The Press.
London, England, 1856-11-08 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

gate ; and for this purpose the gate Gennath is held to
have been opposite to that street on the northern brow of
Zion. Both of these new positions, I have endeavoured to
show, are untenable. I have also brought forward facts
and evidence, stronger than before, which demonstrate
that the second wall must have run considerably on the
west of the sepulchre ; and which show also that its pro-
bable course was near the street leading northwards from
the castle to the Latin convent.

So far, then, as the topographical evidence is concerned,
it appears to be incompatible with the idea of the authen•
ticity of the present site of the sepulchre. Hence have
arisen, apparently, the efforts made to transfer the Tyro-
pmon and Akre, to another part of the city ; in order to get
rid both of the ancient reservoir now known as the pool of
Hezekish, and also of the waters of Nihon on the west.
Hence, too, the theory of sources, which do not exist, ou
the northern quarter of the city.
11. In respect to the historical testimony, there has
likewise been some change in the manner of bringing it
forward. Instead of the plausible ci priori statement of
Chateaubriand, we have had froM one writer " an antece-
dent probability "; and from another the "strong pre-
sumption in favour of a right conclusion." But the actual
historic facts remain for the most part unmodified.
. .

The precise and main point of inquiry in relation to this
topic is: hid there exist, in the time of Constantine, any
such historical evidence or tradition respecting the place
of our Lord's sepulchre, as to lead to the selection of the
present site as the true one? Here Eusebius is the first
and chief witness. No earlier father or writer makes even
the slightest allusion to the sepulchre as then existing;
nor to any tradition respecting it. Nor does any later
writer speak of the circumstances attending the discovery
of the site, until seventy years after the event. The
Bourdeaux pilgrim in A. D. 33:3, and Cyril, a deacon under
Macarius, and a few years afterwards Bishop of Jerusalem,
are utterly silent. Eusehius, therefore, the contem-
porary and an actor in these transactions, the friend and
agent of the Emperor Constantine in Palestine, is the sole
writer who bears testimony to the historical facts as an
eye-witness.
This father, writing ten years or more before the alleged
discovery of the sepulchre, speaks of crowds of pilgrims,
who flocked to Jerusalem to pay their devotions on the
Mount of Olives, where our Saviour taught his disciples
and then ascended into heaven. He speaks also of the
place of our Lord's nativity at Bethlehem ; which, indeed,
was marked by a still earlier tradition. Now had there
been, in like manner, a definite tradition as to our Lord's
sepulchre, it is bard to conceive how these crowds of pit
grams, who were eager to seek out even the most trivial
scriptural localities, should have neglected to ascertain
and visit the sacred spot; and, also, how Eusebius should
have omitted to allude to the fact when speaking of the
two other coll'•teral traditions.

Indeed, the language of Ensebius would seem rather to
imply the non-existence of any such tradition. He relates
that after the council of Nicea (A. D. 3:.15), the Emperor
Constantine became desirous of " performing a glorious
work in Palestine, by adorning and rendering sacred the
place of our Lord's resurrection." This was undertaken
by him, not without a divine admonition, but as moved
thereto in spirit by the Saviour himself. " For hitherto
impious men, or rather the whole race of demons through
their instrumentality, had made every effort to deliver over
that illustrious monument to darkness and oblivion."
Such language, certainly, would hardly be appropriate in
speaking of a spot definitely known and marked by long
tradition. Indeed, Eusebius expressly affirms that the
discovery of the sepulchre was "beyond all hope." In
like manner the Emperor himself, in his letter to Macarius
preserved by Eusebius, regards the discovery of "the
monument of the Saviour's most sacred passion, which for
so long a time had been hidden under ground," as " a
miracle beyond the capacity of man sufficiently to celebrate,
or men to comprehend." The mere removal of obstruc-
tions from a well-known spot could hardly have been de-
scribed as a miracle so stupendous. Indeed, as T have
elsewhere remarked, the whole tenor of the language both
of Ensebius and Constantine shows that the discovery of
the sepulchre was held to be the result, not of a previous
knowledge derived from tradition, but of a supernatural in-
timation.

