in the earlier ones only referred to incidentally or obscurely. It is
commonly identified with the Salem of which Melchizedec was king; and
Mount Moriah, upon which Abraham was about to offer up Isaac, is thought
to be the same with that on which the Temple was afterwards built. Dean
Stanley argues strongly against this view, and would transfer the city
of Melchizedec to a town, the site of which is marked by a village still
bearing the name of Salem, near the ancient Shechem. The sacrifice of
Isaac he would likewise place in the same neighbourhood on the summit of
Gerizim. Though his arguments are weighty and deserve serious
consideration, they cannot be accepted as conclusive. That the king of
Jerusalem, in the days of Joshua,[140] bore a name or title almost the
precise equivalent of that of the king of Salem, who was Abraham’s
friend, is an important fact in the discussion. Adonizedec, the Lord of
righteousness, would be a probable successor of Melchizedec, the King of
righteousness.
But whilst Jerusalem was thus probably associated with two most
memorable events in the life of Abraham, it was not till the time of
David that the city rose into prominence. In his day it was regarded as
an impregnable stronghold. The Jebusites, confident in the strength of
their position, treated the attacks of the besiegers with derision, and
placed upon their walls, the blind and the lame as an adequate garrison,
“thinking, David cannot come in hither.... Nevertheless David took the
stronghold of Zion.”[141] Stung by the taunt and incited by the promise
of the king, Joab stormed the citadel and received the command-in-chief
of the army as a reward of his desperate exploit. David, who had
hitherto reigned in Hebron, now removed his capital to Jerusalem. The
reasons for this are obvious. At Hebron he was isolated from the great
bulk of his subjects; Jerusalem, though not central, was yet not very
remote from the Northern tribes; it was on the frontier of his own tribe
of Judah and partly within that of Benjamin, whose allegiance he thus
secured. Military considerations were even more decisively in favour of
the new capital. Nor must we overlook the divine guidance which thus
prepared the way for the erection of the Temple on the chosen and
favoured spot. Little did the rude rough soldier, when “getting up by
the gutter and smiting the Jebusites,” think for what mighty events he
was preparing the way.
The city fortified by David, enriched and adorned by Solomon,[142] has
continued, with varying fortunes, to occupy the same spot to the present
day. Its continuity, however, like that of the human body, is a constant
sequence of destruction and reconstruction, ever perishing yet ever
renewed. In addition to the corroding influence of time and the
destructive agencies of earthquake and fire, it has suffered yet more
severely from the violence of man. Perhaps no city in the world has
undergone so many or such disastrous sieges. Roman, Persian, Saracen,
Christian, Turk, have succeeded one another in the work of devastation.
Again and again it has been laid utterly waste, and continued for years
to be desolate and forsaken.
The result of this long succession of destructive agencies is, that of
ancient Jerusalem scarcely a trace or vestige remains. The city of David
and Solomon lies buried far beneath the ruins of edifices which have
succeeded it. It is even difficult to say, with certainty, that we can
find undoubted remains above the soil of the city of Herod. The great
Tyropæan valley which divided Zion from Acra has been filled up with
débris, leaving only a slight depression. We cannot even trace the line
of the ancient walls except where they ran along the edge of the ravine,
which bounds the city on the east and south. The whole topography of
Jerusalem is hence involved in the utmost confusion. The most elementary
facts as to the localities indicated by the inspired narrative, have
been for years the theme of keen and angry dispute. Whilst the
controversial literature on the subject might fill a moderately-sized
library, we seem almost as far from a satisfactory settlement of the
question as ever.
[Illustration: RUINS NEAR THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE.]
The general outline of the country and the great natural features of the
landscape are, indeed, distinct and unmistakeable. The mountains round
about Jerusalem, the valleys which encompass it, and the ridge on which
it stands, remain as they were in the days of the patriarchs and
prophets and apostles. Looked at from any of the surrounding heights, we
feel no difficulty in identifying the objects which meet our view. The
scene which lies outstretched before us from the summit of the Mount of
Olives, has been so truthfully and graphically sketched by Lady
Strangford, that we cannot do better than reproduce her description:
“Let us sketch in slightly what we see: the bare hill to the south of
the city, with one miserable wind-worn tree on its brow, is the Hill of
Evil Counsel (where Caiaphas and the elders are said, upon no authority,
however, to have taken counsel together[143]). It is rocky and
irregular, sloping off to the west and dying down in the Plain of
Rephaim. On the north, long ridges of low barren hills or plains, stony
and bare, though dotted with olives here and there, stretch one behind
another. They seem to rise gently from the city until the monotony is
broken by the low peak of Neby Samwil, marked by a tower, the ruin of an
old convent church, since converted into a mosque.
