The traveller to the present city, at least the Protestant traveller, is excessively annoyed at every step with traditions in which he cannot believe, and with having localities pointed out in which he can place no confidence whatever; and the effect is bad in a great many ways. It not only disturbs sadly the feelings with which he would wish to walk over the grounds of Jerusalem, but, sickened and disgusted, he is apt to run into the opposite extreme of incredulity, and reject even where there is proper grounds for belief. I have now before me large extracts which I made from a book called El Devoto Peregrino, or “The Devout Pilgrim,” published at Madrid in 1654, by P. F. Antonio of Castile, Commissary General of Jerusalem for Spain, and Guardian of Bethlehem,[17] in the last of which places he had spent a number of years. It offers a good specimen of the accounts of places that are thrust on the visitor to Jerusalem, and as it is a book of high authority, I will by and by give some of the extracts at length. In this work he points out edifices, at present standing, and which it must be evident are comparatively modern structures, as the houses of Pilate, of Simon the Pharisee, where Mary Magdalene washed our Saviour’s feet with her tears, of St. Ann, of the Rich Man, &c. &c.; and this in the face of authentic history, which informs us that the city, when taken by Titus, was, with the exception of a few towers, levelled with the ground, and that a ploughshare was made to pass over it. There is scarcely an event of any description, mentioned in the New Testament as occurring in or about Jerusalem, of which they do not designate the exact locality; and to all this they have added traditions so absurd as to be beyond all belief, to say nothing of their childishness. All this is repeated to the visitor to Jerusalem, and produce a revulsion of feeling not only disagreeable but dangerous; and men whose faith is not previously settled, or who do not like the trouble of sifting the truth from error, I believe would be apt to be injured by such a visit. And it appears to me that most Protestant visitors, and our missionaries also, have been betrayed by these feelings into an excess of scepticism, which has led them to reject some things against sound and proper evidence. We must not reject all because some is false, any more than we would reject all species of coin because some is spurious; a wise man will be led by the fact that there is spurious money, to believe that there is good money some where; and therefore, these tales, instead of provoking utter scepticism, while they make us cautious, should at the same time lead us to suppose that there is ground for belief.
Dr. Clark is the boldest of these modern sceptics; for while others simply doubt, he goes further, and with a feeling bordering certainly on rashness, attempts at once to designate other sites for these distinguished events. His boldness is not more surprising than is the small amount of evidence he produces for his localities; and I believe he has had scarcely a single follower, among either readers at home, or travellers to these interesting spots. As he stands quite alone, the subject of wonder rather than of credence, we will not stop to examine his theories; but proceed to notice the old belief, and the doubts of more cautious and moderate men.
CHAPTER XIV.
Localities in Jerusalem that are certain. Valley of Kedron. Mount Moriah. Valley of the Cheesemongers. Mount Zion, its ancient limits. Present remains of its northern boundary. Line of the “Old wall.” Acra. Gate of the Gardens. Limits of the city at the time of the crucifixion. Bezetha and the wall of Agrippa. Monument of John. Whither our judgment, unassisted by tradition, leads us as regards the place of the crucifixion. Rocky Knoll. Not called Mount Calvary in the Scriptures. Tradition. Conclusion to which all this leads us. Circumstances and scene of the crucifixion. The question with regard to the spot of Our Saviour’s burial.
There are a few places in and about Jerusalem, in respect to which there can be no possible mistake. These are, the Mount of Olives; the Valley of Kedron, sometimes called the valley of Jehoshaphat; the brook Kedron; the Valley of Hinnom; Mount Moriah; Mount Zion; and the hill called Bezetha. The Mount of Olives speaks at once for itself, and has never been doubted by any one: it descends by a rapid slope down to the brook Kedron, in summer a dry water-course about nine feet wide, and in the wet season an irregular torrent: with regard to this brook, also, no one has ever had any doubt. This valley of Kedron formed the eastern boundary of the ancient,[18] as it does now also of the modern city. Immediately after crossing the brook Kedron towards the west, the ground at present commences ascending so rapidly, as to require a zigzag path: at the height of about eighty feet we come to the wall, and to the general level of the present city. This slope is made up of debris, or loose stuff, composed of earth mixed with pottery, fragments of bricks, &c.; and it seems probable that the ancient wall of Bezetha, standing on the line of the present rampart, had without it a much more precipitous descent.
