Localities in Jerusalem that are certain. Valley of Kedron. Mount Moriah. Valley of the Cheesemongers. Mount Zion, its ancient limits. Present remains of its northern boundary. Line of the “Old wall.” Acra. Gate of the Gardens. Limits of the city at the time of the crucifixion. Bezetha and the wall of Agrippa. Monument of John. Whither our judgment, unassisted by tradition, leads us as regards the place of the crucifixion. Rocky Knoll. Not called Mount Calvary in the Scriptures. Tradition. Conclusion to which all this leads us. Circumstances and scene of the crucifixion. The question with regard to the spot of Our Saviour’s burial.

There are a few places in and about Jerusalem, in respect to which there can be no possible mistake. These are, the Mount of Olives; the Valley of Kedron, sometimes called the valley of Jehoshaphat; the brook Kedron; the Valley of Hinnom; Mount Moriah; Mount Zion; and the hill called Bezetha. The Mount of Olives speaks at once for itself, and has never been doubted by any one: it descends by a rapid slope down to the brook Kedron, in summer a dry water-course about nine feet wide, and in the wet season an irregular torrent: with regard to this brook, also, no one has ever had any doubt. This valley of Kedron formed the eastern boundary of the ancient,[18] as it does now also of the modern city. Immediately after crossing the brook Kedron towards the west, the ground at present commences ascending so rapidly, as to require a zigzag path: at the height of about eighty feet we come to the wall, and to the general level of the present city. This slope is made up of debris, or loose stuff, composed of earth mixed with pottery, fragments of bricks, &c.; and it seems probable that the ancient wall of Bezetha, standing on the line of the present rampart, had without it a much more precipitous descent.

Mount Moriah is at present a piece of level ground, of the same elevation as those portions of the city immediately adjoining it on the north and west, and is not in any way to be distinguished from them. It is occupied by an open court, about 1500 feet long and 1000 feet in width, surrounded by a wall and planted with trees. In the centre is a large oblong platform, paved, I believe, with marble, and reached by two or three steps running all around; on this platform stands the mosque of Omar, which is said by the Turks to occupy the exact site of the Temple of Solomon, and is considered by them to be next in sanctity to the venerated Caaba, or holy house at Mecca. So sacred is this place in their eyes, that no Christian is allowed to place his foot within even the large enclosure. There is thus no mountain at present here, and if any one should question whether this was the situation of Mount Moriah, I answer that it is the only place where we can look for it. Mount Moriah was on the eastern side of the city, and adjoining the valley of Kedron;[19] the valley of the Cheesemongers, which still remains, formed its boundary on the south;[20] and as the court of the temple, occupying the whole enlarged mountain, was 729 feet[21] on each side, we thus get both the northern and the western boundaries, and thus have the exact position and limits of Mount Moriah. It is probable that the Turks are quite correct in saying that their mosque occupies the site of the ancient temple, except that the latter was at a much greater elevation; Mount Moriah having, by artificial means, been raised to a height of about 700 feet. This mountain was at first a rocky precipice, irregular both in shape and surface; it was inclosed by Solomon with a square wall of the dimensions just described, beginning at the bottom of the valleys that bounded it on three sides, and rising on the east and south to the stupendous elevation of 729[22] feet; on the west, from the nature of the ground below, its elevation was nearly 200 feet less; the interval within this was filled with earth, or formed into extensive suites of vaults; and the surface being brought nearly to a level, formed an area for the temple and its various courts.[23] At the north-western[24] angle of the temple was a tower or castle, commenced by the kings of the Asmonean race, but enlarged and strengthened by Herod, who gave it the name of Antonia, in honor of Mark Antony, his friend and patron. It was built on a lofty precipice 1450 feet in circuit, and consisted of a heavy castle in the centre, with a tower at each angle, that on the south-east being of sufficient height to overlook the courts of the temple.[25]