Great stress continues to he laid upon the circumstance
first reported by Eusebius, that the same " impious men,"
after !covering over the sepulchre with: earth, nad built
upon it " a dark retreat or cavern for the lascivious demon
Venus." Nothing is here intimated as to the time of its
construction. Jerome, some seventy years after the dis-
covery, places a marble statue of Venus on the "rock of
the cross" or Golgotha, and an image of Jupiter on the
place of the resurrection ; and affirms that they had been
upon the spot from the time of Adrian. There is here a
discrepancy between this account and that of Eusebius ;
and the Latin father must he in the wrong ; for Eusebius
was an eye witness, and Jerome not. The historians
the next century•, too, adopt the account of Eusehius, and
say nothing of Adrian in this connection. What, then, is
the amount of all this testimony? Why simply just what
I have formerly stated, that writers ex post facto have men•
tioned such a temple or idol as standing, not over the
sepulchre known of old as that of Christ, but over the spot
fixed upon by Constantine as that sepulchre. There is no
reason to doubt that a temple and idol stood upon that
spot ; but this fact in itself has no bearing to show that the
place was the true sepulchre. Indeed, the two parts of
the argument are inconsistent with each other. If the
Pagan temple had thus actually marked the place of the
sepulchre as a " lasting record" from the days of Adrian,
or for any period of time, then this site was a definite and
well-known spot. Yet, according to Eusebius and the later
writers, the sepulchre hail been consigned to utter oblivion,
and its discovery was the result of a divine warning, uc•
companied by diligent inquiry.

In respect to what is usually and appropriately termed
the invention of the true cross, which historians of that

1071

and the next century narrate as part and parcel of the
discovery of the sepulchre, the advocates of tradition seem
at present disposed to say as little as possible. As to the
cross, Eusebius is silent. Yet in less than twenty years
we find Cyril, and afterwards Jerome, speaking of its exist-
ence as a public and well-known fact; and such not im-
probably is the import of the epistle of Constantine. So
that I may still say, as before, that there is hardly any fact
in history better accredited than this alleged discovery of
the true cross. The discovery of the sepulchre, and the
discovery of the cross, belong historically and appropriately
together.
Thus a consideration of the contemporary historical evi-
dence goes to show that in the selection of the present site
there was neither any prior tradition nor any direct proba-
bility to guide the choice.

The argument is here stated calmly, and is
afterwards supported by arcbteological evi-
dence, and the text is annotated with scholarly
precision. lie sums up his opinion on the
subject in the following words :

In the particular instance of the Holy Sepulchre,
probably no one at the present day, except Mr. Fergusson
and his followers, supposes there has been any transfer of
the site, since it was originally fixed in the fourth century.
The theory of that writer assumes that the church erected
by Constantine was the present grand mock es Sukhrah in
the middle of the Haram area. His position is very in•
geniously elaborated and sustained; but is directly con-
tradicted, as it seems to me, by the historical evidence.
need only refer to ta o witnesses. The pilgrim of Bor-
deaux in A. D. 333, a contemporary writer, relates that
`• those going from Zion to the gate of Neapolis. . . .
have on the left band the hillock Golgotha, where the
Lord was crucified; and a stone's throw off the crypt
where his body was laid, and rose again on the third day ;
and there, also, by order of the Emperor Constantine, a
church has been erected of admirable beauty." Here the
gate of Neapolis can only be the present Damascus gate.
In like manner Eusehius, who also was a contemporary,
relates that the splendid propylaea of the Basilica of Con-
stantine extended on the east of tne same to the .nidat of
the street of the market; which can be referred to nothing
but the present street of the bazaars. The two witnesses
thus accord together, and sustain each other.
Thus in every view which 1 have been able to take of
the Holy Sepulchre and its traditions, I am led to hold fast
the position which I have formerly laid down—viz., ."That
ail ecclesiastical tradition rtspecting the ancient places in
and around Jerusalem and throughout Palestine is of no
value ; except so far as it is supported by circumstances
known from the Scriptures, or from other contemporary
testimony." _ _

