466

REFUTATION OF CLARKE'S OPINIONS.

to the east of the castle of David; and he has also drawn Kedron as a large river!!*

We now turn to the objections of Dr. Clarke, which we consider will be fully answered by an examination of the ground: for if ancient Jerusalem stood upon any part of that now occupied by the present city; and if the mosque of Omar is erected on the site of the ancient temple upon Moriah, (which no one has had the hardihood to deny,) it is impossible that the Mount Sion marked on the map could have been excluded, and a single glance at the plan of Dr. Clarke will prove that it must have been included in the city. The Psalmist says (Psalm xlviii. v. 2) that "the city of the great king," (that is Melchizedec,) was to the north of Sion. Josephus tells us of a bridge that crossed from the Temple to Mount Sion, but what bridge could possibly span the Valley of Hinnom! and if this be not Hinnom, where is it? for no valley occurs to the south of the Hill of Evil Council, that will answer to the description given of it. If this last-named elevation be Sion, the sepulchres of David and the Aceldama must have been within the ancient city! Now Nehemiah (chap. iii. v. 16) tells us expressly that the ruler of half of Beth-zur repaired the wall "unto the place over against the sepulchres of David," which, if Dr. C. be correct, must have been in the very centre of the city-a most improbable occurThis position is likewise confirmed by the boundary line spoken of in the book of Joshua, where, in describing the boundary of the lot of Judah, we are informed that "the border passed towards the waters of En-shemesh, and the goings out thereof were at En-rogel: and the border went up by the Valley of the Son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the Valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the Valley of the Giants northward"-(Joshua, xv. 7, 8.) Now Dr. Clarke, who acknowledged the position of Hinnom, although he confounded it with the Tyropoon, has made it to divide the city, and separate Sion from Acra and Moriah; although in the part of the inspired volume from which I have quoted, we are told explicitly that it was on the south side of

rence.

* See plan of modern Jerusalem in Buckingham's Travels, 4to, 1821.

POSITION OF SION AS AN ACROPOLIS.

467

Jerusalem: and this Jerusalem must have included Sion, which was the peculiar city and fortress of the Jebusite.

Besides, it must be conceded by all, that this valley separated the inheritance of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Now Jerusalem is enumerated in the same book, not in the cities of the former, but in those of Benjamin, which lay on the northern side of the ravine; for we read of "Zelah, Eleph, and Jebusi, which is Jerusalem, Gibeath, and Kirjah, fourteen cities with their villages. This is the inheritance of the children of Benjamin, according to their families."* The mountain that lay to the westward of the valley appears to be that of Gihon, which here approaches to the extremity of the Valley of Giants or Rephaim, which was thus placed to the north of the boundary line. Independent of all this, Sion being the highest Mount, except the Mount of Olives, about or within the ancient city, and being completely surrounded by deep valleys and ravines, it was the most likely place on which to erect the citadel or acropolis. And if we exclude it, as Dr. C. has done, it would be the most formidable position that any enemy attacking Jerusalem could possibly hold; for it completely commands the town and the opposite Hill of Evil Council, which he supposes was the Sion or acropolis of the old city.

But of the many proofs that could be adduced to establish the

Joshua, xviii. 28.-In connection with this subject it is worthy of remark that we have no positive record of the Jews having ever yet fully possessed Jerusalem, for in the time of Joshua they occupied it in common with the original inhabitants, neither could Joshua have driven them out, for in Judges (chap. i. v. 21), we read that "the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day." In this passage we are again informed that it was included in the lot of Benjamin ; and the very first promise of Jerusalem to the seed of Abraham remains yet to be fulfilled.

+ The learned Adam Clarke has stated it as his opinion, that the city was divided between the two tribes, and that Sion was placed in the portion that fell to Judah. Having already said so much to prove the contrary, it is here unnecessary to advance any thing further; especially as this assertion is grounded on the authority of a gentleman who knew so very little of the topography of the ancient city as to state that the temple stood on Mount Sion!

468

ALLEGED DISCOVERIES OF CLARKE.

site of Sion in the position I have placed it, there is none stronger than the following-" Hezekiah also stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David," or Sion-(2 Chron. xxxii. 30.) A reference to the plan will at once show that the remains of this very water-course, which is brought down to the west of Sion, exist up to the present time.

Dr. Clarke also speaks of the discovery of "marvellous" sepulchres in the side of this mountain, but these were described long before his time, by both Sandys and Pococke; the former of whom says, "in the rocks about there are divers sepulchres, and some in use at this day, having great stones rolled against their mouths according to the ancient custom ;" and the latter speaks of them as follows-"I went up the hill to the west, opposite to the end of the vale of Hinnom, and saw a great number of sepulchral grots cut out of the rock, many of which have beautiful door-places; among them is the grotto where it is said the apostles hid themselves after our Saviour's crucifixion."

The Greek inscriptions upon these sepulchres are at best apocryphal, and no more prove this hill to be Sion, than the paintings of saints and angels in their chambers prove that they were erected by the modern monks; or the names of ships bedaubed on Pompey's Pillar, prove it to have been erected in the reign of Queen Victoria.

