The topography of Jerusalem is decidedly against Eusebius, and far outweighs his questionable testi• mony. The Church of the Sepulchre is in the centre of the modern city, though we know that Golgotha was 'without the gate' at a period when Jerusalem was at least five times its present size. This is not the place for a minute examination of the topography of the Holy City. It is enough to state that in the time of our Lord it had two walls. One encompassed Zion only. The second com menced at the gate Gennath in the first wall, en closed Acra, and terminated at the Castle of Antonia. Beyond this second wall, on the north and north-west, were large suburbs, and these the elder Agrippa surrounded by a third wall a few years after the crucifixion. The advocates of the identity of Golgotha and the Sepulchre attempt to prove that these lay without the second wall. Their arguments, though put fonvard with great learning and ,great skill, are far from being con clusive.
A third theory regarding the site of Golgotha and the sepulchre was advanced by Mr. Fergusson in his Essay 012 the Ancient Topograpizy of 7erusa lenz (London, 1847)7 and more recently in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (s. v. Jerusalem). He as serts that Golgotha was on Mount Moriah, and that the building now called the Mosque of Omar, or Dome of the Rock, is the church erected by Constantine over the Holy Sepulchre. Beneath its dome is a projecting rock with a cave in it ; this, he says, is the real tomb. The arguments on which his theory rests are mainly architectural, and are unquestionably very forcible ; were they supported by history and topography they would be conclu sive. His historical argument is a complete failure. He says the site was transferred at the time of the Crusaders ; but for this there is not a shadow of evidence. Any one who has examined, on the spot, the topography of Mount Moriah, and who has closely inspected the masonry of the massive wall which surrounds the whole of the Hamm area, must see that this theory is untenable.
The writer of this article has had repeated op portunities of examining the topography of Jerusa lem. The opinion which he was led to form regarding the site of Golgotha and the tomb ot our Lord, is as follows :—The palace of Pilate and the judgment hall stood at the north-west angle of the Haram area, where the house of the pasha still stands. There Jesus was condemned, scourged, and mocked. Thence the soldiers led him out ' (Mark xv. 2o) to crucify Him. They met a man called Simon coming out of the country,' and compelled him to bear the cross. They brought Him unto Golgotha, and there they crucified Him. The passers by reviled Him. His mother and some others stood by the cross (John xix. 25). 'All his acquaintance stood afar off beholding these things ' (Luke xxiii. 49). Such is the sub stance of the narratives. It would seem that the soldiers had not far to go from the palace to Gol gotha. The gate of St. Stephen is about 200 yards from the palace, and leads directly into the countiy. Without the gate one road runs eastward across the Kidron, another northwards along the narrow brow ot the hill. Between these is an open space, nigged and rocky ; just below it, in the shelving bank of the Kidron, are several rock tombs. This spot would seem to answer all the requirements of the narrative. The passers by on both roads would be within a few yards of Him ; and his acquaintance could stand afar off' on the side of Olivet and see with the utmost distinctness • the whole scene.
The traditional Golgotha is now a little chapel in the side of the church of the sepulchre, gor geously decorated with marble, and gold, and silver. The monks profess to shew the hole in which the cross was planted, and a rent in the rock made by the earthquake ! (See Handbook for Syria and Pal., p. 166 ; Williams' Holy City, ii. 226, sq.')—J. L. P.