Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Author	: Bill Kochman
Publish	: Feb. 28, 1998
Update	: May 28, 2025
Parts	: 12

Synopsis:



Continuing our discussion from part nine, in addition to the aforementioned information, in his 1891 book entitled "The Beautiful Land", the Episcopal priest and church historian, Reverend John Fulton, DD, LLD -- who was the editor of the New York Churchman, as well as one of the founding editors of "The Living Church" magazine -- goes into considerable detail concerning the physical layout of ancient Jerusalem, some of the ongoing construction work which occurred there, and the location of the aforementioned mounts. Furthermore, if you visit the two web links below, you will be able to confirm for yourself that both Bezetha and Acra were built on hills, as a part of ancient Jerusalem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acra_(fortress)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bezetha

Regarding the five mounts -- or hills -- which I was able to find in the KJV Bible, following are the various verses where they are mentioned. Please note that Zion -- or Sion -- is in reality mentioned 154 times throughout the Bible.

"For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of mount ZION: the zeal of the LORD of hosts shall do this."


"And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill GAREB, and shall compass about to GOATH."


"Now after this he built a wall without the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entering in at the fish gate, and compassed about OPHEL, and raised it up a very great height, and put captains of war in all the fenced cities of Judah."


"Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount MORIAH, where the Lord appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite."


"And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold [Hebrew = OPHEL] of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem."


While I wasn't able to specifically find Mount Acra and Mount Bezetha in the Holy Scriptures, please note that in addition to what Josephus wrote about them, they are both mentioned in the "Jewish Encyclopedia" under the listing for "Jerusalem" at the following URL. In fact, this page confirms the fact that Acra was known as "the citadel", just as we saw earlier in 1 Maccabees:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=242&letter=J

As I mentioned a moment ago, there do exist topographical drawings of ancient Jerusalem which show these seven mounts at the time that John wrote the Book of Revelation. In fact, the first drawing I discovered while conducting my research, is found in the aforementioned book by John Fulton. It isn't a very good drawing, but if you are reading this series on the BBB Bible website, you can see it below. You'll need to look really hard to make out the names of the various mountains. By the way, this is the same drawing that is found on the Jewish Encyclopedia website as well. The fact that even the Jewish Encyclopedia displays this same map, is clear proof that the Jews know that ancient Jerusalem sat upon these seven mountains:



Below is yet another hand-drawn map of ancient Jerusalem, which I found on the christianforums.com website. While it too is not of very good quality, nevertheless, you can see the seven named mountains in the somewhat circular portion in the center of the map, which is Jerusalem proper.



Something else which makes this whole issue a bit confusing is the fact that over the course of time -- meaning years, decades and even centuries -- as different military forces rose to power and took over lands and countries, they not only sometimes altered the physical landscape to suit their purposes, but they also changed the names of some locations as well. As a result, for a modern Bible researcher such as you and I, this can make discovering the truth even more challenging and difficult, but not totally impossible if we research diligently.

For example, while my original research years ago revealed the names of the seven mountains upon which Jerusalem of the First Century sat -- which I have already shared with you -- when I conducted my research for the 2023 update of this same series, I discovered a NEW list of seven names, one of which -- Mount Scopus -- is not even found in the KJV Bible. To give you an example, the biblestudy.org website names the seven mountains on which Jerusalem sat at that time as being the following. Please note that I am assuming that they mean Mount Moriah when they employ the name "Hill on which the Antonia Fortress was built". It is also known as "The Rock", which again leads me to believe that the name shown below is referring to Mount Moriah:

Hill on which the Antonia Fortress was built
Mount of Corruption
Mount Olivet (Mount of Olives)
Mount Ophel
Mount Scopus
New Mount Zion
Original Mount Zion

Below is a map I found on the aforementioned biblestudy.org website. Again, please excuse the poor quality of the map. I can only share with you what I've actually been able to find on the web, and that in itself can be a very difficult task.



This same list of seven names is found on the Wikipedia site under the title "List of cities claimed to be built on seven hills". Please note that while the "Mount of Corruption" is mentioned by name in the KJV Bible, Mount Scopus -- which is also known as Lookout Mountain -- is not. While the Mount of Corruption and Mount Scopus are both found on the Wikipedia website -- being as they are situated on the same ridge and to the north and south of the Mount of Olives -- only Mount Scopus appears to be mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopedia; unless I just haven't been able to locate any mention of the Mount of Corruption in the encyclopedia yet.

