Charles Warren's The Temple or the Tomb (1880)

Wikipedia:

Sir Charles Warren (7 February 1840 – 21 January 1927) was a British Army officer of the Royal Engineers. He was one of the earliest European archaeologists of the Biblical Holy Land, and particularly of the Temple Mount. Much of his military service was spent in British South Africa. Previously he was Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the head of the London Metropolitan Police, from 1886 to 1888 during the Jack the Ripper murders. His command in combat during the Second Boer War was irredeemably flawed, though he achieved considerable success during his long life in his military and civil posts.

. . .In 1867, Warren was recruited by the Palestine Exploration Fund to conduct Biblical archaeology “reconnaissance” with a view of further research and excavation to be undertaken later in Ottoman Syria, but more specifically the Holy Land or Biblical Palestine. During the PEF Survey of Palestine he conducted one of the first major excavations at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, thereby ushering in a new age of Biblical archaeology. His most significant discovery was a water shaft, now known as Warren’s Shaft, and a series of tunnels underneath the Temple Mount.

Warren and his team also improved the topographic map of Jerusalem and made the first excavations of Tell es-Sultan, site of biblical city of Jericho. Some of the sites listed on Warren’s topographic map, particularly that of Acra (where he places it in the Upper City, contrary to Josephus who places it in the Lower City), have since been corrected and updated.

In 1870, Warren returned to Britain, where he began writing a book about archaeology. His findings from the expedition would be published later as The survey of Western Palestine: Jerusalem (1884), written with C. R. Conder. Other books by Warren about the area include The Recovery of Jerusalem (1871), Underground Jerusalem (1876) and The Land of Promise (1875).

An excerpt from, “The Temple or the Tomb” by Charles Warren, Richard Bentley and Son, 1880, Pg. 29 – 34:

The subject on which we are to speak this evening is one upon which volumes have been written, and about which there is still much divergence of opinion ; it is not possible to treat it exhaustively in the short space of time which can be devoted to the reading of an evening. It is only practicable to endeavour to lay aside the sophistries which surround the subject, and to put before you the outlines in as sharp relief as is consistent with their nature, leaving you subsequently to fill in the intervals as your own knowledge will best enable you.

In doing this I shall not attempt to confuse the subject by the supposition that there are alleged rival sites claiming attention. The site of the Holy Sepulchre has sustained the violent attacks made a few years ago upon its authenticity without damage to its reputation, and there is now a general conference of facts, historical, archrcological, traditional, in favour of its having been the spot selected by the Emperor Constantine for the erection of the Church of the Resurrection, and there is great reason for supposing that the site he selected was the actual site of the Holy Sepulchre.

I throw over as utterly untenable the bold and original proposition of an enthusiastic writer, who in his zealous study of architecture in the East, has come to the remarkable conclusion that the Dome of the Rock is the Church of the Resurrection, and that the Sakhra of the Moslems is the Sepulchre of Christ ; yet I shall from time to time cast a side-glance at this site of parallel holiness, where the temple of Solomon once stood, pointing out its condition at various periods ; and I shall moreover show in Part IV. conclusively that the Sakhra under the Dome of the Rock, the site of Solomon’s temple, cannot possibly be identified as the site of the Holy Sepulchre.

Starting with the assumption that the present site of the Holy Sepulchre is that which witnessed the crucifixion, sepulture, and resurrection, I shall proceed to point out how all evidence concurs in support, especially our most recent evidence, the excavations at Jerusalem.

The history of the Holy Sepulchre extends over five epochs, viz. :

1. From the crucifixion, A.D. 33, to the recovery of the site by the Emperor Constantine, A.D. 325.

2. From the dedication of the Church of the Martyrdom, A.D. 336, to the destruction of it by Chosroes the Persian, A.D. 615.

3. From its restoration by the Patriarch-Vicar Modestus, A.D. 629, to its second destruction by the mad Fatimite Khalif of Cairo, El Hakim, A.D. 1010.

4. From its restoration by the Patriarch Nicephorus, A.D. 1048 (including its additions, A.D. 1120, by the Crusaders), to its destruction by fire, A.D. 1808.

5. From its restoration by the Greeks, A.D. 1810, to the present day.

Previous, however, to the consideration of the historical account, it is necessary to go back some years before the Christian era, and examine the ground as it originally existed ; we shall thus be enabled to understand the configuration of the city of the Jebusites, and trace its changes to the time of the Komans, and we may comprehend how exactly the present site of the Holy Sepulchre suits the requirements of the case.

In doing this, I have not only the assistance of the many works which have been written on the subject during the last few years, but also the results of our underground researches, which have not hitherto been worked out, as regards the Holy Sepulchre.

I shall examine the subject from a new point of view, although in this particular instance arriving at old results, viz., the authenticity of the site of the Holy Sepulchre; and I take this opportunity of asserting that I have arrived at a solution of the many difficulties surrounding the topography of Jerusalem, allowing in a great measure, or even entirely, of the reconciliation of all the ancient accounts to which credence has hitherto been given, and this without finding it necessary to omit, transfer, or modify any of the details in the manner which has hitherto been found requisite by others in order to bring about harmony.

This solution hinges upon the position I have assigned to Zion (discussed in ‘ The Parallel Holiness of Zion and Moriah’), a position which I contend is the only one suitable to the requirements of the narrative given in Holy Writ and the account of Josephus. In order to explain the position of this site, it is necessary to describe the position of the Holy City in early times.

The whole of the hill country about Jerusalem is of a very hard, rocky nature, elevated about 2,500 feet above the level of the Mediterranean Sea. Originally these hills were covered over with a layer of red earth from two to three feet thick. When, therefore, I produce a contoured plan of the rock levels about Jerusalem, I exhibit a plan of the ground as it existed in early days, less any cuttings or excavations of the rock which may have subsequently taken place.

This plan as now exhibited (Plate I.) has heen made from observations gained during the excavations, and also from rock-levels obtained during the building of houses, and it will be at once apparent from inspection of it, that the rocky site about the Jebus of the ancients, with its precipitous hills and deep valleys, presents a very different aspect at the present day, when the valleys are filled up, in some cases to heights of a hundred feet or more, with millions of cubic yards of debris or rubbish. From this contoured plan it will be seen that this ancient site then counted of three principal hills, to east, north-west, and south-west, separated by deep valleys.

All authorities, however much they may differ in other matters, unanimously concur in believing that the eastern hill is that which supported the Temple of the Jews, tin outer walls of which still stand out of the filled-up valleys, and can be examined by all observers. It is commonly called Mount Moriah, though only once so called in the Bible.

All authorities are equally agreed that the hill to the south- west is the ‘ Upper City’ of Josephus, and it follows that the hill to the north-west is the ‘ Lower City ‘ of Josephus, or the Akra, so often mentioned by that historian as the third hill. The details of the proof that this hill to north-west is the Lower City, or Akra, are to be found in ‘The Parallel Holiness of Zion and Moriah.’ Now, Josephus informs us that the Akra used to dominate the Temple entrance, and gave so much trouble to the Jews, visiting the Temple from the Upper City, during the time of the Macedonian occupation, that the Maccabees, on gaining possession, by working day and night for three years, succeeded in reducing the height of the Akra to such an extent that it ceased to be above the Temple mount.