hundred feet from north to south by nine hundred feet from east to west.
Its stones are many of them of great size; Capt. Warren measured one
which was thirty-eight feet nine inches in length. The peculiar bevel
which characterises early Jewish and Phœnician work may be observed on
most of them. Occasionally, especially in the lower courses, they appear
to occupy their original position, though whether placed there by
Solomon, Nehemiah, or Herod, cannot be ascertained at present; more
frequently the stones have been replaced by later and more modern hands
than those of the original builders. A careful examination often shows
that the original materials have been used over and over again in
successive walls, and commonly reduced in size so as to be worked more
easily. Columns of the finest marble, porphyry and serpentine built in
amongst the blocks of limestone, are by no means rare. These are
sometimes whole and erect, but more often broken across and laid in
horizontally with the ends projecting. They evidently formed part of the
Temple, and have been used by later builders as being ready to hand.
Examining these massive remains of ancient power and wealth it was
impossible not to remember the words of the disciples, “Master, see what
manner of stones and what buildings are here.” The stability of the
edifice seemed to be ensured not only by the size of the blocks but by
the excellence of the Jewish masonry, which was so perfect that it is
often impossible to insert the point of a knife between the joints. Yet
the dilapidated condition of the walls shows how wonderfully our Lord’s
words have been verified, “Seest thou these great buildings? there shall
not be left one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down.”[150]
[Illustration: THE MOSQUE OF OMAR.
_From a photograph by Mr. Bergheim, Jerusalem._
]
Starting at the north-east angle, and going eastward, with the valley of
the Kedron and the Mount of Olives on our left hand, the Temple area on
our right, we come to the Golden Gate, a remarkable double gateway the
date and purpose of which are unknown. Some have supposed it to be the
Beautiful Gate at which the lame man sat begging,[151] but from the
style of architecture it can hardly be older than the age of
Constantine. It is now walled up, in consequence of a Mohammedan
tradition that the Christians will again take possession of Jerusalem,
and that their King will enter victoriously through this gate. Another
tradition is that the last judgment will take place in the valley of
Jehoshaphat or of Kedron, just below us, and that Mohammed will stand
upon one of the projecting pillars over the entrance, and Issa—their
name for Jesus—on the Mount of Olives opposite, and together judge the
world.
[Illustration: THE GOLDEN GATE.]
Along the southern side there is little to detain us. We have on our
right the wall surmounted by the roof of the mosque of El Aksa and on
our left the slope of Ophel running down to the point at which the
Valleys of Hinnom and Kedron meet. But immediately after turning the
south-west corner we come upon an object of profound interest. The
Temple was on this side divided from the city by a valley, now nearly
filled up. From the wall which here bears traces of extreme antiquity
and appears to be a part of the original structure, some huge blocks of
stones are seen to project. These were found by Robinson to form the
first courses of an arch. Captain Wilson, acting on behalf of the
Palestine Exploration Fund, caused a line of shafts to be sunk due
westward from this point, and discovered a series of piers upon which
other arches had rested, so that we have here the remains of a bridge
which ran across the valley connecting the Temple with the city. We
learn from Josephus that the valley was spanned by a bridge leading from
the Temple to the palace. All subsequent researches have tended to
establish the conclusion at which Robinson arrived that, “This arch
could only belong to THE BRIDGE, and it proves incontestably the
antiquity of that portion of the wall from which it springs.” The only
difficulty in the way of ascribing this great work to Solomon or his
successors is that the principle of the arch was not then known. A more
thorough acquaintance with Egyptian architecture, however, proves that
this statement is not strictly true. Examples of the arch, though rare,
may yet be found in buildings of undoubted antiquity. In the narrative
of the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon we read that, “When she
had seen ... his ascent by which he went up unto the house of the Lord,
there was no more spirit in her.”[152] This seems to be spoken of as the
climax of all the wonders which were shown her. If we may venture to
identify the arched bridge across the valley with “the ascent” thus
spoken of it will adequately explain the astonishment with which it was
regarded.
[Illustration: PROJECTING STONES OF ROBINSON’S ARCH.]
[Illustration: WAILING-PLACE OF THE JEWS.]