The opening or outlet of the valley of Tyropoeon, or the Cheesemongers, still remains, and is very distinct. The ground begins to decline into it as soon as we leave the court of the mosque of Omar, advancing southward; and at the distance of about 400 feet we come to its lowest part, and the spot where it is lost in the valley of Kedron. This opening is opposite a mountain, called now the Mount of Offence, but styled by Josephus “that other hill,” and described by him as just south of the Mount of Olives. A short distance up this valley we come to an oblong pool sunk partly in the ground, and walled on three sides, the fourth being broken down; it is called the Pool of Siloam, and very probably occupies the site of the ancient pool of that name noticed in the Scriptures. A few hundred feet above this pool the valley enters the modern city, and I believe cannot be traced any further. There can be no doubt that it is the ancient Tyropoeon, and we thus get a portion of the northern boundary of Mount Zion.[26]

Mount Zion had on the east the valley of Kedron, and on the south and west the valley of Hinnom,[27] or Gehenna, and these boundaries are now just as described by Josephus, except that the sides of the valleys towards the city are now rendered sloping by the vast quantities of debris or loose stuff from the ancient city, instead of being perpendicular as they were in ancient times. That of Hinnom, on its southern and western sides, still presents that appearance, a bold perpendicular precipice, which it would be impossible to scale. This valley is described by Strabo (lib. xvi.) as having a depth of 60 feet and a width of 250, which are pretty nearly its present dimensions. The wall of the ancient city was built on the edge of the precipice, and, according to Tacitus, was, in the parts thus guarded by nature, 60 feet in height; on the northern side of Jerusalem, where the ground offered fewer advantages, it had the prodigious elevation of 120 feet.[28] It was built in a crooked or zigzag line, “so that they might flank the besiegers and cast darts on them sideways.”[29]

We have thus far had what sailors call plain sailing, for no one can easily be at a loss as regards the eastern, southern, and a portion of the western boundaries of the ancient Jerusalem. The northern limits offer a subject of greater difficulty, and it is one also of greater importance, for on this depends the question whether the spot pointed out as Mount Calvary be really the place of the crucifixion or not. The objectors, including almost all Protestant visitors, say it is not and cannot be, since this spot was evidently within the ancient city; and both from the Scriptures, and from the well-known custom of the Jews on such occasions, we know that this event occurred without the walls. This subject we will now examine.

The valley of Cheesemongers, commencing, as we have seen, just south of the temple, took a course to the north-westward, and formed the boundary of Mount Zion on the north, separating this hill from another on the eastward, called Acra,[30] probably from the Greek word a????, high. Acra was originally a flat[31] on the summit, except at one part, where it rose to a peak of sufficient height to overlook the temple. On this Antiochus Epiphanes (B. C. 168.) erected a citadel, strengthened with high walls and towers, which proved such serious annoyance to the citizens, that, under the rule of Simon Maccabeus, (B. C. 143.) not only was the citadel demolished, but, to prevent its being rebuilt, the hill or peak itself was cut down to the level of the adjoining ground. In this way the whole of Acra got to be comparatively low ground,[32] and, to facilitate intercourse between the Temple and the “Upper City,” or Mount Zion, a bridge[33] was carried from a gate near the S. W. corner of the Temple quite across to the neighborhood of the palace of David.

Of the valley of the Cheesemongers after it enters the modern city, there are at present no traces, it having doubtless been filled up at the time when Jerusalem was levelled with the ground by order of Titus; but as Mount Zion was much higher than Acra, we may expect to find some remains of the steep ascent by which they passed from this valley up to Zion, or, as it was called by them, “The Upper City.” And of this there are considerable remains. Mr. Nicholayson’s house stands about three hundred feet a little east of south from the Jaffa gate, which is designated on this map by the figure 1, at the place where the roads from Bethlehem and Jaffa meet. Sixty feet eastward from his house is a slope, about twenty-five feet high, and so steep as to make it difficult even for donkeys to ascend. Standing on its edge, we are still able to overlook a large part of the city to the east of it. This slope continues thence to the south-eastward, keeping parallel to some extensive ruins now to be seen there, the remains of a hospital belonging to the time of the Crusades; the slope being separated from them by a narrow bazaar. This slope is undoubtedly the north-eastern edge of Mount Zion, and I have so expressed it in the map which we are endeavoring to form. I have not been able to trace it further than to the end of this bazaar; but as it passes in the direction of Siloam, or the opening of the valley of Cheesemongers, I have marked it in the map as continuing down to that place, as I have no doubt that it does. This gives us the northern boundary of Mount Zion exactly as described by Josephus, who says that “this city laid over against the temple in the manner of a theatre.”[34] At the place where this slope approaches the nearest to the valley of Hinnom, or near Mr. Nicholayson’s, I have placed the tower of Hippicus, which stood at the northern angle of the city of Zion.[35]

