THE most celebrated of the controversies connected with Palestine refer to the site of the Temple of Herod and to that of the Holy Sepulchre. I have given an estimate of the results of exploration as affecting both subjects in various works, but since their publication other writers (not the majority) have in some cases reverted to the views which were held before exploration commenced, and which were deduced from literary researches.

The latest work on the subject (Professor Hayter Lewis’ “The Holy Places of Jerusalem,” Murray, 1888), very fully supports the views which I have advocated for the last ten years.

As regards these questions, it is clear that we are now in a position to study them from monumental evidence, which is safer and more convincing than any argument drawn from literary studies. The views now more generally adopted depend almost entirely on the consideration of such monumental evidence, and on study of the rock rather than on the vague and brief accounts of ancient writers.

As regards the Temple, the excavations have proved to us that a great building exists on the site having masonry of the same general character on its east, west, and south walls. The difference in finish of the ancient stones in some parts may most probably be supposed not to indicate any difference of date, but to be due to the work being in some places intended to be seen and in other cases hidden under earth. There is no evidence that any of this masonry is as old as Solomon. It resembles the work at Arak el Emir (second century B.C.), and the Greek style of the Acropolis (sixth century B.C.), and the Roman masonry of Baalbek (second century A.D.). The masons’ marks found by Sir C. Warren, and resembling Phoenician or Aramean letters, do not necessitate the idea that these stones are of Solomon’s age. The old alphabet was still but little changed in Herod’s days.

Various scholars have taken Josephus’ statement, that the Temple was a stadium square—a statement made, writing in Rome, by an author whose measurements are often self-contradictory[66]—and have thus sought to confine Herod’s Temple to an area 600 feet square in the south-west angle of the Haram. To this theory, which originated with the late Mr. Fergusson, several objections seem to me fatal.

(1.) Josephus, whom they quote, also says that the town-wall of Jerusalem on Ophel, south of the Temple, joined the eastern cloister of the Temple (Wars, V. iv. 2). This wall Sir Charles Warren discovered joining the east wall of the Haram. Thus, according to Josephus himself, the south-east angle of the present Haram was the south-east angle of Herod’s Temple.

(2.) No walls such as are required by these theorists are known inside the Haram, nor is there any break in the south wall at the point where they suppose the S.E. angle to have been.

(3.) There is also the statement by Josephus that the Temple was on the top of the hill, and I have shown by sections published in the Builder (January 25, 1879), that according to their theory foundations of between thirty and ninety feet are inevitably necessary to carry down to the known levels of the rock the heavy base of the great central fane. Writers who treat only of the plan without taking this practical builder’s objection into consideration may not admit the strength of this argument, but to those who have themselves built it should have force, and no ingenuity can escape from the necessity of such foundations. In the same paper I have shown that a plan, placing the Holy House on the present Sakhrah rock, necessitates only three or four feet of foundation in all parts of the Temple area. (See further Conder’s “Handbook to the Bible,” pp. 359-385, and “Tent Work in Palestine,” vol. i. chap, xii., for full details as to the levels).

(4.) The site of Antonia, as described by Josephus, most plainly agrees with the present rock at the north-west corner of the Haram. Such a site for Antonia cannot be reconciled with the theory confining the Temple to a small portion of the Haram.

(5.) These scholars also ignore the very important and detailed account in the Talmud, which cannot be reconciled with the small area in question. This account dates from only about half a century after the time of Josephus, a time when the ruins of the Temple might still be traceable and known to the author. The account gives us every measurement, enabling us to make a plan, and by aid of the number of steps stated—in agreement with Josephus—to calculate the levels of the various courts. My plan, based on these measurements, occurs in the books above quoted and in the Jerusalem volume of the “Memoirs of Western Palestine.” By this restoration we are able to account for the great passages north of the Dome of the Rock, and can identify the gates mentioned in the Talmud with existing gateways.