A little farther along the western wall we come to the Wailing Place of
the Jews. It is close to the Jewish quarter—the foulest, most squalid
and wretched part of the city. The masonry here is the finest, and in
the best preservation, of any part of the enclosure. Many of the stones
are twenty-five feet in length and apparently have remained undisturbed
since the time of the first builder.[153] Here the Jews assemble every
Friday to mourn over their fallen state, especially their exclusion from
“the holy and beautiful house,” where their fathers worshipped God. Some
press their lips against crevices in the masonry as though imploring an
answer from some unseen presence within, others utter loud cries of
anguish. Here is one group joining in the prayers of an aged rabbi;
yonder another sitting in silent anguish, their cheeks bathed in tears.
The stones are in many places worn smooth with their passionate kisses.
The grief of the new-comers is evidently deep and genuine. But with the
older residents it has subsided into little more than a mere ceremonial
observance and an empty form. But in either case the scene is strangely
affecting, leading back our thoughts to the self-invoked curse of
eighteen hundred years ago—“His blood be on us, and on our
children.”[154]
[Illustration: JEWISH ALMSHOUSES, ERECTED BY SIR MOSES MONTEFIORE, NEAR
THE JAFFA GATE.]
The northern wall has nothing to detain us, except the pool of Bethesda,
so called, but of which the identification is doubtful.[155] There are
still traces of what may have been “the five porches,” but the pool is
now little more than a pit or ditch choked with filth and ordure, and,
only after heavy rains, containing a little stagnant, fetid water.
We now enter the Temple area and find ourselves in an enclosure of
extraordinary beauty. In spring and early summer the turf is of a
brilliant green, enamelled with a profusion of wild flowers, and dotted
over with trees, most of them cypresses, many of which are of great
size. The birds, free from molestation, are exceedingly tame. Doves and
sparrows are especially numerous, reminding us of the words of the
psalmist, when, “longing, yea, even fainting for the courts of the
Lord,” “the sparrow hath found a house, and the swallow a nest for
herself, where she may lay her young; even thine altars, O Lord of
hosts, my King and my God.”[156] Cloisters, colonnades, fountains,
cupolas and shrines, are seen here and there within the spacious area.
But the eye is arrested and detained by a marble platform from the
centre of which rises one of the most exquisite domes in the world. This
is the _Kubbet es Sakhrah_, “the Dome of the Rock,” better known to
Europeans as “the MOSQUE OF OMAR,” next after Mecca the most sacred,
next after Cordova the most beautiful of all moslem shrines.[157] There
are several other mosques within the Temple area, but none that claim
special notice except the one at the south end—that of El Aksa. This is
a large building, the date and original purpose of which, however, is
involved in much obscurity.
[Illustration: THE POOL OF BETHESDA.]
The rock itself is honey-combed with excavations, most of them cisterns
or conduits. Some of these are supplied with water from Solomon’s Pools
beyond Bethlehem. The aqueduct may yet be traced along the edge of the
Wady Urtas. It is said that, in addition to the water brought from a
distance, there are natural springs within the rock itself; this,
however, is doubted. From whatever source the supply was derived it was
so abundant that it was never known to be exhausted. In some of these
vast underground reservoirs which I visited, I found the water to be
deliciously cold, sweet and clear. It was in reference to these
inexhaustible stores from which the priests drew so plentifully, that
our Lord, “in that great day of the feast ... stood and cried, If any
man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink. He that believeth on Me, as
the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living
water. This spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him
should receive.”[158]
Among the subterranean chambers is one dedicated to the Lord Issa, or
Jesus. Here according to Mohammedan tradition he was born; his cradle is
shown, and the chapel, for such it is, is regarded as one of peculiar
sanctity.
[Illustration: SUBSTRUCTIONS UNDER THE SOUTHERN END OF THE TEMPLE AREA.]
Beneath the southern end of the area is an extraordinary series of
substructions which used to be called Solomon’s stables, and were
believed to have been erected for that purpose by the magnificent king.
