« הקודםהמשך »
quoted, has fallen into a grievous error in stating that “there is also another circumstance which has been rashly taken as granted ----namely, that the tomb of our Saviour was in the same place as his cross.” In answer to this objection I must again refer to Scripture, which states that “in the place where he was crucified there was a garden ; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus.”—(John xix, 41, 42.) And the rolling a great stone against the mouth of the sepulchre would rather incline us to believe that the garden in which it was placed was a comparative level, and not the steep precipitous side of a valley, as Clarke and Buckingham have supposed. The former, in endeavouring to disprove or at least to contradict every previous account, has gone a little too far in asserting that the stone above the entrance to the chamber is verdantique, and not the usual limestone found in the country : a fact which all future travellers can easily ascertain. *
We know from undoubted authority that the Romans who retained possession of Jerusalem after the time of Titus, placed a
· * The author of " The Modern Traveller" has fallen into the usual mis. take of persons who have to collect their information from the descriptions furnished by others, without being able from personal inspection to describe the places they write upon themselves. He has too hastily adopted the opinions of Dr. Clarke; for in page 122 we find him saying—" But the spot in question, as we have seen, could never have been either a burialplace or a place of crucifixion, not being without the city." Again, in page 126, he objects to the sepulchre on account of the white marble sarcophagus shown as the tomb of Christ; which, he says, must have been hewn out of the compact grey limestone rock; forgetting that this white marble is merely said to cover the actual soros, as I have stated in a former part of this work. He, however, answers his own objection in the very next page by saying, that “all that the pilgrim is permitted to see is a marble casing of a supposed rock.” The stone in the centre of the outer apartment is not shown as that rolled to the door of the sepulchre, but that on which the angel sat, and which is no doubt legendary ; but it cannot be urged as a proof against the identity of the tomb, as it is not half the size of the doorway, while that shown by the Armenians is about one-half too large. Notwithstanding these inaccuracies and hasty conclusions, the work of Mr. Conder is one without which no traveller should visit the Holy Land; for it contains an epitome of all that had been written upon it up to the date of its publication; and, though compiled by a person who never visited the country, it is often the best guide that can be obtained, even in Jerusalem itself. -
LABOURS OF CONSTANTİNE AND HELENA.
statue of Venus over the tomb of Christ, and also the fane of Jupiter over the place of the crucifixion. These remained standing until the beginning of the fourth century (326), when the Christian empress, upon her arrival in Jerusalem, had them removed ; and her son Constantine reduced the place to the state in which it at present appears.
An objection has been raised against the identity of the tomb, from its being a crypt abore ground; but it is quite natural to suppose that the enthusiastic emperor and his mother, in order to adorn and do honour to the sepulchre, had the intervening ground cut away ; that is, leaving the Rock of Calvary standing, they removed the stone that formed the gradual intermediate slope between it and the tomb; and so left that which was above the surface, not like a grave, but hewn in the face of a rock, a detached crypt, the bottom of which stands about ten inches above the floor of the church. In fact, it is related by Eusebius, that they had to excavate to find the cave of the sepulchre. In form and construction it corresponds in every particular to the other tombs about Jerusalem ; especially to those in the rocks above the village of Siloam. It is a curious fact, that the sarcophagus is on the right-hand side ; and in confirmation of this, we read that when the women came to the sepulchre, “they saw a young man sitting on the right-hand side.”—(Mark xvi. 5.)
Clarke referred with great confidence to the effect that fire would have upon the sepulchre. That test has since been tried ; the whole place was burned down since his visit; and though the surrounding pavilion was destroyed, the actual tomb remained uninjured, being “hewn out of a rock.” The Rev. Mr. Nicolayson informed me that, anxious to learn what appearance it then presented, he made many inquiries, and at last found an old Greek priest, a sincere man, and one well worthy of credit, who stated to him that the morning after the fire he went into the tomb; and that as the white marble coating was broken across and not yet replaced, he saw beneath it a plain trough or sarcophagus hewn out of the floor of the church, and not composed of masonry, as Dr. C. supposed. This man, Mr. N. described as totally unacquainted with any of the disputes regarding it; and knowing nothing whatever of antiquities.* .
* In the last edition of " Three Weeks in Palestine," its writer quotes the author of the “Decline and Fall" to prove that the sepulchre was completely destroyed by the fanatic Hakem. This may account for the outer wall of the crypt being removed; but we here have evidence to show that the sarcophagus itself still remains.
I am not inclined to pay much attention to what is called the outer chamber ; but as regards the fissure in Calvary, Clarke himself was forced to acknowledge that it was a most astonishing phenomenon ; that he could not account for it; and that it was a natural crack or rent, proceeding down to a great depth, which could not have been formed by man, as its sides correspond to each other.
