« السابقةمتابعة »
discovered other vestiges of the ancient wall along the same line". And these traces of the old wall of Jerusalem, though only lately recovered after an oblivion of two or three centuries, are no doubt the same that were formerly appealed to as witnesses of the fact that Calvary was without the ancient city”: While the Gate of Judgment, standing throughout as an isolated fact, has greatly perplexed antiquaries; but now, viewed in connection with the other links in the chain of evidence, it assumes an importance which alone it could not command ; and I am disposed to believe that a careful survey of the ground between this and the Damascus Gate, immediately West of St Stephen's Street, might lead to the recovery of more links in that direction, along a line indicated by a steep bank which skirts the street on that side. I can answer nothing to the objection taken to the extreme narrowness to which the ancient city is thus reduced at this quarter, except that the superficial width of the area is somewhat increased by the inequality of the ground; that the same objection applies equally to the other hypothesis; and that such objections can have no force against this array of facts and deductions, unless passages can be adduced from any ancient authority in proof that the complement of the Upper and Lower City was wider than this theory allows. But the only passages bearing on the subject
" I speak doubtingly, because I * Hierosol. Perig. a F. J. Dublivio, think that Professor Willis has a theory | Nervio. A.D. 1599. p. 13. “Inter hunc which will better dispose of the great | autem Calvariae montem et veterem opportal, the ruins of which Dr Schultz pidi murum, cujus adhuc vestigia dedescribes as other vestiges of the second monstrantur, erat vallis cadaverum," wall: their situation will be indicated &c. below. See Schultz, p.60; Krafft, p. 30.
tend rather to confirm the view which I have taken. The most natural interpretation of a much controverted passage in Josephus represents the direct line of Sion facing the curved line of Acra, as is actually the case with the two hills as I have arranged them”; and Tacitus describes the walls as “oblique by art, and curved inwardly, that the flanks of the besiegers might be exposed to the missiles of the besieged".” It is observed, moreover, by a writer of the 12th century, who ascribes to Hadrian the extension of the City to the Tower of David, that the former course of the Western wall might still be seen from the Mount of Olives, and the subsequent augmentation of the City in that direction". And I think it is a strong confirmation of my view that this writer, and others who wrote before the study of Josephus’ topography had been revived", are so entirely ignorant of any valley between Sion and the termination of the ridge which forms the Acra of Dr Robinson, that they view it all as one hill, and regard the declivity occupied by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the North-Eastern declivity of Mount Sion : consistently with the description of Eusebius and St Jerome". And if captious criticism should object that the effect of this would be to place Golgotha within the Upper City, I answer, that I am not contending for the strict propriety of the description of the writers in question”, but merely adduce their testimony to prove that neither those who had studied Josephus in earlier times, nor those who had not in later, could see any points of agreement between his topographical descriptions and the notices of Dr Robinson. But there is a remarkable coincidence of expression between Eusebius in his account of the New Jerusalem, as he calls the Church of the Resurrection, and Josephus in his description of the Old City, which may be thought both to justify the language of the writers just cited, and to furnish an additional argument for the conclusions already arrived at. Eusebius describes the New Jerusalem as facing (or opposite to) the Old, which had been brought to desolation”. If it be admitted, as I think it must, that as the New Jerusalem in this description is identical with the Christian Church of the Resurrection, so the Jewish Temple was taken as the representative of the Old, the description is perfectly accordant with fact; the Church of the Holy Sepulchre actually faces the site of the Temple. Now the Old City, according to Josephus, was so arranged on its two hills that its two parts faced each other". But if the hill Sion faced the hill Acra—to which the Temple Mount was united—and if the Church of the Holy Sepulchre also faced the Temple, that Church cannot certainly “stand directly on the ridge of Acra*:” the declivity which it occupies must, in the view of the Jewish and Christian historian, have been more nearly connected with Sion than with Acra, as the Onomasticon of the latter, followed by St Jerome, and confirmed by the mediaeval authors, so plainly implies. One other observation shall conclude these remarks. Both ancient and modern writers describe the city as It is so with Josephus", although, when he comes to define and specify, some
edificavit civitatem Jerosolimam, et Templum Domini, et adauxit civitatem
* See Bell. Jud. v. iv. in Appendix. He describes Acra as dupíkvpros; an expression as to the exact meaning of which the learned are not agreed in this connection. It is used to describe the form of the moon in the middle of its second or third quarter, commonly called “gibbous,” greater than half, less than full. See Suidas ad voc. quoted by Reland, Palaestina, p. 853. Dr Robin
usque ad turrem David, quae prius
son (Bib. Res. 1. 410) gives it quite a
sita est in declivio Montis Syon sicut
civitas.” Saewulf, l. c. p. 839.
' Onomast. sub voce Golgotha: ov so shaded off the line between it and kai českvv7 at év Aix ig trpès tois the northern declivity ? Bopious row Xiaow 6povs, “ad plagam * Vita Constantini 111. xxxiii. To septentrionalem Montis Sion.” quotiotov unpréptov i véo waterwev
* Yet what could be more natural, age to 'Ispovaa\iu, durirpoo arrow to when the ruins of the old wall had tra Aas flowuévn, K. A....ratory 3' otov sloped off the steep ridge of Sion, and duringvs, K. A.
occupying two eminences. subsidiary hills appear. So again with Tacitus", then with William of Tyre". Can any one doubt that they intend the two ridges divided by the Mill Valley 2 and would it not then be preposterous to place the Upper and Lower City on one ridge, and on the same side of that Valley 2 Even Dr Robinson's own language makes it clear that this Mill Valley is the grand division between the two parts of the modern City, as I maintain it was also in the ancient'; and I trust that abundant reason has now been shown for such an arrangement of the hills and valleys, the gates and walls of the Old City, as saves the site of the Holy Sepulchre from the most formidable objection that has yet been brought against it. The results of the investigation may be thus stated: 1. The Hippic Tower occupied the site of the N.W. tower of the modern citadel. 2. The place of the Gate Gennath was some distanee East of that Tower near the South extremity of the present Bazaars, from which point the Second Wall ran to the Damascus Gate, just West of the line of St Stephen's Street. 3. Acra is the hill to the N.W. of the Temple-Mount; and, 4. The Tyropoeon is the Mill Valley, extending from the Damascus Gate to the Pool of Siloam. The continuation of the second wall from the Damascus Gate to Antonia is a matter of perfect indifference as regards the Holy Sepulchre; the consideration of which may be deferred until I come to consider the exact position of that fortress at which it terminated. Still the present site of the Holy Sepulchre may— or as I maintain must—have been without the circuit of the ancient City, and yet wrongly determined : or the site having been rightly determined in the first instance, may have been transferred at a later period to this place. The evidence therefore for the truth and for the continuity of the tradition shall be adduced in the following Chapter. But as the necessity of discussing the former of these questions would be obviated if a
* Bell. Jud. v. iv. 1.
aúTn uév orer, ovo Adoptev du Tirpáawtros ékrtaro, K. A. Conf. Ant. xv. xi. 5. * Where Dr Robinson's theory places it. Bib. Res. Vol. 1. p. 391. * See Bell. Jud. v. iv. 1, so often referred to. 7 Tacitus Hist. v. 10. Duos colles,
immensuin editos, claudebant muri, &c.
* Hist. lib. v1.11. cap. iii. “Sita est in montibus duobus...quorum fastigia infra muri ambitum ex parte plurima continet, modica valle distincta, quae etiam urbem per medium dividit. Horum alter qui ab Occidente est Syon appellatur;...Alter vero qui ab Oriente est, mons Moria dicitur,” &c.