JERUSALEM. 353 
even for the dimensions afforded bv Ense- chap. 
VIII. 
hius. But supposing that the antient Crypue, ' » ' 
described at the conclusion of the preceding 
chapter, do mark the position of the regal 
sepukJires, in the midst of the vast coemetery 
of the antient Jews, where the Tomh oi Joseph of 
Arhnathea was also possibly situate ; then it 
will appear evident, that the mountain stand- 
ing to the south of that deep trench or valley, 
which Sandys has described as the Valley of 
Gehinnom* y (where the sepulchres appear which 
now exhibit, in so many instances, the words 
of an inscription, THC ATI AC CIWN,) was, 
in fact, Mount Sign; opposed, upon the southy 
to Mori AH, and divided from it by this 
valley'. That the summit of this mountain 
(4) That the Valley of Gehinnom, vTi 'Evvo>, or Tn B£*«»vo>, Vallis 
riui HiNNOM, (i?e/«nrf. Palcest. Must. to7n. I. p. 353. Utr. 1714.) was a 
place of sepulture, may be proved by reference to various authorities. 
Heathen, Jewish, and Christian. In the Lafm Version of the Hebrew 
Itinerary of Petachias, {vid. Thesaur. Antiq. Sacrar.B.Ugolini, torn. Vf. 
1207,1208. Venet.MAQ.) the following passage occurs: "Est hie 
terra Jissa, atque dicitur Fallis Jiliorum Hi?iom, ubi ray 'ilu Coemete- 
rium." But Eusebius {ad vocem Taiiwohfi) places this valley upon the 
eastfirn side of the city. All the valleys around Jerusalem were places 
of sepulture ; particularly that nou) called Jehosaphat, which is upon 
the eastern side. But whenever the observations of an early writer 
tend to interfere with the notions entertained by the Catliolics of tke 
topography of Jerusalem, they endeavour to accommodate the text to 
their notions, or else explain away its meaning. 
(a) Ruuxvolff, speaking of the Tyropceon mentioned by Josephus, 
says, " This valley hath been, since the desolation, so filled up, that 
VOL. IV. Z "'» 