Careless rcaders would be apt to misinterpret
the meaning of some of this author's opinions,
as he does not sufficiently dwell upon his con-
clusions. For example, it is only against the
value of the " ecclesiastical tradition," as dis-
tinguished from bona-fide history, and the
philosophical inferences of the learned, that
the author expresses so adverse an opinion.
We concur with him as to the worthlessness
of mere " tradition " iii the antiquities of
Jerusalem. All Oriontal archaeology is more
or less seen through a mist, except when we
have the Bible and authentic history to
guide us.
On the Upper Fountain of Bethesda Dr.
Robinson writes:—

UPPER FOUNTAIN.—This has been commonly known as
the Fountain of the Virgin. Of its irregular and inter-
mitting flow we formerly were witnesses; and we also
passed through the subterranean channel by which its
waters are conducted to Siloam. All this is fully described
in a former volume.

The inquiry was there started, Whether perhaps this
irregular flow is to be explained by some connection with
waters from the temple or Harem above, the taste of
which was found to be the same? On this point 'nothing
new has since come to light, except that the exploration of
the well west of the Harem has shown that at least those
waters apparently have no outflow either towards Ithe
Harem or the valley. The likeness of taste, therefore, is
probably to be ascribed rather to the like soil and rock
through which the waters of both fountains percolate.
Whether any communication whatever exists with the
Harem above, is a matter yet to be determined. The
present popular report of such a connection, like that re-
specting running water at the Damascus gate, is too in-
definite and legendary to be of any weight. Yet the writers
of the Talmud have recorded the tradition of their day, that
the blood from the great altar was drained off by a sub-
terranean channel into the valley of the Kidron ; where it
was sold to the gardeners fur manure.
In respect to the suggestion formerly made by me as to
the possible identity of this intermitting fountain with the
pool of Bethesda, 1 may now venture a somewhat more
definite statement. The irregular flow certainly corre-
sponds perfectly well with the "troubling " of the water.
When it is said that " an angel went down at a certain
season into the pool and troubled the water," probably
there is no one who would hold that on every such occa-
sion there was the visible form and appearance of an angel.
This mysterious motion of the waters, of which none could
comprehend the cause, the people ascribed to the direct
supernatural agency of an angel; and this in accordance
with the general principle that God administers the laws
of the universe through the agency of the angels, his
messengers. Again, when it is said that " whosoever then
first after the troubling of the water stepped in, was made
whole of whatsoever disease he had," it is evident that the
healing power was held to lie, not in the eater itself, but

1072

n the circumstance of first stepping in. This, of course,
a contrary to the analogy of all medical waters ; as is also
he other circumstance, that the power extended to the
healing of all kinds of diseases. In these particulars we
have the unerring marks of a current popular belief;
which the Evangelist has chosen to make the basis of his
representation. The same was sometimes done by an
authority higher than John.
Those reflections are too loose and conjec-
tural. The author supplies a note to enforce
his reference to the " higher authority than
John":—
See especially our Lord's parable of the Rich Man and
Lazarus, founded on the Jewish popular belief as to Hades
and the state of the dead.—Luke ]6, 19 sq. comp. Luke
23,39 sq.
-

True, but Our Lord was then speaking in a
parable, whereas the statement about " the
" angel troubling the waters " was a positive
narrative. The phrase "which the Evangelist
" chose to make the basis of his representa-
tion " will grate harshly upon some ears.
But Dr. Robinson has dealt with so many
hypotheses, that lie may be allowed to make
some.

