ePub 版

After an excursion to Dair al Kulah, and another to Abeih, Dr. Robinson started by Khan Khulda, which he identifies with the Heldua of the Jerusalem Itinerary through Galilee to Acre. The most interesting sites visited on this line of route, after Sidon and Tyre, were the massive remains of the ancient castle called Belfort by the Crusaders. The isolated ridge on which this castle stands is entirely naked, and being higher than all the neighbouring ridges and the adjacent country, except Jebel Rihan, the fortress stands out as a conspicuous landmark, visible at a great distance in all directions, and itself commanding a prospect of great extent and grandeur. Next in interest was Kesaf, where he examined many fragmentary remains of olden time, and which he identifies with Achshaph, of the book of Joshua, a city on the border of the tribe of Asher; whose king is twice mentioned in connexion with the King of Hazor. Achshaph has hitherto been supposed to be another name for Accho or Acre, seeing that Accho otherwise does not occur in the list of towns in the lot of Asher, although it is certain, from Judges i. 31, that Accho was in the portion of that tribe. We must leave the question as to the appropriateness of Dr. Robinson's determination of a site for the royal city of the Canaanites to Biblical scholars. The mere fact of the border position, the perpetuation of the name Achshaph in Keoaf, and the existence of ruins of olden times, will appear to many insufficient data; but stay-at-home geographers and encyclopedists are too apt to omit, in criticising the insufficiency of a traveller's evidences, that which he has always in mind, although he does not dwell upon it in his arguments—the non-existence of other possible or probable localities.

Next came Rameh, a village, which Robinson says there is no room for question but that it represents the ancient Ramah of Asher. It is remarkable that two of the valuable identifications, for which Biblical geography is indebted to Dr. Robinson's previous researches, are the Ramah of Benjamin and the Ramah of Samuel. This makes his third Ramah. Apart from the identity of name, he says there is no evidence of antiquity, save several sarcophagi, which he describes as "striking monuments of antiquity." He does not point out what will weigh with the scholar in. admitting the identification, that Ramah stands upon an isolated hill, in the midst of a basin with green fields. Ramah signifies a high place. Dr. Robinson also determined, at a subsequent period, the site of a fourth Ramah—Ramah of Naphtali at Rameh, a large and well built village of Christians and Druses, situated on the slope of the mountains which separate Upper and Lower Galilee, besides other Ramahs of less note.

In the same region, whilst exploring a remarkable tell called Khirbel, or Tell Hazur, and which the doctor satisfied himself was not the Hazor of Scripture, he found a village called Yakuk, which he identifies with Hukkok, enumerated in the book of Joshua as belonging to Naphtali, though, in the later Chronicles, it is spoken of as in Asher. This identification would imply an interchange of the letters Heth and Yod, which, although unusual, is not without example. We are not quite certain if the identification of Kubarah, nearer to Acre, with the Gabara, or Gabaroth, belongs to Robinson or Schultz. Certain it is the latter determined the identification of Kabul with the Chabole of Josephus; and the Rev. Eli Smith recognised the same place as the Cabul of Joshua.

Dr. Robinson proceeded from Acre through Galilee and Samaria to

Jerusalem. The first point to which he directed his attention was Tell Jefat-a very remarkable hill, which, lying at a distance from all the ordinary roads of the country, has not been visited in modern times, except by Schultz in 1847, and yet represents the site of Jotapata, the renowned fortress of Galilee, which, under the command of Josephus himself, so long held out against the assaults of Vespasian, and where the historian was taken prisoner after the downfal of the place.

"The account of Josephus is, in some respects," Dr. Robinson observes, "doubtless exaggerated and hyperbolical; as where he speaks of the sight failing to reach the depth of the valleys; his estimate of more than forty thousand persons destroyed during the siege of forty-eight days; and the manner of his own surrender to the Romans. Indeed, the thought stole over my mind, as we stood upon the spot, whether the historian had not here given himself up to romance, in order to laud the valour of the Romans, of the Jews, and especially of himself. Yet this idea was rebutted, except as to general exaggeration, by the minute and striking accordance of the description with the physical features of the place.

