A second question is intimately connected with this subject--namely, the authority of Christian tradition. We should not underrate this valuable means of tracing ancient and sacred sites, which has, we may hope, handed down to us the positions of such holy places as the Grotto of Bethlehem, and Jacob's well at Shechem; nor lay aside tradition because it _is_ tradition, disregarding one of the few ways of settling the locality of places which were quite as sacred in the fourth century as they are now.
On the other hand, a careful and minute inspection of the fourth-century writings cannot but lead to one conclusion: that Christian tradition can be taken only as an indication, not as an authority. Unsupported by other evidence, the tradition is not, in itself, sufficient to fix any site as authentic; yet most valuable hints may often be obtained by a study of these early descriptions of the land.
We may take as an example the famous Onomasticon of Eusebius and Jerome. We are now able to point out, on the map, almost every place, the position of which is clearly defined in the Onomasticon by measurement, or by reference to neighbouring places; for in almost every case the name still exists, and these places number about 200 in all.
There is thus no question that the land was thoroughly well known to Jerome and Eusebius; but when we turn from their facts to their theories, we find that the confusion is hopeless; the places proposed as identical with those noticed in the Bible are quite as often impossibly guessed as correctly fixed. In fact, the early fathers too often jumped at conclusions, and, in the fourth century, there were no critics to contradict them. This view may be supported by any number of instances. In the cases of Shiloh and Bethhoron, the sites mentioned are those now accepted. In those of Nob and Ajalon, Jerome's identifications are not in any way capable of being reconciled with the Scripture narrative. Thus it is only as regards personal acquaintance with ancient Palestine fifteen centuries ago, that the Onomasticon has any real value.
The observations which apply to this work--the earliest and ablest of the Christian descriptions of Palestine--apply with equal force to all succeeding accounts; and few writers would attempt to justify the wild theories of the mediæval chroniclers, whose identifications, in many cases, contradict alike the Biblical accounts, and the views of the earlier Byzantine pilgrims.