The theory in question seems to me, therefore, to strain the meaning of one particular statement and to ignore several others equally important by the same author. It declines to accept the outcome of exploration in the recovery of the Ophel wall; and it supposes walls and a rock scarp to exist where no traces are found of such walls and where such a scarp is impossible. It must, therefore, be regarded as the survival of earlier opinion, which will in time give place to the facts clearly indicated by excavation.

As regards the site of the Holy Sepulchre, Mr. Fergusson’s theory may be considered defunct. Professor Hayter Lewis has taken up the argument which I attempted in 1878, and has added further details of architectural criticism. He agrees with others in accepting the historic accounts contained in inscriptions and in Arab chronicles which attribute the Dome of the Rock to Abd el Melek, and he accepts my three propositions:—1st, That older material was re-used in the structure; 2nd, That the outer walls are attributable to the restoration of the building in the ninth century; 3rd, That the Dome of the Chain was the model of the Dome of the Rock. These three propositions were argued in 1878 (“Tent Work in Palestine”).

It is now generally agreed that Constantine’s basilica of the Holy Sepulchre stood on the present site of the church, and there are, of course, many who regard Constantine’s site as of necessity the true one, while other writers have adopted the theory to which I drew attention in 1878, placing Calvary at the present Jeremiah’s Grotto. The main argument against the traditional site is that it must have been within the “second wall,” which was then the outer wall on the north, whereas we learn from the Epistle that “Christ suffered without the gate” (Heb. xiii. 12). It is certain that the position is suspiciously central. Some have tried to draw the second wall so as to exclude the church. The recovery of the rock sections shows how impossible is the line they propose, which is drawn in a valley commanded from outside. The west end of the second wall was discovered in 1886 within a few feet of the point shown as probable on my plan of 1878, and I believe this discovery to be the death-blow to the claims of the traditional site.

5´ N., 34° 55´ E.

Shaalabbin, SelbÎt, 31° 52´ N., 34° 59´ E.

†Shaaraim, perhaps S’aÎreh, 31° 44´ N., 35° 1´ E.

Shalem (Gen. xxxiii. 18), same as Salem (2).

†Shamir, probably SÔmerah, 31° 25´ N., 34° 56´ E.

Sharon (Plain), north of Joppa, 32° 30´ N., 35° E.

†Sharuhen, Tell esh Sheri’ah, 31° 23´ N., 34° 41´ E.

Sheba, perhaps Tell es Seb’a, 31° 14´ N., 34° 50´ E.

Shechem, NÂblus, 32° 13´ N., 35° 15´ E.

†Shihon, ’AyÛn esh Sh’aÎn, 32° 43´ N., 35° 20´ E.

Shihor Libnath, Nahr Namein, 32° 40´ N., 35° 5´ E.

Shiloh, SeilÛn, 32° 3´ N., 35° 17´ E.

Shimron, SemÛnieh, 32° 42´ N., 35° 12´ E.

Shittim, see Abel Shittim.

Shunem, Solam, 32° 36´ N., 35° 20´ E.

†Sibmah, SÛmia, 31° 49´ N., 35° 40´ E.

Sidon, Saida, 33° 34´ N., 35° 22´ E.

Siloah, Birket SilwÂn, 31° 46¼´ N., 35° 13¾´ E.

Sion, the south-west hill of Jerusalem, used in poetry for Jerusalem, or for the Temple Hill, 31° 46½´ N., 35° 13½´ E.

Sirah (Well), ’Ain SÂrah, 31° 33´ N., 35° 6´ E.

Sirion, same as Hermon.

Socoh (in the valley), ShÛweikeh, 31° 11´ N., 34° 58´ E.

Socoh (in the mountains), ShÛweikeh, 31° 24´ N., 35° E.

Sorek (Valley), WÂdy SurÂr, 31° 56´ N., 34° 42´ E.

Succoth, Tell Der’ala, 32° 5´ N., 35° 34´ E.

Taanach, T’annuk, 32° 31´ N., 35° 13´ E.

