תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub
[merged small][ocr errors]

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.

[blocks in formation]

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 wlio 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.

[merged small][ocr errors]

Pompeii, Herculaneum, and other cities—wherein the temple of every heathen deity, and the residence of every heathen philosopher, have been examined with labour and care the most minute, and described with surpassing accuracy—this, the first, the most holy, the greatest, and I might add, that which shall be the last of cities, has been comparatively neglected and forgotten; a city consecrated to the service of Jehovah, and where he manifested himself to his people; the scene of the labours, sufferings, and death of Messiah ; a city, to whose establishment and future glory nations shall yet rise and fall, monarchs flourish, and dynasties decay; a city planned by the great Architect of the world, and before the splendour of which the greatest metropolis, the mightiest people, and the most transcendant achievements of man shall pass away, or be made subservient.

Having endeavoured to answer the objections as to the site of the sepulchre, I find it still further necessary to remove some popular or “vulgar errors” upon this subject. It is generally supposed that Calvary or Golgotha (which are synonymous) was a mount, or a considerable hill. This mistake is common to most authors, and is one into which Gibbon himself has fallen ; but there is no scriptural warrant for such a supposition. It may, however, have been a small elevation or mound of some fifteen feet high, placed in the natural valley that surrounded the outer wall. Again, others suppose it to have been a place of public execution and a common grave-yard, and this opinion they rest on the word Golgotha (yolyoda), and translate it “the place of skulls,” or “of a skull.” Now if this supposition be correct, is it not as likely that the evangelists would have mentioned it as a place of execution (or, as some writers have been pleased to call it, a "gallows”) as a place of “skulls ?” · A learned correspondent of the Edinburgh Review* has thrown considerable light upon the meaning of the word Golgotha; b'li he too falls into the mistake of making it a place of public burial, “the place of the skulls of men,” giving to the word DTX Adam, the general appellation of men or mankind, and not the proper name of our first parent. The monks and guardians of the Holy Sepulchre point out a place in the cleft of the rock,

* See Critique on Dr. Clarke's Travels in this Review for Feb. 1813.

[ocr errors][merged small]

beside the cross, where they say the skull of Adam was discovered at the time of the crucifixion, and even pretend to show the skull itself; and they gravely assert that the father of mankind had himself interred there, in order that his bones might be sprinkled with the blood of our Saviour! Such is the absurd tale related by Epiphanius, and still retailed by the friars to all devout pilgrims.

But this place appears to have had an earlier date than the tradition of monks and fathers, and its existence is believed by both Jews and Mooslims, and is mentioned in the works of the latter.* Now it is probable that this spot in the trench outside the walls (and if the tradition concerning it existed from an early date, it would be a reason for its not being included in the city) was called the place of the skull, or as St. Luke writes : “kai óte åmeldov eni TOV TOTOV TOV kalovuevov kpavior—and when they were come to a place called SKULL;"-a proper name, denoting not a burial-ground or a place of execution, but a spot to which a certain tradition was attached; and so the word Golgotha and the skull of Adam appear to be the same.f “But near the former," says the reviewer, “was the tomb of Christ, according to Scripture; therefore it was near the latter ; that is, where it has always been placed.” And this is the more likely to be correct, as the Greek and Latin priests themselves are totally unacquainted with the origin of this tradition, and know nothing whatever of the true meaning of the naine given to the place shown as the repository of Adam's skull. I

There are four things that must be taken into account when discussing this question of the identity of Calvary and the Holy Sepulchre. The probable position of such a place; its bearings with regard to the plan of the ancient city ; the scriptural authority; the traditions, and the writings of authors since the days of St. Helena. The three first of these points I have endea

* See the work of Jalal-Addin, referred to at page 460-3.

+ In our version the word xpavoy is translated Calvary, on what authority I know not, except from the Latin term Calvarium (a skull); and if CalVARY be a proper name, so ought SKULL.

1 The absurd opinion that it derived its name from the supposed resem. blance of this rock to the form of a skull, as related by Reland, and adopted by Mr. Buckingham, is too ridiculous to require comment. The latter author contradicts the same statement in page 286 of his book.

[merged small][ocr errors]

voured to answer already ; to discuss the fourth, I would be compelled to wade through masses of literary lumber that are only equalled by the rubbish that at present surrounds the spot.

But the absurdities and foolish legends which are often mixed up with the accounts of ancient authors and with the tales of modern monks and friars, are not sufficient reasons for disbeliev. ing or ridiculing all we hear or read concerning this place ; no more than because an extravagant or idle tale is told by the people of our own country, we are not to investigate the ruins or the incidents to which it refers.

It is extremely unlikely that while the tombs of other friends would be visited, reverenced, wept over, and strewn with flowers, as has ever been the case in a country where peculiar veneration is paid to the mausoleums of relatives, the place hallowed as the depository of the body of our Saviour would be forgotten or neglected by his disciples, or his earthly relatives and friends; or that this tomb would in a short time become unknown to the early Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem. Surely then such a tradition would be transmitted for at least three hundred years. Nay, the very tomb of Joseph of Arimathea itself would be remembered for two hundred years; and we fully agree in the words of a learned critic and divine, now no more, who says"Nor was it only its superior sanctity which would preserve its memory. As the private property of an opulent Christian family it would be secured from pollution and injury; and the tomb itself was no

hereabouts' which tradition was to settle, but an object too visible and too definite either to be overlooked or mistaken. While a single Christian survived in the town it would never cease to be known and venerated ; and it certainly will require a considerable weight of argument to induce us to believe, that while the tombs of Ajax, of Achilles, of Æneas, of Theron, are ascertained by satisfactory tradition, a sepulchre of a date so much more recent, and of so much more forcible interest should have been allowed to sink into obscurity, or have been supplanted by a spurious and imperfect copy."*

But the learned author of the critique from which I have

* Quarterly Review, 1813. Bishop Heber.

I believe this article was written by the late

« הקודםהמשך »