The city of Jerusalem

by C. R. Conder

FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER I

[1] H. Rix, “Tent and Testament,” 1907, p. v.

[2] The views of Thrupp were revived in 1880 by Dr. Robertson Smith, who has been followed by Dr. Sayce and Dr. G. A. Smith. The untenable character of this theory has, once more, been ably shown by the Rev. Selah Merrill quite recently.

[3] Bordeaux Pilgrim, 333 A. D., “Crypta ubi Salomon dæmones torquebat.”

[4] Eusebius, “Life of Constantine,” iii. 42.

[5] Rufinus (died 410 A. D.), i. 7; Theodoret (c. 440 A. D.), i. 17; Sozomen (c. 450 A. D.), ii. 1, quoted by Robinson, “Bib. Res.” i. p. 374.

[6] Cyril, “Catech. Lect.” iv. 10, x. 19, xiii. 4, 9. These lectures were given in the Basilica of the Anastasis to the neophytes preparing for baptism at Easter, 347–8 A. D.

[7] Maundeville, 1342 A. D., “And yet there appears the imprint of His left foot in the stone.”

[8] Antony of Piacenza (c. 570 A. D.); now Ḳadam’Aisa, or “footprint of Jesus.”

[9] Ḳadam esh Sherif. John of Würzburg (c. 1160 A. D.), “Pede domini calcatus et insignatus.”

[10] John of Würzburg.

[11] Zuallardo, “Dev. Viag.” (1586), p. 152.

[12] “Paula et Eustochium”; Silvia, “Perigrinatio”; Theodorus; Adamnanus (c. 680 A. D.); Geoffrey de Vinsauf, v. 53, cf. i. 5.

[13] St. Silvia, “Dicitur quidam fixisse morsum ut furasset sancto ligno.”

[14] St. Silvia (385 A. D.), Theodorus (c. 530 A. D.).

[15] Theodorus (c. 530 A. D.), Antoninus (c. 570 A. D.), Arculphus (c. 680 A. D.), Bernard (c. 867 A. D.).

[16] Pilgrimage of St. Paula (384 A. D.); St. Willibald (c. 750 A. D.), “In similitudine prioris lapidis”; Bernard (867 A. D.), “Lapidem ... quem angelus revolvit.”

[17] Bernard (867 A. D.), “Veniente angelo in lampadibus accenditur.”

[18] Theodoricus (c. 1172 A. D.); Geof. de Vinsauf, v. 16.

[19] Eusebius, “Life of Constantine,” iii. 33.

[20] Sæwulf (c. 1102 A. D.), John of Würzburg (c. 1160 A. D.), and others.

[21] Matt. xxviii. 16; Luke xxiv. 52; John xxi. 1; Acts i. 11, 12.

[22] Eucherius (c. 440 A. D.), Theodorus (530 A. D.), Theodoricus (c. 1172 A. D.), Pierre Belon (1553 A. D.), Zuallardo (1586 A. D.). The last named mentions this remarkable transference of sites (p. 129).

[23] Pilgr. of Paula; Bordeaux Pilgrim; St. Silvia; Zuallardo, “Dev. Viag.”; Theodorus (c. 530 A. D.), “Columna quæ fuit in domo Caiaphæ, ad quam Dominus Christus flagellatus est, modo in sanctam Sion jussu Domini ipsa columna secuta est.”

[24] Acts xii. 3, 10.

[25] Sæwulf (c. 1102 A. D.); John of Würzburg (c. 1160), “Carcer Domini ... in sinistra apsida ecclesiæ.”

[26] Bordeaux Pilgrim, “Piscinæ gemellares ... quæ appelluntur Bethsaida”; Eucherius, “Bethesda gemino ... lacu.”

[27] Theodorus, 530 A. D.

[28] The Templar rival site is noticed in an anonymous thirteenth-century tract. The map of 1308 shows the Piscina (interior) west of St. Anne, but the Piscina Probatica south of that church. The pilgrims usually call the pool Bethsaida, as in the Vat. MS. (Sinaitic Bethzatha), and note its “five cloisters” (John v. 2). Bethesda probably means “house of the stream,” but Beth-ṣiddei would be “the house of sides,” or “cloisters.”