In conclusion, I do not think that any valid objection has yet been brought forward against the identity of the tomb, or Calvary; and until there has, we are bound, even as a matter of antiquarian research, to receive the tradition of nearly sixteen centuries, especially where no improbability appears against its authenticity. Thus it appears that Calvary or Golgotha was a small mound or elevation in the natural fosse or valley which surrounded the city immediately outside the walls, and derived its name from an ancient tradition regarding the skull of Adam. Here the Jews crucified the Lord, and the tomb of Joseph was in a garden beside it. And though no person can positively state that what are now pointed out as Calvary, and the Holy Sepulchre, are the actual places ; yet to the present moment no sufficient proof to the contrary has been offered.*
* Haring carefully perused the various articles that have appeared on this subject since the first publication of this work, particularly those by Dr. Robinson in his “ Biblical Researches;" “ The Essay on the Ecclesiastical Miracles," from the Oxford press; “ The Bibliotheca Sacra" for July, 1843; and also the seventh number of " Ancient Christianity;"-and having weighed and considered the arguments pro and con, adduced with such learning and ingenuity by the several writers of those essays, I must confess that, although I have no theory to support, and no superstition nor religious bias to uphold, I still retain my original opinion. With regard to the miracle of the finding of the cross, I fully agree with those who look upon it as a “pious fraud ;” and this has been, I think, completely established during the late controversy ;- but I am still slow to believe that, because the reputed finding of the cross is an idle tale, the antiquity and validity of the Sepulchre and Calvary on that account fall to the ground. To my mind the matter in dispute appears to rest entirely on the topography
Let us now make the circuit of the city, and examine some of the antiquities in its vicinity. Outside the modern wall, and near the Damascus gate, there is a deep excavation in the face of the rock, which anciently formed the outer side of the natural fosse or valley that bounded Nehemiah's wall, and separated Acra from Bezetha. This is called the Grotto of Jeremiah, and is shown as the prison of that prophet when confined by Zedekiah ; and it is also said to be the place in which he wrote his Lamentations. Its first appearance is that of an immense quarry, in the outer enclosure of which are the tombs of several Mohammadan saints; the place being now in the hands of the Mooslims, who hold it in great veneration, and exact a tax of a piastre from each Christian, for leave to visit it. Within this court are several grots, subterranean halls, and small chapels, all
of the ancient city, and of the position of the “ second wall" of Josephus ; and if the locality which I have assigned to this at page 435 be correct, then one of the strongest arguments against the topographical inaccuracy of the site of the Sepulchre and Calvary is disposed of. It must, I think, be acknowledged by every candid reader that considerable obscurity exists in the text of Josephus on the subject of these walls; and it is quite im. possible to form any idea of the matter in dispute without a reference to the map. It may be possible that the triple wall of the Jewish historian had no reference to that which encompassed the southern brow of Zion, but consisted of the ancient “ broad wall" running from Hippicus to Antonia --that inclosing the northern shoulder of Acra-or “ Nehemiah's wall;" and lastly, the wall which encompassed the suburb of Bezetha. The narrowness of the city from Calvary to the tower of Antonia or the site of the temple has been also made the grounds of objection. To my mind this is one of the least valid; for the history of the various cities, the position that they held, and the natural condition of the ground itself, all teach us that Jerusalem being added bit by bit, and from south to northfrom Sion to Bezetha, is a series of segments of circles; and where Acra sprung from the Tyropæon valley, there may have been, without being within the city, and without disturbing the topographical descriptions of the Scriptures or Josephus, the site of the Crucifixion. The question therefore remains nearly in its former condition. Although no man can positively affirm or prove it to be the Sepulchre, no man can positively deny that it is so. It should, however, be borne in remembrance that Dr. Robinson was but once, for a few minutes, in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, and does not appear to have ever seen the crypt itself during his entire visit! See pages 330, 331, vol. i.
THE GROTTO OF JEREMIAH. hown out of the solid rock; the roofs being supported by massive . pillars, which are also integral portions of the rock that have: been left standing in the centre of these places. Some of these apartments likewise contain the tombs of Mooslim santons ; probably they are the burial-places of the Darweeshes," whose college was situated near this place about two centuries ago. .
Fifty yards from this place, where the Durweeshes are interred, we were led down a flight of steps into another hall and subterranean church, the roof of which was worked into massive and deeply-grooved gothic arches. One end of this place has been excavated into a deep cistern, to collect the water that is constantly dropping from the roof and walls. The date at which this many-chambered cavern was constructed, probably coincides with that of the numerous localities within and around the city ; which, where tradition could possibly assign a shadow of sanctity, were hallowed by the erection of altars, and rendered sacred to some saint, either real or imaginary. A dim and feeble light is admitted from the opening at top of this place, just sufficient to make the darkness within visible. This, added to the hollow sound of our footsteps, the damp atmosphere of the place, the dropping of the water from the roof, together with the gloom and solemnity of all around us, was strikingly impressive, and called to my recollection the grotto of Engaddi, so graphically described by the great magician of the north. In this part of the suburbs there are several dry cisterns, and some curious vaults, of considerable size, that are completely beneath the surface, and lined with cement. In form they resemble bee-hives, with circular openings at top..
Leaving the grotto we proceeded to the Tombs of the Kings, or the royal sepulchres, to which I before referred when describing the wall around Bezetha.* These splendid remains differ from most other rock-caved sepulchres in not being cut in the side of a hill, but being placed beneath a level spot of ground approached by a narrow path which leads to a square inclosure hewn out of the limestone stratum, of about fifteen to twenty feet deep. A wall
.* Several eminent authorities...Pococke, Clarke, and Robinson, regard this monument as the sepulchre of Helena, Queen of Adiabne. This, however, is still a disputed question,