[Illustration: JERUSALEM FROM THE MOUNT OF OLIVES.]
[Illustration:
WALLS OF JERUSALEM.
_From a Photograph._
]
“Between these two sides of the picture the Holy City stands, apparently
on a square, rocky hill, enclosed in crenelated walls, with here and
there a bastion or a zigzag—very quaint and very sad those old walls
look, and yet something proudly, too, they stand—while beyond them a
long, dull, flat ridge rises slightly towards the west, and two deep
narrow ravines sweep round the holy mountain—the one is the valley of
Jehoshaphat, or of the Kedron, commencing from some distance to the
north of the city, and running along the eastern side of it to the
south. The other is the Valley of Hinnom, coming round from the western
side and uniting with the Kedron at the south-east corner, embracing at
that point, between them, the spur of Mount Moriah, which is called
Ophel. Farthest from us, on the western wall, is the Tower of Hippicus.
Near it, to the right, is the Latin Convent and the two domes of the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre. To the left, on Mount Zion, the extensive
Armenian Convent, the domes of some new synagogues, the English Church,
and the tomb of David are seen (the last outside the wall). These are
almost the only buildings on which the eye can rest among the confused
mass of little brown and white domes and grey walls: nor are any of
these seen at first, for the Mosque of Omar, in the famous Harâm, the
second most beautiful building in all the world, rivets all the
spectator’s attention. The wall enclosing the mosque occupies more than
half the eastern side of the city—in the centre of which stands the
mosque, an octagonal building, pierced with seven windows on each side,
narrowing above into a small circle also pierced with windows, and
surmounted by a most graceful dome, bearing aloft the gilt crescent of
Islam; the whole building is cased entirely in encaustic tiles—chiefly
blue, green, purple, and yellow, formed into intricate and delicate
arabesques, and so mingled that it is impossible to say whether the
building is green or blue. The cornice is replaced by an Arabic
inscription in large and prettily interlaced letters. The mosque stands
on a marble platform, which is reached by broad flights of steps, and
round the edge of which are several groups of slender arches and small
houses, while little circular _mihrabs_, or praying-places, shaded by a
light canopy of fretted stone, are dotted over its surface. Round this
platform are grassy slopes, with noble cypresses and a few other trees,
the bright and dark green of which contrast beautifully with the white
and coloured marbles of the buildings.
[Illustration: STREET OF MODERN JERUSALEM.]
“At the southern end of the enclosure is the mosque of El Aksa,
ornamented with a dome and covered by a sloping roof. The mosque of the
Mogharibeh, the college of the Dervishes, and the Serai, the residence
of the pasha, stand on the west and north sides—while the whole extent
of the eastern side of the city is only broken by St. Stephen’s Gate,
and the long-closed ‘Golden Gate,’ with its two round arches and small
domes.
“This is the view over which Jesus wept, when He beheld its beauty, and
thought upon its ruin and desolation; and strange and thrilling, indeed,
is the feeling it gives to one now: the gloomy ravines lose much of
their effect seen from above: the surrounding hills are, one and all,
the very dreariest, barrenest, and ugliest one can find anywhere, and
yet the whole is beautiful, and even the fastidious and trifling are
impressed by it.”
[Illustration:
SKETCH PLAN OF SITE OF JERUSALEM.
_After Robinson._
]
It is when we endeavour to fill in the details of the city itself that
our difficulties and perplexities commence. They are caused partly by
the vague and indefinite language of ancient historians and
topographers, and partly by the fact that valleys have been filled up,
hills have been levelled and successive cities have arisen upon the
ruins of those which have preceded them, thus effacing the landmarks
which would otherwise have guided us. Mediæval and monkish traditions
have likewise done much to obscure and pervert the true topography of
Jerusalem. Learning and labour have been wasted in the endeavour to
defend theories which have nothing in their favour but ecclesiastical
authority. Theological controversies have thus been imported into
questions which ought to have been discussed only in the light of
historical and geographical science.