The “old wall,” as it is called by Josephus, first erected by David and Solomon, and strengthened by succeeding kings, commences at the tower of Hippicus, and had its course on the west and south, directly along the edge of the valley of Hinnom. On reaching the valley of Kedron, it bent to the northward, and curving again to the east just below the pool of Siloam, joined the temple wall nearly at its south-eastern angle. On the northern side, starting again at the tower of Hippicus, it kept along the edge of the bank above the valley of Cheesemongers, until curving opposite the Xistus, it here crossed the valley, and passing by the Xistus and the council-house, joined soon after the western wall of the temple, probably at the south-western angle.[36]

He does not tell us what is meant by “the Xistus,” but it is probably from the Greek word ??st??, “a division” or “separation;” and I suppose refers to the branching of the valley of the Cheesemongers, one part keeping along by Mount Zion, and the other just on the west of Mount Moriah; the latter branch, as I have already said, was filled up by the Maccabees. Just south of the temple, on the ground sloping down to the pool of Siloam, was a small section of the city called Ophlas.[37]

It is probable that a wall separated also Mount Zion from Ophlas; for we find, that when Titus had possession of Acra and the Temple, he had still to bring his engines against the northern wall of Zion;[38] which would not have been necessary if he could have passed at once through Ophlas into that city.

Mount Zion was called by David “The Citadel;” it afterwards frequently went by the name of “The Upper City,” in contradistinction to Acra, the latter being frequently styled “The Lower City.”[39]

Acra, we are informed by Josephus, was “in the shape of a moon when she is horned;”[40] and though he gives no intimation to that effect, I suppose the horns must have been to the northward, for I do not see how it is possible that they could have been otherwise. On the west they certainly could not have been, nor on the south, nor on the east; and there remains only the position which I have given them. The northern wall of Acra, sometimes called “the second wall,” commenced at the gate Gennath, (i. e. “gate of the gardens,”) and then making a curve,[41] terminated at the castle of Antonia.[42] I have placed the gate Gennath about five hundred feet from the tower Hippicus, and have carried the wall, in the first place at right angles across the valley of the Cheesemongers, and then placing a tower at the angle, have there commenced the course over towards Antonia. My reasons for this arrangement are as follows. When Titus had set down with his army before Jerusalem, and came to select a spot for his assaults, he determined to commence at the tomb of John the High Priest, because the outer wall (marked here by the zigzag lines) was weakest at that place; and here, too, he could pass at once to the “old” or “third wall,” without the necessity of first taking the second;[43] which expectation “of an easy passage to the third wall” would not have been reasonable, had the gate Gennath and the branching of the northern wall of Acra been nearer to the tower of Hippicus than I have placed them. And when the Romans had taken this outer wall, and the Jews were driven to their next line of defences, they immediately commenced a line of fortification, which seems to have been from the second wall to the tower of Hippicus; for which reason, as well as because it is a more rational way of carrying a wall across a valley, I have made this angle in the outer wall of Acra.

