be the plain of 'Rephaim,' contracting itself towards the south-west, into the Rose-Valley (Wadi el-Ward), which conveys to the environs of Jerusalem from the sea, damp fogs or cooling sea-breezes, according to the season. Towards the West lies the nearest parallel slope of the mountain ridge, which bears the Holy City itself, and over which lies the Jaffa road. If we turn further to the North, there the height of Nebi Samwil rises up steeply with its Mosk, from whence one can see the Mediterranean; further in the background, the mountains of Samaria and lastly, towards the East we have the Valley of Jordan beneath us, where a green streak on a whitish ground marks the course of the River toward the Dead Sea, into the mirror of which we here and there look, between the undulating hills on this side, and see how it reflects the rocky shores beyond: and if we follow the Eastern boundary of the plain of the Jordan from North to South, there is a continuous chain of mountains, as far as the steep cliffs of the Dead Sea, above which rises deeper in the country Jebel Shihân, with its compressed and gently-rising summit, which is in the winter-time frequently covered with snow: whilst close to the sea the valley-clefts of the ZerkaRiver, and the Arnon (Wadi Mojeb) are plainly to be distinguished; and during clear weather the old fortress Kerak also appears like a rock-nest, where the sea has long since disappeared from our eyes, which after a complete circle again rest on the place whence we set out." The very ancient tradition that has marked the site connected with this Minaret and Mosk as the place of our Lord's Ascension, has lately been attacked with much vehemence1: and it has been urged that, whatever may be said for other sacred localities in or about Jerusalem, this at least is "unquestionably false;" since it is contradicted by the express declaration of Scripture, which states that "Jesus led out His disciples as far as to Bethany, and blessed them, and while He blessed them, He was parted from them, and carried up into heaven:" whereas the summit of Mount Olives is scarcely half-way between Jerusalem and Bethany. Now it is certain that, before the Holy Sepulchre had emerged from its obscurity, and while the idol-fane as yet excited the horror, and forbade the devotions of the early Christians, the place of the Ascension on Mount Olivet was regarded with veneration, and visited by pilgrims; so that there is no room for doubt that the munificence of S. Helena did in this case only perpetuate the existing tradition3. If then it can be proved that this tradition, whose origin is lost in the antiquity of the Ante-Nicene period, is palpably false, It need hardly be said that the objector is Dr Robinson, who lays great stress upon the argument as demonstrating the worthlessness of traditionary evidence. See Biblical Researches, I. p. 375, 11. p. 77, and Biblioth. Sac. pp. 177-181. The tradition of the Place of the Nativity at Bethlehem is adduced for the same purpose in the same places; but it is said, "the objections are not so strong"-"the results not so decided." "Such as they are, they will be noticed in their proper place. 2 S. Luke xxiv, 50, 51. 3 The date commonly assigned to the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius is A. D. 315. Here, in expounding Zechariah xiv. 4, he mentions the place on the Mount of Olives, where stood the feet of the Incarnate Word, #pos τῷ αὐτόθι δεικνυμένῳ σπηλαίῳ, and delivered to His disciples the mysteries concerning the end on the summit of the mount, and from thence ascended, according to S. Luke, in Acts i. 9-12. Dem. Evan. Lib. vi. cap. xviii. p. 288. Parisiis, 1628. The passages from S. Jerome, S. Paulinus of Nola, Sulpicius Severus, Adamnanus, and Bede, are cited by Baronius, Annales, in a. D. 34, as also by Gretser, Prolog. ad Adamnanum, cap. viii. Opera, Tom. IV. pars ii. p. 249, &c.; where he also adduces later testimonies. this fact will serve greatly to invalidate the force of traditionary evidence in general, and of that relating to the Holy Sepulchre in particular, which is assumed to date only from the time of Constantine. If on this account alone, the Station of the Ascension is worth defending. First, then, the Gospel of S. Luke was certainly received as canonical in the third century. It is at least probable that the laborious Compiler of the Hexapla was not altogether ignorant of its contents; the same may be said of Eusebius, and the learned Translator of the Vulgate, in the fourth century, not to mention the clergy and people of the Church at Jerusalem, one of whose deacons, as we have seen, had the Holy Scriptures by heart'. Now these all with one consent received the traditions in question, and did not reject the Gospel of S. Luke: they must, then, have had some way of reconciling the Scripture statement with the prevailing traditions. It