In lack of definite historical evidence, we are forced to turn to archaeology for the solution of the problem. Along the course of the present north wall numerous ancient remains have been discovered. Under the Grand New Hotel there is a line of huge Jewish stones running in a northwesterly direction. In the cellar of the Franciscan School, in the northwest corner of the city, a similar wall is to be seen. Along the entire course of the present north wall,

as far as the Damascus Gate, traces of the same old wall have been discovered. At the Damascus Gate ancient drafted stones still appear, and the top of the ancient gate is still seen built into the foundations. There is good archaeological evidence, accordingly, that an old Jewish wall followed substantially the line of the present city wall from the Jaffa Gate to the Damascus Gate. The question then arises: Which wall was this? Was it the second wall on the north, as described by Nehemiah and Josephus; or was it the third wall, which was not built until the time of King Agrippa? This is one

of the fundamental problems of Jerusalem topography, and to it no final answer has yet been given.

Those who hold that the present north wall corresponds with the wall of Agrippa are forced to hold that the second wall lay within the present city limits between the north wall and the wall of Solomon. The objections to this view are numerous.

I. No certain remains of a second wall inside of the present north wall have ever been discovered. The line of cisterns south and east of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which Schick' supposed to indicate an ancient city moat, is inadequate evidence. On the other hand, numerous traces of a third wall outside of the present city wall were observed by Robinson in 1838.2 Great stones that may have belonged to this wall have been found from time to time in digging foundations for houses north of the city, and traces of its base are perhaps still to be seen in the north side of a cistern north of St. Stephen's church.3 The archaeological evidence accordingly, so far as it goes, is more favorable to the view that the present north wall corresponds with the second wall, than that it corresponds with the third wall (see pp. 144 ff.).

2. Josephus (War, v, 7:3) states that, after the capture of the third, or outer, wall,

Titus moved his camp so as to be within at the place called the Camp of the Assyrians, occupying all the intervening space as far as the Kidron, but keeping a sufficient distance away from the second wall so as to be out of range of missiles.

This statement indicates that there was space enough between the third wall and the second for Titus' army to camp inside of the third, and still be out of reach of the stones and darts that the Jews hurled from their military engines on the second wall. No such space exists between the present wall and Schick's assumed second wall. The greatest distance between these is not more than 1,000 feet, and at many points they are not more than 500 feet apart. This argument bears with equal force against all other theories which locate the second wall inside of the Church of the Sepulcher. They 1 Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 1885, Part 4.

2 Biblical Researches in Palestine, Vol. I, pp. 465 ff.

3 See my article on "The Third Wall of Jerusalem and Some Excavations on its Supposed Site," Journal of Biblical Literature, 1905, Part 2.

do not leave enough room between the second and the third wall to allow for the statements of Josephus.

3. In War, v, 4:3, Josephus states that the circumference of the city was 33 stadia. If the present wall is the third wall, the city cannot have measured more than 27 stadia, even if all the bends and projections of the towers are counted in.

4. The immense population that, according to Josephus, found shelter in the city at the time of the Passover points to a larger area

than that included by the present north wall. The calculation of Cestius from the number of paschal lambs (War, vi, 9:3) would give a population not far from 3,000,000 at the time of the feast. According to War, vi, 9:3, 1,100,000 perished at the time of Titus' siege.

5. Ant., xx, 4:3, states that the outer wall was 3 stadia distant from the monument of Queen Helena. This monument is identified, with a high degree of probability, with the so-called Tombs of the Kings near the present residence of the Anglican bishop, but it is at least 4 stadia from the present city wall.

6. According to War, ii, 19:4, and v, 2:3, Titus pitched his camp on Scopus, 7 stadia distant from the city. Scopus is doubtless the high plateau north of Wâdy el-Jôz, and it is considerably more than 7 stadia from the present north wall.

Those who identify the third wall with the present north wall are compelled to assert that in all these passages Josephus exaggerates the size of the city; but no reason for exaggeration appears, and the consistency of his statements with one another indicates rather that he has told the truth.

It appears, accordingly, that the weight of evidence is in favor of the view that the remains near the present north wall are to be identified with the ancient second north wall. This would probably never have been questioned but for the bearing of the discussion upon the genuineness of the traditional Holy Sepulcher. According to Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:20; John 19:17, 20, 41; Heb. 13:12, Christ was crucified and buried outside of the city wall—that is, outside of the second wall on the north, since Agrippa's wall had not yet been built. If the second wall be identified with the present north wall, then the Church of the Holy Sepulcher lies inside of the second wall, and cannot be the genuine site of the crucifixion and entombment. It is this fact which has led so many writers to struggle against the identification of the old second wall with the present north wall. All their efforts, however, have proved unavailing to produce valid archaeological evidence of the existence of an ancient wall inside of the Church of the Sepulcher. I assume, accordingly, that the north wall of Nehemiah, which I suppose to have been first erected by Manasseh, started at the old Corner Gate-that is, the modern Jaffa Gute; followed the line of wall under the Grand New Hotel; ran thence in a northwesterly direction parallel to the present city wall to the ruins known as Qal'at-Jalûd, near the northwest corner of the city; and then followed the present line of the city wall as far as the Damascus Gate. Thence it ran probably over the high cliff east of the Damascus Gate, and thence in a southeasterly direction to the northeast corner of the Temple. The quarter north of the Temple known as Bezetha is distinctly stated by Josephus to have lain outside of the second wall (Ant., xvii, 10:2; War, ii, 3:1; v, 4:2); consequently, that wall cannot have followed the course of the present city wall around the northeast corner of the city (cf. p. 144).