Also, the Jews today refer to the Mount of Corruption as the Mount of Anointment, which is odd, considering what occurred there. The Mount of Corruption is also known as the Mount of Offence. The following verses explain that this mountain is so named because it was there where King Solomon constructed altars to the false gods. Please also note that "the hill that is before Jerusalem" and "the mount of corruption" are referring to the same mountain. That is to say, the southern flank of the Mount of Olives, which consists of three main summits on the same ridge:

"Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in THE HILL THAT IS BEFORE JERUSALEM, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon."


"And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the MOUNT OF CORRUPTION, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king [meaning King Josiah] defile."


As we have seen, sometimes, these various mountains on which the ancient city of Jerusalem sat are not mentioned by their actual names in the Scriptures. They are described in some other way. For example, the Jews believe that the following verse which is found in the Book of Ezekiel is referring to the Mount of Olives. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that the Prophet Zechariah specifically tells us that the Mount of Olives is to the east of Jerusalem proper:

"And the glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon THE MOUNTAIN WHICH IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE CITY."


"And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, WHICH IS BEFORE JERUSALEM ON THE EAST, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south."


Regarding Mount Scopus, While Flavius Josephus does not seem to mention the Mount of Corruption in any of his works -- it is again possible that I simply have not found it yet -- he does mention Mount Scopus by name in several places in his works. For example, In Book 2 Chapter 19 of "The Wars of the Jews", while describing how Cestius made his approach to the city of Jerusalem in order to lay siege against it, Josephus mentions that the Roman general encamped on Mount Scopus, as we see by the following excerpt:

----- Begin Quote -----

"But now Cestius, observing that the disturbances that were begun among the Jews afforded him a proper opportunity to attack them, took his whole army along with him, and put the Jews to flight, and pursued them to Jerusalem. He then pitched his camp upon the elevation called Scopus, [or watch tower,] which was distant seven furlongs from the city; yet did not he assault them in three days' time, out of expectation that those within might perhaps yield a little; and in the meantime he sent out a great many of his soldiers into the neighbouring villages, to seize upon their corn.

But when the robbers perceived this unexpected retreat of his, they resumed their courage, and ran after the hinder parts of his army, and destroyed a considerable number of both their horsemen and footmen: and now Cestius lay all night at the camp which was at Scopus,"

----- End Quote -----

In similar fashion, in Book 5 Chapters 2 and 3 of "The Wars of the Jews", Josephus describes how General Titus -- who was the son of then emperor, Vespasian -- also established his camp on Mount Scopus, which gave him a clear view of Jerusalem, before they began their siege against the city in 70 AD. You will find these historic events discussed in detail in my lengthy series "Vespasian, Titus and the Fall of Jerusalem":

----- Begin Quote -----

"But now, as soon as that legion that had been at Emmaus was joined to Caesar at night, he removed thence, when it was day, and came to a place called Scopus; from whence the city began already to be seen, and a plain view might be taken of the great temple. Accordingly, this place, on the north quarter of the city, and joining thereto, was a plain, and very properly named Scopus, [the prospect]; and was no more than seven furlongs distant from it.

But Titus, intending to pitch his camp nearer to the city than Scopus, placed as many of his choice horsemen and footmen as he thought sufficient, opposite to the Jews, to prevent their sallying out upon them, while he gave orders for the whole army to level the distance, as far as the wall of the city. So they threw down all the hedges and walls which the inhabitants had made about their gardens and groves of trees, and cut down all the fruit-trees that lay between them and the wall of the city, and filled up all the hollow places and the chasms, and demolished the rocky precipices with iron instruments; and thereby made all the place level from Scopus to Herod's monuments, which adjoined to the pool called the Serpent's Pool."

