 191 ; points out, 
 in a.d. 1170, what was then supposed to be 
 the “ Beautiful Gate ” of the Temple, 287. 
 
 Zach arias, Tomb of, in the valley of Jehoshaphat, 
 142. 
 
 Zerubbabel, Temple of, not so lofty as that of 
 Solomon, but with facade of the same height 
 and width, viz. 60 cubits, 125. 
 
 Zion, or eastern hill, identity of, with the city of 
 David, quite certain, 54 ; and certainly the 
 same as the Temple hill, down to the time 
 of the Maccabees, ib. ; the site, also, of the 
 sepulchres of David and of his successors, ib. ; 
 changed from the eastern to the western hill 
 subsequently to the fourth century a.d., in 
 order to separate Christian from Jewish tra- 
 ditions, ib. 
 
 LONDON : PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS. 
 
Plate 1. 
 
 SOLOMON S BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Punted over the Ordnance Survey 
 
F 0 R T R 
 
 Plate 11 
 
 Joj Jftrgusson. Tnv' 
 
 HEROD'S TEMPLE ! CROUND PLAN 
 
 GROUND PLAN 
 
 SHEWING LOWER PART 
 OF THE 
 
 COURT or ™ c WOMEN 
 
 NOTE. Tlio figured dimensions ore given in Cubits 
 
 John Mio 
 
 JOJbemarlB Street . 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plate 111. 
 
 HERODS TEMPLE *. EAST ELEVATION 
 
 o. 
 
 3D 
 
 o 
 
 O' 
 
 o 
 
 J(LS H’eT'fpLSSOTl Ttlv ^ 
 
 John Murray, ALbemaj'Je SP 
 
 OPT 
 
Plate lV: 
 
 
 oo 
 
 t c ■ t v v \ s' v iiw< s v» v v \ vmvmmww 
 
 
 
 
 
 HEROD’S TEMPLE 
 
 «] LONG 1 : SECTION 
 
 S. ELEVATION [- 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 n 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ray, 
 
 John- JAur-, 
 
 JJJb em-a-rle Street. 
 
Plate Y. 
 

 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
r- & 
 
Plate "VII. 
 
 BIRKET ISRAEL 
 
 i I Wj 
 
 ME NS* U O N Eft 
 
 AT RIUM 
 
 GOLOEf 
 
 ^ALTABIS 
 
 ABRAHAM 
 
 '^OTHfrn 
 
 EASTERN | 
 GATEWAY 
 
 pO*T* 
 
 ^POUTF’ 
 
 OFTHE 
 
 ANTONIA 
 
 \ p L AC E 
 
 
 
 II ARAM AREA, 
 
 SHOWING THE 
 
 Jewish, Christian &: Mahomed an 
 
 Buildings . 
 
 Jewish /. . . jBuzLoUrtgs Black/ 
 
 Chrwtzany ff i^5/ 
 
 Mo}uvraeJ/ijv„ ,, Bluue, 
 

 PLATE VIII. 
 
 Ur Old, Moped J | [ 
 
 
 
 r'> riia 
 
 PLAN OF SOUTHERN PART OF HARAM AREA. 
 REDUCTION OF THE ORDNANCE SURVEY SHOWING CISTERNS AND VAULTS. 
 
 
 SAME SCALE AS PLATE II. 
 
 _ f 
 
 R 
 
 ... 
 
 L. 
 
 Jf- 0 t? o r 
 1] 
 
 
 p-e? m m> fa 
 
 P O 6 4 
 
 1 o a o Ip 2 ^ 
 
 r-psl _ J_ 
 
 
 = 0 : 
 
 
 
 MURRAY. ALBEMARLE 
 
This book should be returned to 
 the Library on or before the last date 
 stamped below. 
 
 A fine of five cents a day is incurred 
 by retaining it beyond the specified 
 time. 
 
 Please return promptly.