Taanath Shiloh, T’ana, 32° 11´ N., 35° 22´ E.

Tabor (Mount), Jebel et TÔr, 32° 41´ N., 35° 23´ E.

Tappuah (of Judah), TuffÛh, 31° 32´ N., 35° 2½´ E.

Tekoa, TekÛ’a, 31° 36´ N., 35° 12´ E.

Thebez, TubÂs, 32° 19´ N., 35° 22´ E.

†Thimnathah, probably Tibneh, 32° N., 35° 6´ E.

Timnah, Tibneh, 31° 44´ N., 34° 56´ E.

†Timnah (of Judah), Tibna, 31° 42´ N., 35° 3´ E.

†Timnath Heres, Kefr HÂris, 32° 7´ N., 35° 9´ E.

†Tiphsah (2 Kings xv. 16), probably Tafsah, 32° 10´ N., 35° 10´ E.

†Tirzah, TeiÂsÎr, 32° 20´ N., 35° 23´ E.

†Tob (Land), near Taiyibeh, 32° 35´ N., 35° 42´ E.

Tyre, Es SÛr, 33° 16´ N., 35° 12´ E.

Umma, probably ’Alma, 33° 6´ N., 35° 11´ E.

Uzzen Sherah, Beit Sira, 31° 53´ N., 35° 2´ E.

†Zaanaim (Plain), BessÛm, 32° 44´ N., 35° 29´ E.

†Zalmon (Mount), perhaps Jebel EslamÎyeh (Ebal), 32° 10´ N., 35° 14´ E.

Zanoah (1), ZanÛ’a, 31° 43´ N., 35° E.

Zanoah (2), ZanÛta, 31° 22´ N., 34° 59´ E.

Zaphon (Amathi), probably El Hammeh, 32° 41´ N., 35° 40´ E.

Zared or Zered (Valley), WÂdy el Hesy, 31° 5´ N., 35° 28´ E.

Zarephath, Surafend, 33° 27´ N., 35° 19´ E.

†Zareth Shahar, perhaps ZÂra, 31° 36´ N., 35° 35´ E.

†Zebulun (Josh. xix. 27), probably Neby SebelÂn, 33° 1´ N., 35° 20´ E.

Zemaraim, Es Sumrah, 31° 54´ N., 35° 29´ E.

Zephath, probably the pass Es Sufa, 30° 55´ N., 35° 5´ E.

†Zephathath (Valley), WÂdy Safieh, 31° 37´ N., 34° 55´ E.

†Zereda, Surdah, 31° 57´ N., 35° 12´ E.

Ziddim, HattÎn, 32° 48´ N., 35° 27´ E.

Ziklag, probably ’Asluj, 31° 3´ N., 34° 45´ E.

†Zior, Si’aÎr, 31° 35´ N., 35° 8´ E.

Ziph, Tell ez ZÎf, 31° 29´ N., 35° 8´ E.

Ziz (Cliff of), WÂdy HasÂsah, 31° 28´ N., 35° 23´ E.

†Zoar, Tell esh ShaghÛr, 31° 49´ N., 35° 40´ E.

Zoheleth (stone), Zahweileh, 31° 46½´ N., 35° 14´ E.

†Zophim (Field of), Tal’at es Safa, 31° 45´ N., 35° 46´ E.

Zorah, Sur’ah, 31° 47´ N., 34° 59´ E.

Out of these 422 names of towns, valleys, mountains, streams, and springs in Palestine mentioned in the Old Testament, and now identified on the ground, those marked †, which amount to 144 in all, were discovered by the present author. The more important are described in the text, with the reasons for their identification.