----- End Quote -----

The Wikipedia website also confirms that Mount Scopus served as a lookout point for both Jewish and Muslim pilgrims, and also for the invading armies which sought to take Jerusalem. Please note, however, that as the second paragraph below explains, there is some debate regarding whether or not the ridge which is today identified as Mount Scopus, is the same ridge that Josephus refers to in his "The Wars of the Jews":

----- Begin Quote -----

"The Hebrew name, Har HaTzofim, "Lookout Mountain", is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. It first appears in the form of the Greek "ὁ Σκοπός" (skopós) in the works of Josephus (The Jewish War)"

"The ancient name Har Hatzofim or Mount Scopus has been affixed to this particular mountain and its peak in the 20th century without the certainty that it corresponds precisely to what Josephus had referred to as Mount Scopus."

----- End Quote -----

Below are two more maps I found online which show the seven mountains upon which ancient Jerusalem sat. You may have noticed that I have used the term "Jerusalem proper" several times now. My purpose is to designate the city itself which sat on the original seven mountains which I first shared with you, and which was confined within the retaining walls which were built during different times. In contrast, as you can see by these two maps, Mount Scopus, Mount Olivet and the Mount of Corruption -- or Mount of Offence -- sat OUTSIDE of Jerusalem proper, and across the brook of Kidron and the Kidron Valley, also known as Cedron. In fact, these three ridges were higher than, and overlooked Jerusalem proper, which sat upon the aforementioned seven mounts.





Regarding all of the various maps I have been sharing with you, on one particular Roman Catholic website forum called "Phatmass - A Vintage Catholic Website", I discovered the following explanation regarding the seven hills upon which first century Jerusalem sat:

----- Begin Quote -----

"The City of Jerusalem as it existed in the time of Christ Jesus was also reckoned to be the "City of Seven Hills." This fact was well recognized in Jewish circles. In the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, an eighth century midrashic narrative (section 10), the writer mentioned without commentary (showing that the understanding was well known and required no defense) that "Jerusalem is situated on seven hills" (recorded in The Book of Legends, edited by Bialik and Ravnitzky, p. 371, paragraph 111). And, so it was. Those "seven hills" are easy to identify. If one starts with the Mount of Olives just to the east of the main City of Jerusalem (but still reckoned to be located within the environs of Jerusalem), there are three summits to that Mount of Olives. The northern summit (hill) is called Scopus [Hill One], the middle summit (hill) was called Nob [Hill Two], the highest point of Olivet itself, and the southern summit (hill) was called in the Holy Scriptures the "Mount of Corruption" or "Mount of Offence" [Hill Three] (II Kings 23:13). On the middle ridge between the Kedron and the Tyropoeon Valleys there was (formerly) in the south "Mount Zion" [Hill Four] (the original "Mount Zion" and not the later southwest hill that was later called by that name), then the "Ophel Mount" [Hill Five] and then to the north of that the "Rock" around which "Fort Antonia" was built [Hill Six]. And finally, there was the southwest hill itself [Hill Seven] that finally became known in the time of Simon the Hasmonean as the new "Mount Zion." This makes "Seven Hills" in all."

----- End Quote -----

While all of these different maps and different names may be confusing to some of you, there is one very important point I want you to remember from all of this information. That is the fact that regardless of which sources we use, which maps we rely on, or what names are applied to these different mountains, they all agree to the fact that the ancient city of Jerusalem sat upon seven mountains; and that is exactly what the Apostle John writes in the Book of Revelation. There can be no mistake about this, being as there are multiple sources which prove this point, as I have now explained to you.

Yet sadly, as I mentioned to you in part nine, today there exist quite a few Christians who either remain completely unaware of this important information, or else who purposely choose to ignore it -- or perhaps even conceal it? -- simply because the information outright contradicts what they want to believe. That, of course, is their misguided belief that the Roman Catholic Church is Babylon the Great which sits on seven hills. Some of these people can be vehement regarding this issue, and will act quite obnoxiously, in their efforts to defend their point of view.

As I briefly mentioned in part eight, another tactic which these same people use is to insist that the Apocalypse is a prophecy of the far future, and can't possibly be referring to Jerusalem, because they are convinced that the Book of Revelation was given to the Apostle John about two decades after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Therefore, in their minds, Babylon the Great can't be a code name for the city of Jerusalem. They claim that it must be referring to some other city which will be destroyed in the far future, which according to their belief, means Rome and the Roman Catholic Church.

