140 



DR. E. W. G. MASTERMAN, ON 



A Member : May I ask the relation of the Saviour's tomb to the 

 city walls ? 



The Chairman : I think we cannot have such a large question 

 raised at this hour, 



Mr. Moon : Could we be told the distance of the Church of the 

 Holy Sepulchre outside the walls of Jerusalem ? How many feet 

 would the eastern wall of the holy sepulchre be from the second 

 wall to which Dr. Masterman referred ? 



Dr. Masterman : I know I must be very brief, and I am afraid 

 there are some subjects which it would be no use to try and dismiss 

 in a few words. About the higher hill dominating Zion, I think the 

 chief reasons for the identification of the south-east hill as Zion is 

 that the result of the excavations shows this to be a site in keeping 

 with all the ancient fortified sites we know in Palestine, and it is 

 no objection to such a view that there is a higher hill some distance 

 away. The essential thing is these ancient sites was a tongue of 

 land isolated on three sides by deep valleys and on the other side 

 isolated by the higher ground from which it springs, either by a natural 

 depression or an artificial fosse. I do not agree with Dr. Schofield's 

 remark that there was a city on "Mount Zion" in the time of 

 the Jebusites. With regard to the western site there was no city 

 in the whole country in pre-Hebrew times which covered the area 

 which such an identification suggests. Of course, the name Zion 

 has been applied to many parts. It was an alternative name for 

 Jerusalem in the Psalms, and the name Mount Zion has been applied 

 during the Christian era to the western hill. The original Zion 

 was the hill which David took and which he renamed " the City of 

 David." 



As regards the site of our Lord's tomb, there is still much con- 

 troversy. If you have read Sir Charles Wilson's book Golgotha^ you 

 will find the subject discussed in a thoroughly scientific spirit. 

 His conclusion is to this effect : He considers, while there is nothing 

 archaeological to support the view that the Church of the Holy 

 Sepulchre is the present site, we have found nothing in the position 

 of the walls to make it impossible that it could have been the site. 

 I cannot go farther than that, because I can only say that is my 

 attitude. I do not believe we shall ever get nearer a conclusion 

 than that 