[ocr errors]

Dr. Robinson adds to this interesting historical identification that of the valley of Jiphthahel, described in Hebrews and Joshua as on the border of Zebulun and on the border of Asher; that is, on the confines of these two tribes, with the great wady Abilin, which has its head in the hills of Jefat. Notwithstanding De Sauley's vindication of the claims of Kefr Kana, to be considered as representing the Cana of the New Testament, where our Lord wrought his first miracle in Galilee, Dr. Robinson persists in identifying Khirbet Kana as the site of that interesting event. As to De Sauley's arguments, that the Greek name, Cana of Galilee, could never have been expressed by Kana el Jelil, Dr. Robinson disposes of it by saying that if De Sauley had turned to his Arabic New Testament, he would have found not only that Galilee is always rendered by el Jelil, but also that Cana of Galilee, wherever it occurs, is uniformly given by Kana el Jelil. Of De Saulcy's other argument, that at the time of the wedding Jesus was travelling on foot with his mother, his disciples, and his cousins, from Nazareth to Capernaum; and nobody can reasonably conceive, that with such an object, under such circumstances, he should have made a circuit of at least thirty English miles; Dr. Robinson says, it may be replied that this passage in question (John ii. 12) gives no intimation that Jesus went directly from Cana to Capernaum; and further, that even had he been thus on his way from Nazareth to Capernaum, there surely was, in the desire to be present at the wedding, a motive sufficient to induce him to make the circuit; which said circuit, moreover, does not amount to one half of the alleged thirty miles. Dr. Robinson says that Khirbet Kana was regarded as the same as Cana down to the beginning of the seventeenth century. If so, it is still certain that the place has been sought for at Kefr Kana by modern travellers, including Pococke, Burckhardt, Clarke, G. Robinson, Richardson, Monro, and Schubert.

In the same neighbourhood, Dr. Robinson finds the Ruma of Josephus in the Tell of Rumeh, and the Rimmon of the tribe of Zebulun in the village of Rummaneh. The whole of the noble and extensive plain in which these sites are congregated, our author identifies with the " great plain" called Asochis, so named from a city of the same name, where

the Jewish leader had his residence for a time. But in respect to the city Asochis, he is at a loss to decide whether it was at Tell el Bedawiych, "the Tell of the Bedwins," or at Kefr Menda, but inclines to the latter.

Continuing along the great plain of Esdraelon, our travellers ascended a tell regular in its form, with a flat summit, containing four or five acres, now covered with a fine crop of wheat, and called Tell el Mutsellim. The prospect from this tell is described as a noble one, embracing the whole of the glorious plain; than which there is not a richer upon earth. Zerin (Jezreel) was in view, as also the tell, on the south-east side of which stands Taannuk, the Taanach of Scripture. "As we stood upon the noble tell, with the wide plain and Taanach thus before us, we could not but feel that here had been the scene of the great battle of Deborah and Barak, 'in Taanach, by the waters of Megiddo.' A city situated either on the tell, or on the ridge behind it, would naturally give its name to the adjacent plain and waters, as we know was he case with Megiddo and Legio. The tell would, indeed, present a splendid site for a city; but there is no trace, of any kind, to show that a city ever stood there." This in face of the fact that the hill itself was a tell or mound; and Dr. Robinson does not say whether natural or artificial, whether a rock, or a mound of earth, or a heap of ruin. As a rule, the Arabs distinguish a mound as a tell, in contradistinction to Jebel, a hill. The whole of the mound may, indeed, be one mass of ruins. How much remains yet for the archæologist to do in the Holy Land-a region that may be said to have been as yet only traversed by the historical or comparative geographer!