These walls, namely, those of Mount Zion and Acra, are all that were standing in the time of our Saviour. The outer wall, marked here by the zigzag lines, was erected by Agrippa, not till eight years or more after the crucifixion; a circumstance that seems to have escaped the attention of those who maintain that the spot now marked as Calvary was then within the city. At the time of our Saviour, a very large suburb extended northward from the temple and the tower of Antonia, occupying a hill called Bezetha, but it was not yet walled in. Speaking of this outer wall, Josephus says, “It was Agrippa (Agrippa ruled over Judea from A. D. 41 to 43.) who encompassed the parts added to the old city with this wall, which had been all naked before; for as the city grew more populous, it gradually crept beyond its old limits; and those parts of it that stood northward of the temple, and joined that hill to the city, made it considerably larger, and occasioned that hill, which is in number the fourth, and is called Bezetha, to be inhabited. It lies over against the tower Antonia, but is divided from it by a deep valley, which was dug on purpose.... This new built part of the city was called Bezetha, in our language, which, if interpreted in the Grecian language, may be called The New City. Since, therefore, its inhabitants stood in need of a covering, the father of the present king, and of the same name with him, Agrippa, began that wall we spoke of; but he left off building it when he had only laid the foundations, out of the fear he was in of Claudius CÆsar, lest he should suspect that so strong a wall was built in order to make some innovation in public affairs; for the city could no way have been taken if that wall had been finished in the manner it had been begun; as its parts were connected together by stones twenty cubits (thirty-six feet) long and ten cubits broad, which could never have been either easily undermined by any iron tools, or shaken by any engines. The wall was, however, ten cubits wide, and it would probably have had a height greater than that, had not his zeal who began it been hindered from exerting itself. After this it was erected with great diligence by the Jews as high as twenty cubits, above which it had battlements of two cubits, and turrets of three cubits altitude; insomuch that the entire altitude extended as far as twenty-five cubits.”[44] De Bel. lib. v. cap. 4. § 2.

The slope which I have noticed as near Mr. Nicholayson’s house, and as showing, southward from that, the outline of Mount Zion, does not however terminate at the site of the tower Hippicus. It there bends to the eastward, and again, near the present Latin convent, turns to the northward, but is at that place reduced to an elevation of only five or six feet. For a reason to be seen in Josephus, de Bel. lib. v. c. 7. § 3, as well as on account of the ground, I have made Agrippa’s wall, which started from the tower Hippicus,[45] keep along the upper edge of this slope, and have placed the tomb of John at the angle; the reasons for which may be found also in the above reference. Thence the course of this wall is uncertain; we only know that it proceeded far to the northward, and enclosed the suburb of Bezetha; but, though the course which I have drawn corresponds, as far as I can judge, with the data given us in Josephus, those data are too few to furnish us with any thing positive. I think, however, the outline cannot be far from the truth.

But, as I have just remarked, this wall was not existing at the time of our Saviour’s crucifixion. If I am correct in the conclusions which have just been laid before the reader, the castellated walls on the map, together with the temple, were the only portions then enclosed. This would make a small city; but the extensive suburbs around would make up for the deficiency of room. Vienna is an example in our own times, similar to this, where “the city” or fortified portion is of very limited extent compared with the vast stretch of suburb attached to it; these castellated parts of this map have, indeed, just about the extent of the Burg, or city proper of Vienna.

The suburb of Bezetha at that time, though stretching a considerable distance to the north, seems not to have extended much to the west of Antonia, for, in addition to the intimation to that effect in Jos. de Bel. lib. v. cap. 4. § 2, we are informed that the wall of Agrippa, when erected afterwards, was left weaker at its south-western extremity than in the other portions, “the builders neglecting to build the wall strong where the new city was not inhabited.”[46] The dense portions of this appendage to Jerusalem were on the higher ground lying directly northward from the temple, the ground over towards the spot which I have marked as Calvary having a few scattered dwellings, and those of the meanest order. The ground west of this suburb was probably taken up with great roads, and such thoroughfares as are usually to be seen in the neighborhood of a populous city.

And now, if we had no tradition whatever as regards the spot of our Saviour’s suffering, and were left simply to the guidance of our own judgment, I think I should look for it somewhere in this angle between Hippicus and Bezetha. Public places are usually selected for such occurrences, and in this instance the enemies of the sufferer would be apt to seek for every circumstance that would add to his humiliation. We are told by the Scriptures (John xix. 20.) that the place was near the city; and as it is not probable that they would select a spot on the other side of the valley of Hinnom or of Kedron, and the hill Bezetha was covered with houses, we have left only this angle immediately north of Acra; and in Matthew xxvii. 39, we are informed that “they that passed by reviled him,” which seems to intimate that the cross was adjoining some public roads or thoroughfares.