In one word, to show how little Dr. Clarke knew of the topography of Jerusalem, he informs us at page 351 of his work, that "Jerusalem now occupies one eminence alone; namely, that of Moriah, where the Temple stood of old, and where like a phoenix that hath arisen from the ashes of its parent, the famous mosque of Omar is now situate." We in charity pass over the impious allusion to the anti-christian mosque of the false prophet of Mekka being, as it were, the offspring of the temple of the Most High God, though it is but a small specimen of that spirit of scepticism that endeavoured to throw ridicule on the Holy Sepulchre; but we know beyond a doubt that Mount Moriah was a small eminence which was completely covered by the temple and its courts, nay, so small was it, that it required that its area should be artificially enlarged. This is a fact placed beyond doubt, and still so visible as to be admitted even by Dr. Clarke himself. If then this mount was occupied by the temple, how

SITE OF THE CRUCIFIXION.

469

could the modern town, which is two and a half miles in circumference, stand upon it? much more so, when in the same sentence he tells us that it is at present occupied by Omar's Mosque! In short, though the learned Cambridge Doctor has expended much labour in endeavouring to disprove the locality given to the Hill of Sion as marked in the map, he was forced to acknowledge that its present appearance showed the fulfilment of prophecy, for it was ploughed as a field; and at the time of our visit, corn was waving on its sides and summit.*

If the Royal Caves on the north, and the Hill of Evil Council on the south, were included within the limits of the ancient city, it would form an area of nearly a mile more than the most extended limit assigned to it by authors who wrote at the time of its existence. If then Mount Sion was included within the ancient city, it completely refutes the opinion, that on its summit took place the crucifixion, and completely contradicts the whole of Buckingham's remarks on the subject, for we are thus explicitly informed by the apostle Paul, "wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate."—(Hebrews, xiii. 12.) And John, who saw it, bare record, and his record is true," that "the place

*It was not without due consideration, although contrary to the advice of some critical friends that I ventured to expose the fallacy of Dr. Clarke's work, in the first edition of this Narrative. The general acceptation of his views by the learned, for so many years in this country, is but another proof of the undue weight so often attached to name and learning. It is not generally known that Dr. Clarke was scarcely sixty hours in the Holy City, and that his dissertation on its topography was written more than ten years afterwards, in the library of Cambridge!! I am glad to find, however, that a scholar of the research, and an observer of the acumen of Dr. Robinson, has since taken precisely the same views of the Cambridge Professor as those I was bold enough to advance after his opinions had had the sanction of nearly forty years. It appears that Dr. Robinson had never seen my work, yet he writes—“Dr. Clarke apparently did not take the trouble even to think of reconciling his theory with the other topographical details of the ancient city;" and speaking of Dr. Clarke's idea of the Hill of Evil Council being Sion, he says "the hypothesis is too absurd to admit of further refutation."-Again, "The language of Dr. Clarke in speaking of the tombs south of Hinnom is exaggerated and reprehensible;" and adds, such “extravagant assertions could come only from one who had a theory to support."-Biblical Researches, notes to vol. I.

where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city"—(John, xix. 20) so near indeed does it appear to me to have been, that many of the Jews, who probably stood upon the opposite wall, read the title placed over the cross.

It is absurd to suppose that the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea was placed among those of the kings of Judah, for they are more than a quarter of a mile from the spot where Clarke places the crucifixion, whereas we are told by the same evangelist, that it was a garden nigh at hand to the place of crucifixion. Nay more, St. Cyril, the first patriarch of Jerusalem, informs us, that the crypt was "in the hollow of the outer wall," which perfectly agrees with the situation I have given it with relation to the ancient city.*

Should apology be deemed necessary for this lengthened dissertation upon the topography of Jerusalem, I can only say that while volumes have been written upon Rome, Athens, Thebes,

*The strictures throughout this chapter on the opinions of Doctor Clarke may by some persons be considered severe, or at least presumptuous, but they are absolutely necessary; for if his statements were to remain uncontradicted, they stand in direct opposition to the opinions I have endeavoured to establish throughout the preceding pages. Dr. Clarke's travels were, without doubt, the very best published in their day, and though knowledge is progressing, and new and additional facts are being brought to light by the labours and researches of modern travellers, yet his work must still remain a lasting monument of the talent, the learning, and critical research of the author, as well as one of the standard works in our language, upon the countries of which he treats. But when Dr. Clarke entered Palestine, (where he spent something more than a week, about three days of which he resided in Jerusalem! and the account of which he published several years after,) he appears to have been so much disgusted with the monkish tales that had been previously related by travellers concerning the holy places at Jerusalem-such as, showing where the cock crew to remind Peter of his crime, &c.—and ridiculing the enthusiastic credulity of his predecessor, Chateaubriand, he was determined to refute, if possible, every tale or saintly legend, whether authentic, probable, or merely traditionary, that had been published concerning them. To the work from which I have quoted so largely, all who travel must feel indebted, and no one is more willing to acknowledge that debt than myself. The apparent anachronism with regard to Chateaubriand may be accounted for by the fact, that, although he did not visit Palestine till after Clarke, yet his work was published long before that of the English traveller, who had thus an opportunity of subsequently reviewing it.