A little beyond the head of the plain of Esdraelon our travellers came upon a green and well-marked tell, bearing the name of Dothan, at whose southern foot was a fountain called el Hufireh. "Here, then," exclaims the doctor, "was the ancient and long-sought Dothain or Dothan, where the sons of Jacob were pasturing their father's flocks when they sold their brother Joseph to the Ishmaelites of Midian, passing by on their way to Egypt." The well into which Joseph was cast by his brothers has hitherto been placed by tradition, handed down by the Crusaders, at the Khan called Khan Jubb Yusuf, or the Khan of Jacob's Pit; but it must now be identified with the fountain of el Hufireh. It is not a little curious that so interesting a site, and one so long lost, was discovered, a few days before Dr. Robinson visited it, by M. van de Velde. Rabbi Parchi (in Assher's Benjamin of Tudela) also noted the site correctly in the fourteenth century.

We now pass over a goodly tract of country, without any new indications, till we come to the further end of the plain of Nabulus, when we have Kefr Saba, the Antipatris of the New Testament, whither the Apostle Paul was sent off from Jerusalem by night, on the way to Cæsarea, in order to save him from a conspiracy of the Jews. Beyond this was Jiljulieh, which Dr. Robinson identifies with an ancient Gilgal, and with the Galgulis of Eusebius and Jerome, although that place is described as being six miles north of Antipatris, whilst Jiljulieh is south of Kefr Saba. But, says the doctor, "it may well be a question whether perhaps a slip of the pen may not have given rise to the reading north instead of south." A latitudinarianism in argument which we have often seen lead comparative geographers astray, although we certainly

have also seen modern authorities misrepresent east for west, and vice versâ, by what has certainly been an unintentional lapsus.

Dr. Robinson got into old ground when on the plain selected by Richard of England as the place of his long encampment, and at the existing representatives of Bethannaba, Aijalon, and Nobe; yet is this a region scarcely ever visited by modern travellers. This time our explorer thinks he has recovered, in the same vicinity, the ancient Chephirah—a city of the Gibeonites, afterwards assigned to Benjamin; and after the captivity, again inhabited by the returning exiles. A more important identification was that of the ancient Emmaus, or Nicopolis, with the present Amwas, and which has hitherto been confounded with the fortress at el Latron. Here were two fountains, one of which, being thermal, was celebrated in the middle ages for its healing qualities. It was at Emmaus that Judas Maccabæus defeated the Syrian general Gorgias; and the same place, fortified by the Syrian Bachides, was burned by order of Varus. It appears to have received the name of Nicopolis when rebuilt by Julius Africanus, who flourished about A.D. 220.

A still more interesting question connected with this identification is, whether this Emmaus is the same as that which is noted for our Lord's interview with two of his disciples on the day of his resurrection. Hitherto this miracle has been associated with el Kubeibeh, on account of the distance given of sixty stadia from Jerusalem by Luke. But Dr. Robinson says that several MSS. read 160, and he gives many cogent reasons for the identity of the two Emmaus. It must be remarked, in favour of this identification, that Dr. Robinson failed in determining the site of the second Emmaus in his previous journeys, and that the word signifies "hot baths," such as are met with at Amwas. Tell el Latron, which has been confounded with Emmaus by the Crusaders and later travellers, was known in the sixteenth century as Castrum boni Latronis, from a legend which made it the birthplace of the penitent thief, and whence its present name. Dr. Robinson identifies Latron with Modin, the residence of the Maccabees. Passing hence Saris (anc. Sores), Kulonia (Koulon), and the convent of the Corro, our travellers entered Jerusalem by the Yafa gate at 7.55 on the 28th of April.

We shall not occupy ourselves here with discussions in reference to the topography and antiquities of the Holy City, as we intend to devote an article to that subject at an early opportunity. Our travellers left Jerusalem on their way to Beisan on the 16th of May. Crossing the ancient Scopus, whence Titus obtained his first view of Jerusalem, little of importance, and that was at the same time new, presented itself along this route. Mejdel, not far from Daumeh (Edumia), was supposed to be the Magdal-Senna of Eusebius and Jerome and Ain Tana, seen from the same spot, was identified with the ancient Thanath, or Thenath, of the same authorities. Yanon was another identification of equally slight import.