[29] Theodorus, Armenian account, Antoninus Martyr, Abbot Daniel (c. 1106 A. D.), John of Würzburg.

[30] R. Röhricht, “Die Jerusalemfahrt des Peter Sparnau,” 1385.

[31] Onomasticon, s.v. Bethania.

[32] Ibid., s.v. Gethsemane; St. Silvia (385 A. D.).

[33] Acts i. 20. It may be suspected that the idea of the bridge originated in a confusion between the Greek epaulis, “abode,” and ep-aulou, “over a pipe” (or “aqueduct”—aulōn), the bridge of Adamnanus being that of the low-level aqueduct south-west of the city, as Robinson supposed.

[34] Ant. Martyr (c. 570 A. D.); Adamnanus (c. 680 A. D.), “Pons lapideus occurrit eminus per vallem ad austrum recto tramite directus arcubus sussaltus”; Sir John Maundeville (1342 A. D.); Zuallardo (1586 A. D.), “Dev. Viag.,” p. 152. The “Arch of Judas” was inside the city about 1187 A. D.

[35] Bordeaux Pilgrim, Eucherius (c. 440 A. D.), Theodorus (c. 530 A. D.), Sæwulf (c. 1102 A. D.), John of Würzburg (c. 1160 A. D.).

[36] John viii. 3, 6. Bernardus (867 A. D.), Sæwulf, John of Würzburg, Maundeville.

[37] “Mem. West Pal. Survey,” iii. p. 24; Reland, Pal. p. 688; Theodorus (530 A. D.); Sæwulf (1102 A. D.); Abbot Daniel (c. 1106 A. D.); John of Würzburg (c. 1160 A. D.); Phocas (c. 1185 A. D.); “Citez de Jhérusalem” (after 1187 A. D.); Marino Sanudo (c. 1320 A. D.); Regesta Reg. Hierosol. No. 329 (1157 A. D.). C. K. Spyridonidis, in Pal. Expl. Fund Quarterly (April 1907, p. 137), gives the inscription.

[38] John of Würzburg, “Quod a Sarracenis postea mutatum est in horologium.” He follows Fetellus (c. 1151–7 A. D.).

[39] “Mem. Survey West Pal.,” Jerusalem vol., 1883, pp. 331–40.

[40] Canon Dalton and M. Clermont-Ganneau, Pal. Expl. Fund Quarterly, 1900, pp. 166 seq.

[41] Pal. Expl. Fund Quarterly, 1902, p. 122.

[42] Marino Sanudo (c. 1320 A. D.).

[43] Zuallardo, “Dev. Viag.” (1586 A. D.), gives a drawing of the whole course of the Via Dolorosa.

[44] Schick, Pal. Expl. Fund Quarterly, April 1896, p. 122, July 1896; T. Tobler, “Topogr.,” i. p. 445.

[45] “Mem. Survey West Pal.,” Jerusalem vol., 1883, p. 419; Josephus, “Wars,” V. xii. 2.

CHAPTER II
BEFORE DAVID

The mysterious figure of Melchizedek King of Salem haunted the memory of Hebrew writers in later times.[46] The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, “Now consider how great this man was unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.” Salem appears to have been Jerusalem, according to the Psalm[47] in which we read, “In Salem is His dwelling, and His abode in Zion”; and the “King’s Dale” is placed by Josephus near the city, where perhaps it is again noticed later.[48] The Samaritans, who grouped so many sacred sites round Gerizim, seem to have believed that Salem was the Shalem afterwards visited by Jacob, east of Shechem—the Salim of the Fourth Gospel, now the village of Sâlim, which is mentioned in the Paschal Chronicle; while in the fourth century, according to Jerome, “The palace of Melchisedec was there shown, its magnificence witnessed by the size of ruins of ancient workmanship.”[49] We may, however, accept the Hebrew belief that Salem (“safety”) is the same as Uru-salimu (“the city of safety”), which we now know to have been the Amorite name for their royal city.