Our search then is restricted to a narrow compass; and now, if upon this ground we should find a rocky knoll about twenty feet or more in height, it would appear to us that this would be, in all probability, the spot selected for such an occasion. It would elevate the sufferers to a height sufficient to expose them to the eyes of all the multitude, and would in all respects be adapted to a spectacle like this. Just such a rock is existing at this day, and is the one built into the present church of the Crucifixion. The place is in Scripture no where called Mount Calvary; but simply Calvary, or “Golgotha, that is, a place of a skull,” and we have no reason given us there to look for a larger eminence. Indeed this seems just such an one as would be selected for such a purpose, and corresponds, both in elevation and extent, to its ignominious title.

In these remarks it will be observed, I have been guided entirely by the judgment, and have endeavored to see whither it would lead us, without any reference to traditions on this subject. As we have seen, it conducts us exactly to the spot that tradition has always pointed out as the place of the crucifixion. This tradition I will now proceed also to notice.

It is not probable that the early Christians would soon forget a spot of such tender and deep interest to them; for, as I observed at the beginning of this chapter, the subject is also one of some practical character. It was rather to be feared that they would attach to it a reverence that would degenerate into superstition, than that they would entirely forget it. If at our day the idea of the bare possibility of visiting Mount Calvary sends a thrill through the whole system, with what feelings must they have regarded the place when the memory of this event was fresh among the Christians, and when they were able to converse with those who had themselves witnessed the ignominious death of their Lord and Saviour. It does not appear to me at all probable that such a place would be forgotten; and we have a proof of the respect in which it was held, in the fact that Hadrian erected on the sepulchre a statue to Jupiter, and one to Venus on Mount Calvary. This could have been done only to mock their feelings and distress them, by desecrating places held by them in high regard. The fact that he placed these statues on these spots, at all events shows that they were at this time (about one hundred years after the events themselves) considered as the places of the crucifixion and the sepulture of Christ. Helena, the mother of Constantine, two hundred years subsequently to this, erected on the spot a Christian church, which, with some changes not affecting the locality, has continued ever since. There is, therefore, a chain of evidence with regard to these localities of a very satisfactory kind; and as the judgment finds no difficulty in the case, but, independently of tradition, is led to the same conclusion, my own convictions are clearly and decidedly in their favor.

Let us then examine into the circumstances of this affecting event. The place of the crucifixion was about six hundred feet from the city wall, to which the ground from this place had a gentle descent; on the east were the low and straggling outskirts of the large suburb of Bezetha; on the west, the ground, at the distance of a few hundred feet, sloped upward rapidly for a short space, and then stretched off in a long ascending plain; on the northward it also ascends gently for the distance of more than a mile. The rock of Golgotha or Calvary is now about sixteen feet in height, though as the ground around it has been elevated by the ruins of the old city, it was probably at that time a few feet higher. It was of sufficient altitude to bring the sufferer into distinct view before all the crowds that probably at this time covered the walls and houses and the upward slopes of the hills, and to make him visible to those “afar off.”[47] A few gardens were near; but most of the space around this rocky knoll was open, and traversed by the dusty thoroughfares to the populous city.