From Nabulus, Drs. Robinson and Eli Smith travelled in company with Mr. Van de Velde in search of Salim and the Aenon, close by where John is recorded as baptising. On this journey, besides several sites revisited that were identified on previous journeys, we have a long discussion as to the non-existence of two Succoths, and the claims of Sakut to represent the place where Jacob "built him a house, and made booths for his cattle." At Ain Makhuz an excursion was planned beyond the

Jordan, and "circumstances" adds the doctor, in a foot-note, "render it proper to say here, that Mr. Van de Velde accompanied us at our invitation. He had nothing whatever to do either with the plan, the arrangement, the expense, or the results of the excursion." The object of the expedition was, we are informed, to ascertain the distance between the ruins called Tubukat Fahil, described by Irby and Mangles as Jabesh Gilead, and thus determine whether the former are the remains of Pella. We accordingly turned to the pages of Van de Velde to ascertain the origin of this insinuation against a fellow-traveller, and we find that Mr. Van de Velde, in a letter dated Beisan, May 16th, says that the first thing he intimated to Dr. Eli Smith at their meeting at Nabulus was his intention to seek for the ruins of Pella. The result of the united labours was to identify ruins called ed Deir, or "the Monastery," with Jabesh Gilead; and as to Pella, Dr. Robinson says, "After completing our examination of the remains (at Tubukat Fahil, the terrace of Fahil'), I ventured to express to my companions on the spot the opinion, in which they concurred, that we were standing amid the ruins of the long-sought Pella. It is at such moments that the traveller has his reward."

Upon this subject Mr. Van de Velde says, "On rounding a hill, we saw the ruins of Pella at half an hour's distance to the south, and at once bent our steps towards them. We found ourselves among the veritable remains of an ancient and important city." This is very irreverent to the learned professor's subsequent pronunciamento, in which his companions concurred, that they were standing amid the ruins of the long-sought Pella; but the fact is, that they all appear to have entertained that opinion previously; and so it appears did also Kiepert, the map-maker of Berlin, who, according to Van de Velde, and by Robinson's own admission, proposed to identify the Tubukat Fahil with Pella in 1842.

Capernaum is still a disputed site. Dr. Robinson placed it in his former travels at Khan Minyeh; Dr. Wilson and Ritter identified it with Tell Hum. In this present work, the doctor, revisiting the spot, adduces further evidence in support of his first conclusion. It is important to remark on this discussion, that Quarresmius expressly states, that in his day the place called by the Arabs Minyeh, was regarded as marking the site of Capernaum. (Elucid. T. S. ii. p. 864.)

On his way from Hasbeiya, where the Americans have a missionary establishment, to Banias, Dr. Robinson visited Tell el Kady, which has been erroneously supposed to be the crater of an extinct volcano, and of the identity of which with Dan, the warlike colony of the Danites, "from Dan to Beersheba" denoting the whole length of the Promised Land, the doctor says there can be no question. This is, however, not a novel identification. Near to it is Difneh, probably the site of an ancient Daphne, mentioned by Josephus as near the source of the Lesser Jordan and the Temple of the Golden Calf.

The route from Banias to Damascus afforded much that was interesting in description, but little that is novel in sites. There were the lower ridges of Lebanon to cross; the temples of Thelthatha, of Rukhleh, and of Ashayir to measure; the valley of Wady et Teim to explore; the Jebel es Sheikh to ascend; and the approach to the city to describe. Damascus itself, of which, till the publication of the Rev. Mr. Porter's book, lately reviewed in these pages, we knew but very little indeed, is now doubly described, so much so as to leave in reality little to desire.

« 上一頁繼續 »