Not too long ago, I engaged in a brief online discussion with a particular individual who embraces the positions I have just described to you. This person had a very haughty know-it-all attitude. At one point, they remarked, "Who else could it be?", as if there are no other options that we can or even should consider. When I respectfully tried to let them know that there is in fact another option -- a very Bible-based one at that -- they immediately shot back with something like "The Book of Revelation was written after 70 AD." In fact, I think they may even have stated 90 AD or 95 AD.

This is in fact the standard answer which is given by the people who embrace this Futurist position. For them, there simply is no other possible date; and by adamantly sticking to that date, they convince themselves further that ancient Jerusalem is not Babylon the Great. They will not consider any other date. Period. They are very close-minded about it. So exactly what is the truth of the matter?

Well, if you conduct some serious online research of your own, you will quickly discover that the date of the Book of Revelation has been debated for literally centuries. While 90 AD to 95 AD is the date which is firmly embraced by the Futurists who want to place the fulfillment of the various prophecies in Revelation in the future, it is by no means the only school of thought regarding this issue. There is another camp which believes that the Apocalypse -- or Book of Revelation -- was revealed to John BEFORE the fall of Jerusalem, around 66 AD to 68 AD. This is in fact the camp with which I personally identify. In fact, I have wondered if the Book might have possibly been written even a little earlier than that.

From my perspective, just by accepting the earlier date, a number of prophetic events in the Book of Revelation easily fall into place and can be understood, beginning with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD, and the period known to modern students of the Bible as the Great Tribulation. In fact, by accepting a pre-70 AD date as the true time when John received the Book of Revelation, as I mentioned in part eight, what you will likewise discover is that the amazing prophecies of Daniel, what Jesus said in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, and even certain things the Apostles wrote about in the Epistles, all fall into place, and are easier to understand, without trying to force them to fit into our modern times, which is foolishness.

But how can we convincingly prove which of these two dates is correct? Speaking truthfully, there are no clear-cut verses in the Bible which provide us with an actual, specific date for when the Book of Revelation was written. However, as I will now point out to you, there is certainly circumstantial evidence in the Scriptures which does suggest that the 66 AD to 68 AD time frame is probably correct, or at least close to it. The very first piece of circumstantial evidence -- which I already discussed in part eight -- is the actual spirit of extreme urgency in which Revelation is written.

My friends, there is simply no mistaking that John writes as if the events he is describing are just about upon them. As I mentioned in part eight, in FOUR different verses in this amazing book, Jesus says "I come quickly." Likewise, let us not forget that John was twice told that the prophecies and visions are "things which must shortly come to pass". I do not view 2,000 years in the future to our current time as accurately fulfilling those two verses. Do you? But that is not all. In the very first chapter of the Book of Revelation, as well as in the very last chapter, we are also told that "the time is at hand". My friends, you simply don't say that two times if something is still many centuries away. Consider the following two verses:

"Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: FOR THE TIME IS AT HAND."


"And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: FOR THE TIME IS AT HAND."


Furthermore, as I also noted in part eight, in three of the Gospels Jesus said "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." This is a topic which I discuss more at length in the aforementioned series called "Jesus Christ's Return: Have We Been Deceived?". Thus, to reiterate, Jesus is talking about the very same events that we find in both the Book of Daniel, and in the Book of Revelation.

Another strong piece of circumstantial evidence is found in the fact that at the time John receives his revelations from the Lord, the temple in Jerusalem is STILL standing, and has not been destroyed just yet, as Jesus had prophesied in the Gospels. This is a clear indication that John wrote his book BEFORE 70 AD. Consider the following group of Bible verses:

"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."


"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."


"And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."


"For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."


"And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."


"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, YOUR HOUSE IS LEFT UNTO YOU DESOLATE. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."


"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, YOUR HOUSE IS LEFT UNTO YOU DESOLATE: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

The fact that the destruction of the temple is not explicitly mentioned in the Book of Revelation is very much worthy of note. Why? Because given that the Apocalypse -- or Revelation -- focuses so strongly on divine judgment, one would think it highly relevant for said event to be mentioned if it actually had already been destroyed. So this notable silence is very telling in my view and strongly suggests that the destruction of the temple is not included, because the event had simply NOT happened yet when John wrote his book. That is why we see the still-standing temple mentioned in Revelation 11:1-2.

Please go to part eleven for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the BBB Bible website. There are many treasures for you to discover.