is certainly easy to say that the fathers here mentioned were "not experienced interpreters" of Scripture, (although, if they were not, it was not at least for want of practice); but is it so easy to imagine what should induce those who originated the traditions to fix on a palpably wrong site-if they did fix it at all? If it were so very obvious that the Ascension took place at Bethany, why did they not select a spot in that village, which was not far distant? How could they be so rash as to assign it to the summit of Mount Olivet, if it were "unquestionably, prima facie, wrong," and "contradicted by the express declaration See Vol. 1. p. 232. It ought to be remembered, too, that we read the same of many of the monks of Mount Olivet and others. They were much com mended for it. Ignorance of the holy Scriptures was not considered a virtue in those days, as many seem to imagine. of Scripture"? They might quite as well have transferred Bethlehem and Nazareth to Jerusalem ; as a mediæval tradition did "the Mountain of Galilee 1." To proceed now to the main point. I will first adduce a passage, in no way connected with the Ascension, which presents a parallel difficulty to that which does. The explanation of the former may lead to a right understanding of the latter. On the occasion of our Blessed Lord's triumphant entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, we are informed by two of the Evangelists that "when He had come near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage, and Bethany, to the Mount of Olives, He sent two of His disciples 2," &c. These words undoubtedly imply progress to the place from whence He sent. Yet He had passed the last day and night at Bethany, according to a third Evangelist 3; and with what propriety could it be said that He had come thither on the Sunday morning, if He had passed the Sabbath there? and, further, how can we account for the mention of Bethphage? The fourth Evangelist seems to make all clear'. He writes, "When they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the Mount of Olives, then sent Jesus," making no mention of Bethany. It is easy to imagine that an objection might be framed This absurd tradition, which figures in all Itineraries from the 15th century downwards, may have arisen from a confusion of the place of the "Viri Galilæi ;" for which see above, p. 127, note 4, and below, p. 446, note The Bordeaux Pilgrim (so early as A.D. 333) places the Mount of Transfiguration on Mount Olivet! Ap. Wesseling, p. 595. 2. 2 Mark xi. 1. Luke xix. 29. Matt. xxi. 1, &c. It may be allowed to mention that this solution is the only one that satisfied me, after some perplexity, on the spot; when I am not aware that I had any thought of the traditionary site of the Ascen. sion, the difficulty of which never occurred to me. to these passages, on account of their inconsistencies; and the most satisfactory answer that would occur to me would be this. That the village of Bethany gave its name to the eastern slope of Mount Olivet, at the foot of which it was situated, whereas the western slope was called by the name of Bethphage; and that our Lord may be supposed to have sent His disciples, not from the village of Bethany before they set out, but on their progress to Jerusalem, when they had advanced to that point where the two districts joined, as two of the Evangelists imply, or where Bethany ended and Bethphage began, as the last-cited intimates. This explanation would reconcile the four Evangelists. Next, if the objector should attempt to bring the two passages of S. Luke into opposition one with another, maintaining, that in his Gospel he fixes the Ascension to Bethany, whereas in the Acts he appears at least to assign that event to a point of Mount Olivet much nearer to Jerusalem; I certainly could not honestly answer that in the latter passage, "it is only said, that the disciples returned from Mount Olivet, not that HE ascended from it"," because I should be afraid to be met by the fresh objection, that Mount Olivet is of some considerable extent, and that to say that it is 5 Bib. Res. 1. p. 375, note 1. 6 Josephus in one passage says that Mount Olivet is five stadia from Jerusalem. Ant. xx. viii. 6. But elsewhere he says that Titus ordered two legions to encamp six stadia from the city on the Mount of Olives. J. W. v. ii. 3. These passages do not contradict one another. He evidently measures from different parts of the Mount. It is therefore scarcely candid of Dr Robinson to represent Josephus as saying that the summit of the mountain is five furlongs distant from Jerusalem, Biblio. Sac. 178, n. 3; for it is certain Josephus cannot mean that; or how could the legions have been six stadia distant from the city on the same mountain? Josephus does not even say that their camp was on the summit of the mountain-so the summit may have been more than six fur |