Their real design is obvious, though when and by whom they were built
cannot be determined. The Temple area is constructed on the summit of
Mount Moriah. As the hill sloped downward on the east, west, and south
it was necessary to level the top to secure a plane surface. But on the
southern side or Ophel, the descent was rapid. To have secured a level
platform here, it would have been necessary to cut away so much from the
summit as seriously to have reduced its height. These arches were,
therefore, built up from beneath. The same method was adopted at Rome to
enlarge the level area of the Palatine.
In what part of the extensive area thus formed did the Temple stand? It
has been commonly assumed that the marble platform in the centre marks
the site, and that the Mosque of Omar stands over the spot occupied by
the altar or the Holy Place. This view, however, is beset with doubts.
The mosque encloses a mass of rock sixty-feet in length, fifty-five in
breadth, and standing up about fifteen feet above the earth around it.
Now we know that the Temple was built upon the threshing-floor of
Araunah the Jebusite.[159] This mass of rock, however, with its
inequalities of surface could never have been a threshing-floor. It has
been said that probably the rock was cut away around it, leaving this
portion untouched. But this explanation is equally inconsistent with the
facts of the case. For the rock is unhewn, and only in one or two places
bears marks of the chisel. Besides which, if it had stood within the
precincts of the Temple it could hardly have escaped mention, yet
neither the Scriptures, the writings of Josephus, nor those of the
Talmudists allude to it.[160] Where could it have stood? What purpose
could it have served? Its size is fatal to the theory that it was in the
most Holy Place, which was a small chamber. It is possible, though not
very probable, that being covered with plates of brass it formed the
core of the altar of burnt-offerings. Standing on the summit and in the
centre of the ridge of Moriah, it is the likeliest place for the site of
the Temple, yet the difficulties, in the way of placing the Temple over
it, are very great.
[Illustration: THE TEMPLE AREA AND MOUNT OF OLIVES, FROM THE CITY WALL.]
Another theory propounded by Mr. Fergusson, and ably supported by
Messrs. Lewin and Sandie, finds the Temple site on the south or
south-west of the Haram area. But this theory is likewise beset with
great difficulties. For the threshing-floor must then have been in a
deep hollow, contrary to the invariable practice of the Easterns, who
constructed them on the tops of hills where the wind might winnow the
grain as it fell from the ears. Besides which, the language of the
psalmist and prophets implies that the Temple stood on an elevated site;
they speak invariably of going up to the house of the Lord. It is true
that the southern end of the Temple area is now on the same level with
the rest, but this is secured by the vast substructions which have been
built up from the valley below; and it can hardly be pretended that the
threshing-floor of Araunah occupied this artificial elevation; nor has
any reason been suggested why, with the whole ridge of Moriah to choose
from, a site should have been selected which either buried the Temple in
a hollow, or required an amount of work below the surface greater than
that above it to bring up the platform to the necessary level.
The startling theory of Mr. Fergusson as to the site of the Holy
Sepulchre demands brief notice here. He maintains that the Mosque of
Omar is the basilica of Constantine, that the mysterious rock which it
encloses is that of which the evangelist speaks, and that a cave about
fifteen feet square in the side of the rock is the very cave in which
our Lord was entombed. His argument, to which full justice cannot be
done in a brief summary, may be thus stated. He pledges his professional
reputation that the Kubbet es Sakhrah is a building of the date of
Constantine, that it is not and never could have been intended for a
mosque, that it does not possess a single characteristic of Saracenic
architecture, but that in its main features it is identical with the
sepulchral basilica of Diocletian, at Spalatro, a type which Constantine
is likely to have followed. The Golden Gate he regards as the grand
entrance from the eastern side to the area of the basilica, and
maintains that it is of the same style and date with the Dome of the
Rock. Assuming the accuracy of his theory that the Temple occupied the
south-western angle of the present area, he shows that there was ample
space for places of the crucifixion and entombment to have been here
without entrenching upon the Temple precincts from which it was then
separated by a deep fosse or valley, now filled up. He then seeks to
show that the indications of the Gospel narrative, the statements of
Eusebius, and the language of early pilgrims agree in fixing upon this
as the true site of the burial and resurrection of our Lord. The absence
of any tradition pointing to this spot and the fact that for nearly a
thousand years the site of the sepulchre has been supposed to be where
the church now stands, he explains by the statement that after the rock
with its dome, had been appropriated by the Mohammedans, the Christians
were banished for a long period from the city; even on their return they
were not allowed to approach the Holy Place; a new church in another
site was therefore built for the use of the pilgrims around which the
legends sprang up in mediæval fashion, so that what was at first a mere
myth or pious fraud, came at last to be accepted as an historical fact.