Melchizedek appears and disappears suddenly, without any explanation as to his race or lineage. Josephus believed him to have been a Canaanite, and fixes his date as founder of Jerusalem about 2058 B. C. The chronology of the Hebrew text of Genesis would, however, make it about a century earlier, in the “days of Amraphel king of Shinar,” whom Sir Henry Rawlinson identified with ’Ammurabi, the famous sixth King of Babylon, who has been shown to have acceded in 2139 B. C.,[50] and who was thus the contemporary of Abraham. It would seem that this priest-king of Jerusalem was the suzerain of the petty kings of the cities in the Jordan Valley; but Abraham’s tithes are said to have been offered to Jehovah as the “most high God,” and not to Melchizedek as his over-lord. Jerusalem thus appears, even in the earliest notice, to have been a sacred city,[51] and we are no longer surprised—in reading the account in Genesis—at the civilisation of Abraham’s age, since we know that Canaan then shared, in some measure at least, the culture of the two ancient empires of Babylon and of Egypt, which disputed its possession.

The original population of the city is said to have been both Amorite and Hittite,[52] nor is there any reason to doubt that an outlying tribe of the latter race, coming south from Syria, may have then occupied the mountains of Salem and Hebron, though early in the sixteenth century B. C. they were driven out of Palestine by Thothmes III. It is now very generally agreed that the Amorites were a Semitic race, and the existing tablets written in and after the fifteenth century by Amorites are in a Semitic language like that of the Babylonians. Hittite letters, on the other hand, show quite as clearly that this race of pigtailed warriors was Mongoloid, and closely akin to the Akkadians of Babylonia, whose speech was very similar to pure Turkish.[53]

EARLY NAMES

The antiquity of Jerusalem seems to be indicated by the fact that certain names connected with the city cannot be explained as ordinary Hebrew words. Jebus, Zion, Hinnom, and Topheth are terms not traced to any Hebrew roots, and they have always puzzled scholars as much as the name Jerusalem itself did until it was shown to be of Amorite origin. Even the meaning of Moriah—the name of the Temple hill—is doubtfully explained as “vision of Jehovah,” for the Greek translators understood it to mean “the high.”[54] It is, however, connected[55] both with Abraham’s vision of Jehovah, and also perhaps with that of David when the “Angel of the Presence” sheathed his sword on the Temple hill. Jebus (Yebûs) is perhaps Hittite for “strong abode,” equivalent to the Amorite Uru-Salimu, or “safe city.”[56] Zion has been supposed to mean a “fortress,” but the derivation is forced; as a Hittite word it would rather seem to signify a “palace” or “temple.”[57] For Hinnom and Topheth no Hebrew explanations have been found possible, yet both may perhaps be rendered as of Canaanite origin: the former would signify “prince” (En-num), and the latter “flat” or “low” (tuptu), applying to the lowest part of the valley junction on the south-east side of the city.[58] The “King’s Vale” may have been the “deep valley of Molech,” or it may have been equivalent to the older Hinnom (or Ben-Hinnom), “the valley of the prince” or of the “prince’s son.” It is remarkable that its modern name (Wâdy Rabâbeh) appears to mean the “valley of lordship.”

Whatever be thought as to the meaning of these ancient and obscure words, we know that a Hittite still lived in Jerusalem in David’s time, and his name Uriah has no probable meaning in Hebrew. In Hittite it was no doubt Ur-ia, “the worshipper of Ya,” while the Jebusite King Araunah—whose name is so variously spelt—was probably known as Ur-ena, “the worshipper of Baal.”[59] Thus the geographical and personal names alike seem to indicate the early presence of both Amorites and Hittites in Jerusalem.

