Most of these results and opinions, it will be found, weigh very heavily in favour of the traditional view. At the same time an opinion may always be wrong.
II. Let us pass on to the evidence given by history.
The only historical evidence we can rely on as to the actual site of the Temple, on which subject little information can be found in the Bible itself, is to be obtained from Josephus. We refer to three passages:
| (1.) Antiq. viii., 3, § 9. | ||
| “When Solomon had filled up great valleys with earth, and had elevated the ground four hundred cubits, he made it to be on a level with the top of the mountain on which the Temple was built, and by this means the outmost temple, which was exposed to the air, was even with the Temple itself.” | Solomon, therefore, following the practice common to all nations, built his temple in such a place, that it should occupy a commanding position, and should be an object of mark for the surrounding country. | |
| (2.) Bell. Jud., v., ch. 5, § 1. | ||
| “Now this temple was built upon a strong hill. At first the plain at the top was hardly sufficient for the holy house and the altar, for the ground about it was very uneven, and like a precipice; but when King Solomon, who was the person that built the Temple, had built a wall to it on its east side, there was then added one cloister, founded on a bank cast up for it, and in the other parts the holy house stood naked; but in after ages, the people added new banks, and the hill became a larger plain. They then broke down the wall on the north side,and took in as much as sufficed afterwards for the compass of the entire Temple.” | This is exactly confirmatory of the preceding. It proves that Josephus, and therefore the Jews, believed the altar, wherever it really was, to be the top of the hill. See, however, above, Capt. Warren’s results, No. 1. | |
| (3.) Antiq. xx., ch. 9, § 7 | ||
| “They persuaded Agrippa to rebuild the eastern cloisters. These cloisters belonged to the outer court, and were situated in a deep valley, and had walls that reached four hundred cubits [in length], and were built of square and very white stones, the length of each of which stones was twenty cubits, and their height six cubits. This was the work of King Solomon, who first of all built the entire Temple. But King Agrippa, who had the care of the Temple committed to him by Claudius Cæsar, considering that it is easy to demolish any building, but hard to build it up again, and that it was particularly hard to do it to those cloisters, which would require a considerable time, and great sums of money, he denied the petitioners their request about that matter.” | This evidence proves that a wall was built before the time of Herod, and traditionally by Solomon, in a deep valley east of the Temple. By reference to Capt. Warren’s contour map, it will be observed that by no possibility can this be stated of a wall starting from the Temple gate. |
Next, let us take the historical evidence from Eusebius downwards, as to the site of the Sepulchre. We adduce the principal passages which bear on the question.
First comes Eusebius. His evidence we have given in full (p. 57). It seems to us to amount to this:—
Constantine, taking down a temple to Venus which had been, according to tradition, built over the site of the Holy Sepulchre, and clearing away the earth, found a tomb, cut in the rock, still remaining. His workmen immediately concluded that this could be no other than the tomb of our Lord. He surrounded it with pillars and decorations. In front of it, or round about it, he made a level place. On the east side of the level place he built a magnificent church, the Basilica of the Martyrion, the only church which he erected at all. In front of this church was an open market-place. Market-places, it may be remarked, are always in the middle of towns, not on the outside.
Eusebius is contemporary with the event, and writes as if he actually witnessed the building of the church and the decoration of the tomb. His evidence is therefore of the highest importance; and from him it would appear that Constantine built no church over the Sepulchre at all.
We come next to the accounts left behind by pilgrims and others. First in order comes the Bordeaux pilgrim, who was in Jerusalem while Constantine’s buildings were being erected. His account is as follows:—
“Also to you going out into Jerusalem, to ascend Sion, on the left hand and down below in valley by the wall in the pool which is called Siloam.... In the same way Sion is ascended, and then appears the place where was the house of Caiaphas the priest; and the column is still there at which they beat Christ with scourges. But within, inside the Sion wall, is seen the place where David had his palace, and [where were] seven synagogues, which once were there, [but] one only remains [standing], for the rest are ploughed up and sowed over, as Isaiah the prophet hath said. Thence, in order to go outside the wall, to those going to the Neapolitan gate, on the right hand, down in the valley, are walls where was the house or prætorium of Pontius Pilate. There our Lord was heard before He suffered. But on the left hand is the hill of Golgotha, where the Lord was crucified. Thence about a stone’s throw is the crypt where His body was placed, and (from which) He rose again on the third day. There, lately, by order of Constantine, a Basilica has been built, that is, a church of wonderful beauty,” &c., &c., &c.