There is much that is attractive in this theory, and it is supported by
a great weight of argument and learning. But it will hardly bear the
test of examination. The basilica of Constantine was not built over the
sepulchre but near it; the Kubbet es Sakhrah encloses and covers the
rock. Constantine’s building was destroyed by Chosroes II., and the
church that rose upon its site suffered the same fate under El-Hakem.
This, therefore, cannot be it. Constantine constructed a colonnade
eastward from the church at the end of which was an _agora_, or
market-place. The Kubbet es Sakhrah is so near the eastern wall over the
valley of the Kedron that space cannot be found for this arrangement.
[Illustration: TUNNEL AND SHAFT OF THE PALESTINE EXPLORATION FUND
OUTSIDE THE WALL OF THE TEMPLE.]
Whilst, therefore, the site of the sepulchre must, in my judgment, be
sought somewhere on this side of the city, I cannot accept Mr.
Fergusson’s identification as accurate or sustained by facts. It is with
reluctance that we yield ourselves to the conclusion that accurate
knowledge is, at least, for the present beyond our reach. Most eagerly
and gratefully should we welcome any means of determining the spot so
endeared by hallowed memories and associations. But our very ignorance
may have been designed or permitted for wise purposes. A superstitious,
an almost idolatrous, worship has been fostered by pilgrimages to the
holy places. We shall do well to remember the conversation by Jacob’s
well: “The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a
prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her,
Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this
mountain nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father ... the hour cometh
and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit
and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.”[161]
[Illustration: THE GARDEN OF GETHSEMANE.
_From a Photograph, 1866_
]
Light may ultimately be thrown upon these difficult and perplexed
questions by the labours of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Hitherto,
however, the obstacles thrown in their way by the Turkish government,
have been almost insuperable. It is only by extraordinary energy and
ingenuity that they have been able to accomplish anything in Jerusalem.
The sketch on the preceding page will illustrate this. Not being allowed
to excavate within a certain distance of the Temple area, a shaft was
sunk through the mass of débris, to the depth of eighty feet, just
outside the proscribed limit. A tunnel was then run from the bottom of
the shaft to the wall of the Temple. The result was the discovery of
courses of masonry of the original edifice, and upon some of the blocks
of stone, mason’s marks in ancient Phœnician characters were found.
It now only remains for us to notice briefly some of the memorable spots
in the immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem. These, for the most part,
lie along the valley of the Kedron.
First in interest is the Garden of Gethsemane. Leaving the city by St.
Stephen’s Gate, a steep path leads us down into the valley and across
the bed of the Kedron. Soon after beginning the ascent of Olivet, we
come to an enclosure about eighty yards square. Knocking at a low door,
we are admitted by an aged monk, the guardian of the place, and find
ourselves in a trim garden. The flower-beds are neatly kept and fenced
with sticks. A number of olive-trees stand among them, hollow, gnarled,
and, apparently, extremely old. They yet bear a few berries, which are
carefully gathered and given to pilgrims, for which, of course,
backshish is expected in return. Old as the trees are it cannot be
supposed that they have stood here for eighteen centuries, though it is
quite credible that they may have sprung as suckers from the roots of
yet older trees. The passion for localising all the incidents of the
narrative is not absent here. We are shown the bank upon which the
disciples slept, the grotto—all mediæval legends select a grotto—where,
as a Latin inscription informs us, “the sweat like blood ran down upon
the ground,” and the place where Judas betrayed his Master with a kiss.
