eat cave is said to exist, must be a detached <noll ; since on all sides there is lower ground, and a retaining wall 40 ft. high’ (ΡῈ FSt, 1881, p. 267). But Robinson (BRP ii. 76) says, ‘The buildings stand on the slope of the eastern hill; the rocks having been excavated along the upper side, in order to lay the foundations.’ Canon Dalton (PEFSt, 1882, note’, p. 201) suggests that a portion of the interior of the Haram probably represented originally ‘ the field of Mamre before the cave,’ and was then on a level with the exterior.
When the level was artificially, and probably gradually (with débris of Byzantine church, etc.) raised 15 ft., the present approaches round the exterior of the Haram, and at a higher level, were necessitated, and are entirely Moslem. As there is no ancient gateway through the Haram wall above the level of the floor inside, it is apparent that all that is to be seen inside above this level is of a later date than the Haram enclosure.
It has been mentioned that the walls of this enclosure are precisely of the same appearance as the wall of the Jews’ Wailing place at the Haram of Jerusalem, and probably of the same date. This unfortunately gives no clue to the date, as views differ as to the age of ‘the Wailing place,’ between the time of Salamon and king Herod. Wilson and Conder without hesitation consider the wall to be Herodian ; de Vogiié and Fergusson appear to have the same view; on the other hand, Grove, Ritter, Stanley, Robinson, and the present writer, consider these walls to be pre-Herodian.
The interior of the Haram enclosure (above the level of 15 ft. above the roadway) is occupied by buildings of Christian and Moslem construction, nothing init being earlier than the 12th cent. except the Minbar or pulpit (completed A.D. 1091), and brought by ΠΕΡῚ from Ascalon.
The southern portion of the enclosure is taken up by a mosque (formerly a church), with length of aisles 70 ft. and breadth across aisles 93 ft. The central aisle is 35 ft. wide, and the two side aisles 30 ft. wide each. The length (70 ft.) is broken up into three bays of unequal space ; that to the south is 15 ft. wide, and contains the Wihrab and Minbar. The central bay is 30 ft. wide, and contains the cenotaphs of Isaac and Rebekah. The north bay is 25 ft. wide, and contains the Mehala or reading- desk. The church is Gothic, closely resembling the Crusading churches of Palestine, and the four pillars supporting the roof are clustered, 12 shafts being carried up the clustering walls and supporting ribbed groins; in this respect it resembles the Church of St. John at Samaria, dating between A.D. 1150 and 1180. The capitals resemble those of the Church of Bireh, completed A.D. 1146, and the general style resembles the Church of St. John at Gaza, dating about A.D. 1152. Conder considers that the building of this church may be attributed to the latter half of the 12th cent., probably about the year A.D. 1167, when the town became a bishopric. Fergusson’s view was that this church most probably was not erected before 1167 nor later than 1262, more
MACHPELAH
MACHPELAH 201
eee
nearly approaching the former than the latter period
All the other buildings in the interior of the enclosure are of Moslem construction, and are attri- buted to the 14th cent. The Arab historians Makresi and Mijr ed-Din state that they were erected in A.H. 732 (A.D. 1331) by the Mameluk Sultan Muhammed Ibn Kelawun. Beyond the church to the north is a porch or narthex, which includes two octagonal chapels, containing the cenotaphs of Abraham and Sarah.
The porch appears to be of later date than the chapels, and there is an inscription on it stating that it was restored in A.H. 1172 (A.D. 1755). Beyond the porch is an open courtyard with a sun- dial, and beyond this courtyard are chambers occupying the northern portion of the enclosure, and containing the cenotaphs of Jacob and Leah.
On the outside of the Haram enclosure, and adjoining it to the north-west, is a Moslem build- ing, containing the cenotaph of Joseph. Accordin to Mijr ed-Din, it was discovered on the traditiona site by Khalanji during the reign of the Khalif al- Muktadir (A.D. 908-932), and a dome subsequently built over the spot. He speaks of the walls of the Haram as the walls of Solomon’s enclosure. He further states that one of the guardians of Hebron (Jaghmuri), A.D. 1394, pierced a gate in the western wall of Solomon’s enclosure, opposite to the tomb of Joseph.
The outer gates, together with the two flights of steps and passages round the exterior of the Haram, are attributed to the 14th cent., and have the character of the best Arab work; this, however, must have been a reconstruction, as they would have been required, and were probably constructed when the Fatemite Khalif Mahdi caused the door to be pierced through the east wall of the Haram enclosure, A.D. 918 (Diary of a Journey through Syria and Palestine, A.D. 1047). It was appar- ently at this time that the Moslems first used the interior of the Haram area as a mosque or sanctuary.
The cave of Machpelah is the one ancient burying- place which has been handed down with certaint as a genuine site, and the great interest which gathers round it is enhanced by its being the earliest burying-place of the Hebrew race in the Promised Land, and by the impenetrable mystery in which the sanctuary has been involved. This, as Stanley suggests, 15 a living witness to the unbroken local veneration with which the three religions of Jews, Christians, and Moslems have honoured the great patriarch. But it is to the cave and not to the monuments or building that the great interest attaches, and about which so little has been known even with the researches in modern times. Even now it is uncertain whether the chamber known to be under the floor of the church in the Haram area is of masonry or cut in the rock, and what its extent may be. he follow- ing is a brief summary of what is known at present on the subject.