---

III.
INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT SITES IDENTIFIED IN PALESTINE.

• Abilene, region near Abila, 33° 38´ N., 36° 5´ E.
• Aceldama, supposed to be Hakk ed Dumm, 30° 46´ N., 35° 13½´ E.
• Ænon, AinÛn, 32° 11´ N., 35° 21´ E.
• Antipatris, RÂs el ’Ain, 32° 7´ N., 34° 55´ E.
• Azotus, EsdÛd (Ashdod), 31° 45´ N., 34° 39´ E.
• †Bethabara, Makhadet ’AbÂrah, 32° 32´ N., 35° 33´ E.
• Bethany, El ’AzirÎyeh, 31° 46´ N., 35° 15´ E.
• Bethesda (Pool), probably ’Ain Umm ed Deraj (En Rogel).
• Bethlehem, Beit Lahm, 32° 42´ N., 35° 11´ E.
• Bethphage, perhaps Kefr et TÔr on Olivet, 31° 47´ N., 35° 15´ E.
• Bethsaida, probably Ed Dikkeh, 32° 55´ N., 35° 47´ E.
• CÆsarea, KaisÂrieh, 32° 30´ N., 34° 53´ E.
• CÆsarea Philippi, BÂniÂs, 32° 18´ N., 35° 41´ E.
• Calvary, see Golgotha.
• Cana of Galilee, Kefr Kenna, 33° 45´ N., 35° 20´ E.
• Capernaum, probably Khurbet Minyeh, 32° 52´ N., 35° 32´ E.
• Cedron (Brook), WÂdy en Nar (Kidron), 31° 46´ N., 35° 14´ E.
• Chorazin, KerÂzeh, 32° 55´ N., 35° 34´ E.
• Damascus, Dimeshk esh ShÂm, 33° 32´ N., 36° 18´ E.
• Decapolis, a region south-east of Sea of Galilee.
• †Emmaus, probably Khamasah, 31° 43´ N., 35° 6´ E.
• Ephraim, probably Taiyibeh, 31° 57´ N., 35° 18´ E.
• Gaza, Ghuzzeh, 31° 30´ N., 34° 27´ E.
• Gennesaret (Lake), Bahr TubarÎya, 32° 45´ N., 35° 35´ E.
• †Golgotha, Hill of Jeremiah’s Grotto, 31° 47¼´ N., 35° 13½´ E.
• Jacob’s Well, BÎr Y’akÛb, 32° 13´ N., 35° 17´ E.
• Jericho, near TullÛl Abu el ’Aleik, 31° 52´ N., 35° 25´ E.
• Jerusalem, El Kuds, 31° 47´ N., 35° 13½´ E.
• Joppa, YÂfa, 32° 3´ N., 34° 45´ E.
• Jordan, Esh SherÎ’ah, 31° 46´ N., 35° 33´ E.
• Lydda, Ludd, 31° 57´ N., 34° 54´ E.
• Magdala, Mejdel, 32° 50´ N., 35° 31´ E.
• Nain, Nein, 32° 38´ N., 35° 20´ E.
• Nazareth, En NÂsrah, 32° 42´ N., 35° 18´ E.
• Olivet (Mount), Jebel ez Zeit, 31° 47´ N., 35° 14½´ E.
• Ptolemais, ’Akka, 32° 45´ N., 35° 4´ E.
• Salim, SÂlim, 32° 13´ N., 35° 19´ E.
• Samaria, Sebustieh, 32° 17´ N., 35° 11´ E.
• Sarepta, Surafend, 33° 27´ N., 35° 17´ E.
• Saron, plain north of Jaffa, 32° 30´ N., 35° E.
• Sidon, Saida, 33° 34´ N., 35° 22´ E.
• Siloam, SilwÂn, 31° 46½´ N., 35° 14´ E.
• Siloam (Pool), Birket SilwÂn, west of Siloam village.
• Sychar, ’Askar, 32° 13´ N., 35° 17´ E.
• Sychem, NÂblus, 32° 13´ N., 35° 17´ E.
• Tiberias, TubarÎya, 32° 47´ N., 35° 32´ E.
• Tyre, Es SÛr, 33° 16´ N., 35° 11´ E.

The more important of these 47 sites are noticed in the text.