We know from Josephus that the city stood on two hills, divided by the
Tyropæan Valley. One of these was Zion, the other Acra. We read likewise
of Bezetha, Moriah, and Ophel. Did these last form a separate ridge or
were they names given to parts of one of the former? If so, to
which—Zion or Acra? The sketch plan given above shows the conclusion
arrived at by Dr. Robinson, who maintains that there were three separate
hills. Other writers of scarcely inferior authority identify the Temple
ridge with Zion—others again with Acra. Notwithstanding the confident
dogmatism with which each of these views has been maintained, I cannot
say that any of them have carried full conviction to my own mind. It is
to be hoped that the explorations now in progress may throw some light
upon these obscure questions.
No less conflicting are the views as to the sites of the SEPULCHRE and
of the TEMPLE. Though the Temple claims priority in the order of
historical sequence, yet, for reasons which will subsequently appear, we
first consider the site of the Sepulchre.
[Illustration: ENTRANCE OF CHURCH OF HOLY SEPULCHRE.]
The church of the Holy Sepulchre stands in a crowded part of the city,
at some distance to the north-west of the Temple area. It is a
comparatively modern structure, no portion being probably older than the
period of the Crusades. It is entered through a courtyard, in which a
market is now held for the sale of trinkets, rosaries, pictures and
curiosities. And just inside the principal entrance a Turkish guard is
stationed to keep order, and repress disturbances amongst the hostile
sects and nationalities who visit it.
[Illustration: THE POOL OF HEZEKIAH AND THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY
SEPULCHRE.]
In passing round the church, attention is distracted and incredulity
excited by the aggregation under one roof of numerous shrines and holy
places. Here are shown not only the sites of the crucifixion and the
resurrection, but the tombs of Adam, Melchizedec, Joseph of Arimathea,
and of Nicodemus; the place where our Lord was crowned with thorns, and
where He appeared to Mary Magdalene; the pillar to which he was bound
during the scourging; the slab upon which His body was laid for the
anointing; the spot where He first appeared to His mother after the
resurrection; the centre of the world; the place whence the earth was
taken from which Adam was made, with many other marvels. Even those who
come, with simple faith, to “see the place where the Lord lay,” depart
indignant at the frauds and lying legends palmed off upon them. This
feeling is increased by the tinsel and frippery which abound everywhere.
The very Chapel of the Resurrection is made offensive by puerile
ornamentation and tawdry finery. Yet in spite of all, it is strangely
affecting to see the agony of earnestness, the passionate fervour of
devotion, displayed by pilgrims, many of whom have travelled on foot
from incredible distances to pray at the sacred shrines.
[Illustration: PLAN OF THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE.]
a. Entrance to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
b. Divan of the Turkish Guards.
c. Staircase of the Latins, leading to Golgotha.
c'. Ditto of the Greeks.
d. The Place of Crucifixion.
e. Greek Altar, where is found the Hole of the Cross.
f. Cleft of the Rock.
gg. Greek Chapels.
g'. Parting of Garments.
g". Crowning of Thorns.
h. Stone of Anointing.
i. Position of the three Maries.
kk. Staircase and Armenian Chapels.
ll. Chapels attached to Latin Convent.
m. Chapel of the Angel.
n. Inner Chapel.
o. The Holy Sepulchre.
p. Coptic Chapel.
q. Ditto of Schismatic Syrians.
r. Tombs of Joseph and Nicodemus.
ss. Greek, Armenian, and Coptic Chapels.
t. Staircase to Latin Church.
u. Station of Mary Magdalene.
v. Place where Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene.
x. Christ’s Prison.
y. Steps leading to Chapel of the Finding.
z. Place where the Cross was found.
A. Entrance Court.
B. Chapel of Calvary.
C. Great Cupola.
D. Chapel of Holy Sepulchre.
E. Greek Church.
F. Church of the Franciscans.
G. Chapel of St. Helena.
H. Chapel of the Finding of the Cross.
K. Ruined Steeple.
α. Centre of the World.
β. Most Holy Place of the Greeks.
δ. Chapel of Longinus.