Mount Moriah is at present a piece of level ground, of the same elevation as those portions of the city immediately adjoining it on the north and west, and is not in any way to be distinguished from them. It is occupied by an open court, about 1500 feet long and 1000 feet in width, surrounded by a wall and planted with trees. In the centre is a large oblong platform, paved, I believe, with marble, and reached by two or three steps running all around; on this platform stands the mosque of Omar, which is said by the Turks to occupy the exact site of the Temple of Solomon, and is considered by them to be next in sanctity to the venerated Caaba, or holy house at Mecca. So sacred is this place in their eyes, that no Christian is allowed to place his foot within even the large enclosure. There is thus no mountain at present here, and if any one should question whether this was the situation of Mount Moriah, I answer that it is the only place where we can look for it. Mount Moriah was on the eastern side of the city, and adjoining the valley of Kedron;[19] the valley of the Cheesemongers, which still remains, formed its boundary on the south;[20] and as the court of the temple, occupying the whole enlarged mountain, was 729 feet[21] on each side, we thus get both the northern and the western boundaries, and thus have the exact position and limits of Mount Moriah. It is probable that the Turks are quite correct in saying that their mosque occupies the site of the ancient temple, except that the latter was at a much greater elevation; Mount Moriah having, by artificial means, been raised to a height of about 700 feet. This mountain was at first a rocky precipice, irregular both in shape and surface; it was inclosed by Solomon with a square wall of the dimensions just described, beginning at the bottom of the valleys that bounded it on three sides, and rising on the east and south to the stupendous elevation of 729[22] feet; on the west, from the nature of the ground below, its elevation was nearly 200 feet less; the interval within this was filled with earth, or formed into extensive suites of vaults; and the surface being brought nearly to a level, formed an area for the temple and its various courts.[23] At the north-western[24] angle of the temple was a tower or castle, commenced by the kings of the Asmonean race, but enlarged and strengthened by Herod, who gave it the name of Antonia, in honor of Mark Antony, his friend and patron. It was built on a lofty precipice 1450 feet in circuit, and consisted of a heavy castle in the centre, with a tower at each angle, that on the south-east being of sufficient height to overlook the courts of the temple.[25]
The opening or outlet of the valley of Tyropœon, or the Cheesemongers, still remains, and is very distinct. The ground begins to decline into it as soon as we leave the court of the mosque of Omar, advancing southward; and at the distance of about 400 feet we come to its lowest part, and the spot where it is lost in the valley of Kedron. This opening is opposite a mountain, called now the Mount of Offence, but styled by Josephus “that other hill,” and described by him as just south of the Mount of Olives. A short distance up this valley we come to an oblong pool sunk partly in the ground, and walled on three sides, the fourth being broken down; it is called the Pool of Siloam, and very probably occupies the site of the ancient pool of that name noticed in the Scriptures. A few hundred feet above this pool the valley enters the modern city, and I believe cannot be traced any further. There can be no doubt that it is the ancient Tyropœon, and we thus get a portion of the northern boundary of Mount Zion.[26]
Mount Zion had on the east the valley of Kedron, and on the south and west the valley of Hinnom,[27] or Gehenna, and these boundaries are now just as described by Josephus, except that the sides of the valleys towards the city are now rendered sloping by the vast quantities of debris or loose stuff from the ancient city, instead of being perpendicular as they were in ancient times. That of Hinnom, on its southern and western sides, still presents that appearance, a bold perpendicular precipice, which it would be impossible to scale. This valley is described by Strabo (lib. xvi.) as having a depth of 60 feet and a width of 250, which are pretty nearly its present dimensions. The wall of the ancient city was built on the edge of the precipice, and, according to Tacitus, was, in the parts thus guarded by nature, 60 feet in height; on the northern side of Jerusalem, where the ground offered fewer advantages, it had the prodigious elevation of 120 feet.[28] It was built in a crooked or zigzag line, “so that they might flank the besiegers and cast darts on them sideways.”[29]