The journal of his ascent to Lebanon forms
one of the most interesting portions of his
work. He thus describes the famous cedars :

The ceders, which still bear their ancient name, stand
mostly upon four small contiguous rocky knolls, within a
compass of less than forty rods in diameter. They form
a thick forest, without underbrush. The older trees have
each several trunks, and thus spread themselves widely
around ; but most of the others are cone like in form, and
do not throw out their boughs laterally to any great
extent. Some few trees stand alone on the outskirts of
the grove; and thie especially, on the south, is large and
very beautiful. With this exception none of the trees
came up to my ideal of the graceful beauty of the cedar of
Lebanon, such as I had formerly seen it in the Jardin des
Plantes. Some of the older trees are already much
broken, and will soon be wholly destroyed. The fashion
is now coming into vogue to have articles made of this
wood for sale to travellers, and it is alto burned as fuel by
the few people that here pass the summer. These causes
of destruction, though gradual in their operation, are
nevertheless sure. Add to this the circumstance that
travellers in former years (to say nothing of the present
time) have been shameless enough to cause large spots to
be hewn smooth on the trunks of some of the noblest
trees in order to inscribe their names. The two earliest
which I saw were Frenchmen ; one was dated in 1791.
The wood of the cedar, Pines cedrus, is white, with a
pleasant, but not strong odour ; and bears no comparison,
in beauty or fragrance, with the common ted cedar of
America, Juniperws Virginiana.
I mats no attempt to count the trees. Probably no two
persons would fully agree in respect to the old ones, or in
the number of the whole. Yet I should be disposed to
concur in the language of 13urckhardt, who says, " Of the
oldest and best looking trees I counted eleven or twelve;
twenty-five very large ones ; about fifty of middling size ;
and more than three hundred smaller and young ones."
Yet there is no room to doubt but that during the last
three centuries the number of earlier trees has diminished
by nearly or quite one-half: while the younger growth
has in great part, if not wholly, sprung up during that
interval. Busching enumerates by name no less than
twenty-six travellers between A.D. 1550 and 17;i5, from P.
Belon to Stephen Schulz, who had described and counted
the trees ; and since that time the number of like descrip-
tions has probably been family less than twice as many.
In the sixteenth century the number of old trees is
variously given as from twenty-eight to twenty-three; in
the seventeenth, from twenty-four to sixteen ; in the
eighteenth, from twenty to fifteen. After the lapse of
another century, the number of the oldest trees, as we
have seen, is now reduced to about a dozen. All this
marks a gradual process of decay, and it also marks the
difficulty of exact enumeration. This is rightly ascribed
by Furer, and also by Dandini, to the fact that many of
the trees have two or more stems ; and were thus reckoned
differently by different travellers, sometimes as one tree,
and sometimes as two or more. All the travellers of the
sixteenth century speak only of the old trees ; they nowhere
mention any young ones. Rauwolf, himself a botanist,
seems to say expressly that he sought for younger trees
without being able to find any. If this be so, it would
appear that, with the exception of the few remaining
ancient trees, perhaps none of those which now make up
the grove can be regarded as reaching back in age more
than three hundred years.

As a specimen of the way in which Dr.
Robinson joins historical dissertation with
geographical minuteness,we cite this passage :

Besides the natural grace and beauty of the cedar of
Lebanon, which still appear in the trees of middle age,
though not in the more ancient patriarchs, there is asso-
ciated with this grove a feeling of veneration, as the repre-
sentative of those forests of Lebanon so celebrated in
the Hebrew Scriptures. To the sacred waters the cedar
was the noblest of trees, the monarch of the vegetable
kingdom. Solomon " spake of trees from the cedar tree
that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth
out of the wall." To the prophets it was the favorite em-
blem for greatness, splendour, and majesty : hence kings
and nobles, the pillars of society, are everywhere cedars
of Lebanon. Espezially is this the case in the splendid
description by Ezekiel of the Assyrian power and glory.
Hence, too, in connection with its durability and fragrance,
it was regarded as the most precious of all wood, and was
eMployed irt costly balk% for oruameut and luxury.