δ. Place of Abraham’s Sacrifice.
ε. Place where Melchisedek blessed the Bread.
We may dismiss, without a moment’s hesitation, the legends which cluster
around the main central tradition; but have we reasonable ground for
believing that our Lord was crucified and buried upon this spot? What is
the evidence upon which the authenticity of the site rests?
In the reign of Constantine the city had been laid utterly waste; its
very name had ceased to be used, and Christians and Jews had been
banished from it for generations. The superstitious zeal of the Empress
Helena, prompted her to visit the sacred places, and the site of Calvary
had been fixed by the alleged discovery of the three crosses which were
found in a pit, and their authenticity is said to have been attested by
the miracles which were worked. Constantine now resolved to recover the
Sepulchre and to erect a church, the splendour and beauty of which
should surpass all others. Eusebius tells us, that the pagans had piled
a mound of earth over the cave, had paved the surface and placed upon it
a temple to Venus; the emperor caused these to be removed, when “as soon
as the original surface of the ground, beneath its covering of earth
appeared, immediately and contrary to all expectation, the venerable and
hallowed monument of our Saviour’s resurrection was discovered.” The
cave was adorned with marbles, a colonnade was erected round it, and a
basilica was built in honour of the _Anastasis_, or Resurrection.
[Illustration: INTERIOR OF THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE.]
[Illustration: CHAPEL OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE.]
Two questions at once suggest themselves. Did Constantine discover the
true site? Does the present church stand upon the same spot with his
basilica? To these questions the most contradictory answers are given.
By some it is maintained that the emperor was guided, in his search, by
accurate information, that a continuous tradition connects his edifice
with the present church, and that, consequently, we have the very places
of the entombment and resurrection fixed beyond reasonable doubt.
Others, holding that the true site was discovered by Constantine, yet
assert that during the intervals in which Christians were banished from
Jerusalem by Persian and Mohammedan conquerors, the original edifice was
destroyed, the locality forgotten, and that a new church sprang up upon
a different site, around which legends have clustered in the lapse of
ages which have no historical basis. Others, again, assert that
Constantine was the dupe either of superstition or of imposture, and
that there was absolutely no evidence that the sepulchre was where he
sought for it.
[Illustration: THE PLACE OF SCOURGING.]
Into the protracted and angry discussions which have raged upon these
questions, I do not propose to enter here. But after a careful
examination of the site and of the arguments urged by the various
disputants, I come to the conclusion that the place of the crucifixion
and entombment must be sought elsewhere, and not on the spot which
tradition points out. Though the indications of Scripture may be
insufficient to show us where it was, they are yet quite adequate to
tell us where it was not.
1. It was outside the city, yet near to it (John xix. 20; Hebrews xiii.
12).
2. It was a place where interments were permitted, and as a matter of
fact did take place (Matt. xxvii. 59, 60; Mark xv. 46, 47; Luke xxiii.
53; John xix. 41, 42).
3. There was a garden in “the place” (John xix. 41).
4. It was by the side of a road leading up from the country (Matt.
xxvii. 39; Mark xv. 21, 29; Luke xxiii. 26).
5. It was a spot capable of being seen by a considerable number of
persons from a distance (Matt. xxvii. 55; Mark xv. 40; Luke xxiii. 49).
[Illustration: CAVE UNDER THE CHURCH.]
6. It was within sight and hearing of a place whence the priests could
stand without danger of defilement (Matt. xxvii. 41; Mark xv. 31; John
xviii. 28).
7. It was not far from the barracks of the Roman soldiers, some of whom
ran and fetched the vinegar—the ordinary _posca_, or sour drink of the
legionaries—when Jesus on the cross cried, “I thirst” (Matt. xxvii. 48;
Mark xv. 36).
8. The language of the evangelists seems to imply that the procession,
on leaving the judgment hall, passed not through the city but outside it
(Matt. xxvii. 31, 32; Mark xv. 20; Luke xxiii. 26; John xix. 17).