It was now the Passover, and more than two millions of people had come up to Jerusalem;[48] the city, the suburbs, were crowded, the country around was covered with the dense multitude; and the ceaseless hum of men, even in their calmer moments, was like the deep hollow roar of the ocean.—And now the multitudes are agitated, and the stormy passions are at work amid the countless throng.—He who had excited the wonder of the Jewish nation, and the rage of the priests and of the stately Pharisees, had been brought forward before the judgment-seat of the high-priest and the governor of Judea, and had been condemned for blasphemy.—He, for blasphemy! The good, the benevolent, the Godlike! who had given sight to the blind, and had caused the lame to walk, and had healed the sick, and had brought the dead to life; who had led their thoughts to heaven, and taught them pure and holy doctrines; and had been among them in his miracles with the power of the Divinity himself. He, for blasphemy? Yes, he had publicly, before their council, declared himself to be the Christ, the Son of God, and that they should see him sitting on the right hand of power, and coming from heaven in majesty; and he had foretold that of their glorious temple, the object almost of their idolatry, not one stone should be left upon another; and had been accused of saying that he himself would destroy it. The passions of the dense multitudes rise; and rumor, with her exaggerations, excites them to phrensy.—And now comes forth the sufferer, bearing his cross; his back lacerated with thongs, his brow dropping blood from the crown placed on it in mockery. Though sinking under fatigue and pain, he meets no commiseration but is driven on with tauntings and scorn; and they come to the place of public execution, and the victim is nailed to the cross, and between two malefactors is raised up to be a spectacle to man; and wherever he turns his agonized eyes he sees only rage and scorn; and his ears hear only bitter tauntings;—“he saved others; himself he cannot save.” “If he be the king of Israel let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe him.” “He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he will have him; for he said, I am the Son of God.”

There is a punishment somewhat similar to this of crucifixion, that until lately was practised in Algiers and in various parts of Turkey. The criminal was thrown from the top of a wall and caught by large hooks projecting from its side, and there left to perish. His torments were frightful. A fever seized on the body, and excruciating pains coursed through the whole system; the eyes became bloodshot and glaring, and starting from their sockets; the sufferer was burnt up by a scorching thirst, and begged piteously for drink, and after many hours died in frightful agonies.

Death upon the cross was probably similar to this, for the nails were driven through the hands and feet, where are congregated an unusual number of delicate nerves; and by them the whole weight of the body was suspended. The agonies were probably even greater than those I have been describing.

Such was the price of our redemption. “He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

The question with regard to the place of our Saviour’s burial is in a measure dependent on that into which we have just been examining, and will therefore not require more than a few minutes’ attention. St. John (xix. 41, 42.) tells us that “in the place where he was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein never man was yet laid. There laid they Jesus, therefore, because of the Jews’ preparation day, for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.” We are therefore to look for this spot close in the neighborhood of Calvary; and I think that the merriment in which Protestant visitors sometimes have indulged on finding the spot pointed out for the sepulchre, so near that of the crucifixion, to be quite out of place. It certainly is in bad taste; for whatever these places may be, they bear sad and solemn names, and have been regarded by Christians from time immemorial as really the places of our Saviour’s bloody death and burial, and glorious resurrection. However, then, we may be disposed to regard their genuineness, we should approach them with solemn feelings; and levity or sarcasm in such a place becomes us very ill.

For myself, I believe that as regards the place of our Saviour’s crucifixion, there is no just ground for disbelief, nor can I see much as regards also that pointed out as the place for burial. It is about 110 feet from the rocky knoll, and is not at all too near to have a garden wall intervene, and make this a proper place for Joseph of Arimathea to hew out a sepulchre. Gennath, the name of the gate opening from the Upper City to this place, means gardens,[49] and it is probable that much of this space was originally occupied with gardens. We find also that it was a place of tombs; for the monument of the high-priest John was near this, as were also probably “the monuments of king Alexander.”[50] The circumstances of the case are, therefore, in favor of this spot; the Scriptures in some measure give it their sanction, and tradition from the earliest years has been uniform on the subject. Hadrian over it erected the statue of Jupiter, and here also Helena built a church; and among the rival sects of the Greek and Latin church, which soon after sprung up, and which have been endeavoring to appropriate, each to itself, as much as possible of the holy places, no one has ever attempted to designate another spot.

I confess I take pleasure in believing that the spot pointed out to us as that of our Saviour’s sepulture, is the true one; and that, to the scene of his deep humiliation and his agony for us is in close proximity the scene of his triumph over hell and the grave; and though it can be no argument, I confess there seems to me to be a fitness of things where we are allowed to stand where stood the cross of Christ, and look down on the empty tomb, and say through him, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law; but thanks be to God which giveth us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ.”