The _Custode_ however, with a courtesy and consideration very rare in
his class, does not pester us with talk, but, retiring to a distance,
leaves us to our meditation.[162] On this spot then, or near it,
happened the most solemn and pathetic event in the life, even of “the
man of sorrows.” Under the shade of these grey olives, he endured his
bitter and heart-breaking agony; along yonder path, lighted by the full
passover moon, “with lanterns, and torches, and weapons,” came the
betrayer, leading “a band of men and officers;”[163] here, deserted and
forsaken by all, He meekly surrendered Himself to his murderers, and was
led away to be condemned and crucified. Callous must that heart be
which, on such a spot as this, does not breathe the prayer: “By Thine
agony and bloody sweat; by Thy cross and passion; by Thy precious death
and burial: Good Lord deliver us!”
Leaving the scene of our Lord’s bitter agony, we pass along the Valley
of the Kedron, sometimes called the Valley of Jehoshaphat. Jews and
Mohammedans, alike, believe that this will be the scene of the final
judgment. Hence has arisen an eager desire to be buried here, and the
soil is, in many places, literally paved with tombstones, and the whole
valley is one vast cemetery. Shortly before reaching the point of
junction of the valleys of Hinnom and Kedron, we reach a cluster of
remarkable tombs, called by the names of Zacharias, Absalom, and St.
James. The tradition respecting them is quite modern, and has no
historical basis. Those of Zacharias and Absalom are similar in design,
being cut out of the solid rock. The former is said to be the
burial-place of the Zacharias who was “slain between the temple and the
altar.”[164] The latter, tradition asserts to be the pillar which the
rebellious son “reared up for himself during his lifetime in the king’s
dale, for he said, I have no son to keep my name in remembrance.”[165]
Its base is now buried beneath a heap of stones, upon which each Jew, as
he passes, throws one in detestation of his memory.
[Illustration: MOUNT OF CORRUPTION IN THE VALLEY OF JEHOSHAPHAT, WITH
THE TOMBS OF ABSALOM, ST. JAMES, AND ZACHARIAS.]
The tomb of St. James is a remarkable chamber, cut out of the side of
the hill, with rock-hewn Doric columns in front. A modern tradition
declares that here St. James retired after our Lord’s crucifixion, and
vowed neither to eat nor drink till He had risen again. On the third day
the risen Saviour appeared to him, saying, “Arise and eat, for I have
now risen from the dead.” The marked resemblance between this sepulchre
and the temple-tombs at Beni-hassan, in Egypt, has given rise to the
suggestion that here we have the idol temple constructed by Solomon for
his queen, the daughter of Pharaoh, in “the hill that is before
Jerusalem.”[166] The site and the style of architecture afford a certain
measure of probability to the conjecture.
[Illustration: THE TOMB OF ZACHARIAS.]
Just above us on the left is Silwan, the ancient Siloam—a collection of
wretched hovels, inhabited by peasantry, who have the reputation of
being the most dangerous, turbulent, and thievish in the district.
Though I have often passed through the village alone, or with only a
single companion, I have never had anything to complain of, beyond a
demand for backshish, more than usually clamorous. In this village, and
in other places round Jerusalem, I found many of the peasantry occupying
old tombs which formed abodes at least as commodious as the huts in
which their neighbours lived. The pool of Siloam is at the foot of the
hill on our right. It and the neighbouring well of En Rogel are still
much used, not only by the villagers, but by the water sellers of
Jerusalem.
[Illustration: ACELDAMA.]
Turning to the right up the Valley of Hinnom, we see, on the dark and
gloomy Hill of Evil Counsel, Aceldama. Down to a very late period, it
continued to be used as “a field to bury strangers in.”[167] Skulls
brought away from this spot and submitted to the examination of
competent ethnologists, have been pronounced to be those of negroes and
other non-semitic races.
Another tomb, on the north side of the city, demands brief mention here.
It used to be called the tomb of the kings, but it has now been
identified as that of Queen Helena, a Jewish Proselyte, who in the first
century of our era died, and was buried at Jerusalem. It is remarkable
not only for the extent and perfect preservation of the sepulchral
chambers, but for the ingenious mechanism by which the entrance was
closed or opened—a huge stone being rolled to or from the mouth of the
entrance. It thus affords an interesting contemporary illustration of
the words of the evangelists, “Who shall _roll_ away the stone from the
door of the sepulchre? And when they looked they saw the stone rolled
away, for it was very great.”[168]
[Illustration: THE TOMB OF HELENA.]