The present site fails to satisfy any one of these conditions. It is not
only far within the walls, but apparently must have been so in the time
of our Lord when the city was much larger and more populous than now,
though in the time of Constantine, when the walls were demolished and
the city desolate, it may have been outside the inhabited district.[144]
Even if by any sudden bend, or re-entering angle the line of
circumvallation left it outside, which, however, is very unlikely, it
must still have been in the midst of houses, for we find that Agrippa,
twelve years afterwards, constructed a third line of wall to enclose an
extensive suburb which had sprung up on this side; and we know that the
ceremonial law and social usages of the Jews forbad the formation of
graves among the abodes of the living.
[Illustration: VIA DOLOROSA.]
Where could the priests have stood who so feared[145] defilement, that
they would not enter the judgment hall amongst a crowd of Roman soldiers
and rabble? In a place of public execution and interment, they must have
been defiled.
If, as seems certain, houses were all round the present site, where
could the great multitude have watched from “afar off?”
The judgment hall and the barracks are believed to have been in the
Castle of Antonia. In this case the Via Dolorosa must have led, as
tradition now marks it, through the heart of the city, crowded at the
time to its utmost capacity by the multitudes who had come up to the
feast. The rulers feared “an uproar among the people,” many of whom
“believed on Him;” hence the need for taking Him by subtlety, and for
hurrying over the trial in an illegal and stealthy manner. Is it likely
that they would run the risk of a disturbance and a rescue in the
crowded street? especially with a guard of only four soldiers.[146] We
can hardly doubt that, in accordance with the indications of the
narrative the rulers would choose some place for the execution to which
they could pass immediately from the prætorium into the open country.
We have but to transfer the scene of the crucifixion from the northern
to the eastern side of the city, in the valley of the Kedron, to find
all the requirements of the narrative satisfied. It is, and always must
have been, outside the walls. It was a recognised place of interment,
the valley to this day being full of graves, many of them very ancient
and cut in the rock. Irrigated by the river, by wells and fountains,
there were numerous gardens. The slope of Olivet would allow a great
multitude to watch the scene afar off, and the priests, standing on the
Temple cloisters, would be within sight and hail of Calvary without fear
of defilement. One of the two main roads leading from the country into
Jerusalem passed close to the spot. And the procession, leaving the
prætorium, would emerge at once from the city into the open country.
Assuming then that the site of Calvary is to be sought on the eastern
side, the whole narrative becomes clear and consistent.
If this be conceded a new and unexpected conformity between the type and
the great Antitype is discovered. The Epistle to the Hebrews, written at
a time when the Temple was yet standing and its sacrifices were being
offered, says, respecting the sin-offering, “the bodies of those beasts
whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the High Priest for sin,
are burned without the camp; wherefore Jesus, also, that He might
sanctify the people with His own blood suffered without _the
gate_.”[147] Not merely “a gate,” but “_the_ gate,” through which the
bodies of the sacrifices were carried out to be burned. The great
sin-offering for the world was thus led forth to be crucified through
the very gate and in sight of the very spot in which the typical
sacrifices had been burned in the valley of Hinnom.
Again the rending of the veil at the moment of our Lord’s death gains a
new significance if this view be adopted. The Temple, as we know, opened
to the east. It would be within sight of Calvary. How striking, how
suggestive that the typical veil should thus be “rent in twain from the
top throughout” just when we received “boldness to enter into the
holiest by the blood of Jesus by a new and living way which he
consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.”[148]
And yet further, the fact that the place of our Lord’s death, burial,
and resurrection was in close proximity to the Temple, would give
additional significance to the taunt of those “that passed by saying,
Thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days save
thyself.”[149] Here again the type and the antitype come into close
juxtaposition.
The site of the TEMPLE claims our next attention.
In any view of Jerusalem from the eastward the vast enclosure known as
the Haram esh Sherîf, or the Noble Sanctuary, arrests the eye from its
size, its beauty, and the profound interest which attaches to it. Within
its limits stood the Temple, and the world can hardly afford a nobler,
worthier site for the house of the Lord. Standing on a ridge, guarded by
valleys on every side, it formed a natural and almost impregnable
fortress. Psalmists and prophets only gave expression to the feelings of
the whole people when they celebrated, in exulting and rapturous
strains, the strength, the beauty, and the glory of the city of God. It
was a saying of the Rabbis that “the world is like an eye. The ocean
surrounding it is the white of the eye; the earth is the coloured part;
Jerusalem is the pupil; but the sanctuary is the image within the pupil.
There the being of God is at once mirrored and beheld.”