Between the time of Abraham and that of Joshua’s conquest we hear nothing about the city for six hundred years. After this we have remarkable evidence of its existence as a royal city in the extant tablets of the Tell Amarna collection, written to the Pharaoh by the Amorite king of Uru-salimu. Amenophis III. of Egypt was the contemporary of Rimmon-nirari of Assyria, who reigned about 1500 B. C., and Amenophis IV. was the contemporary of Burnaburias of Babylon, who acceded about 1440 B. C.[60] Palestine, having been conquered by Thothmes III. about 1580 B. C., was peacefully ruled by Egypt when Amenophis III. acceded to the throne. The population appears at this time to have been entirely Semitic, no letters in any but the Babylonian language occurring among those of its rulers, while the names of all the cities mentioned, even in the sixteenth century B. C., are also Semitic. The Philistines, like the rest of the Canaanites, used the Babylonian language and script, and they worshipped the Babylonian sea-god Dagon, whom ’Ammurabi had adored. Their names are also Semitic, not only in the Bible but in the Tell Amarna tablets, and in the later inscriptions of Sennacherib.[61] If any Hittites still remained in the south, they were no longer a ruling tribe, though in North Syria and Cappadocia they were then powerful and independent. The Philistines were loyal to Egypt, but they do not appear to have had any power in the mountains till four centuries later, and the loyalty of the Amorite kings of Jerusalem and Gezer was much suspected by the Pharaohs.

THE AMORITES

About the middle of the reign of Amenophis III. a rebellion broke out in Syria.[62] Hittites and Amorites invaded Phœnicia, attacked Damascus, and spread in Bashan, shortly before the time when Israel appeared in Moab according to the Bible chronology. Amenophis was, however, allied with the Kassite ruler of Babylon, and with the Armenian and Cappadocian monarchs of the same Mongoloid race. He sent soldiers to Gebal, and the Cappadocians subdued the Amorites. Some twenty years later, Amenophis IV. (son of Amenophis III.) having begun his unfortunate reign, another more formidable revolt occurred. The friendly Armenian king Dusratta had died, and Aziru the Amorite had deserted his obedience, allying himself with the Hittite suzerain of Cappadocia. The Amorites conquered Phœnicia, and Egypt was powerless to aid its Syrian subjects. The hatred of the memory of Amenophis IV., shown in later times, was perhaps due to his loss of the empire rather than to his worship of Asiatic gods, who had been adored in Egypt in the time of his father also; for,[63] like his father, he is addressed by the Asiatic kings as a worshipper of the Egyptian god Amen, and texts from the Egyptian ritual occur on his coffin.

THE ABIRI

The six letters written to Egypt by the King of Jerusalem do not mention the name of the Pharaoh addressed, but, judging from those of other personages concerned, they seem to belong to an early period in this story of rebellion, though Canaan remained in a disturbed condition even as late as 1440 A. D., when Burnaburias of Babylon and Assur-uballid of Assyria—writing to Amenophis IV.—speak of interrupted communications and the robbery of caravans. The name of Jerusalem (Uru-sa-limu or U-ru-sa-limu) has been read with certainty by Dr. Winckler, but the name of the Amorite king is variously rendered. It seems, however, to have probably belonged to the same class with that of Melchizedek, and of Adonizedek, the king killed by Joshua.[64] Jerusalem was being attacked by a people called ’Abiri or Ḥabiri, who destroyed all the Canaanite rulers at Ai, Ajalon, Lachish, and other places; and, since the period is that of the Hebrew Conquest under Joshua, according to the Bible, it is natural to identify these ’Abiri with the Hebrews, as proposed by Dr. Zimmern in Germany. It is true that scholars who follow the views of Lepsius[65] and of Brugsch, formed before any notice of Israel had been discovered in Egyptian monumental texts, have denied this identification. Lepsius argued that the city of Rameses, built by the Hebrews, could not have been so named before the time of Rameses II.; but as it is noticed even as early as the time of Jacob,[66] he was obliged to regard this allusion as an anachronism, which might equally apply to the passage on which he relied. Clearly, however, the allusion can only serve to date the age in which the story of Joseph, as we now have it, was written down together with the narrative of the Exodus. The conclusions of Lepsius—who preferred the libels of Tacitus, and those with which Josephus charges Manetho, to the chronological statements of the Bible—are quite destructive to Old Testament dates. Rameses, however, was the later name of Zoan, the city where the Hebrews dwelt in Egypt, while the site of Pithom—the other “store city” which they built for the Pharaoh—is still doubtful, though supposed by Dr. Naville to be the same as that of Succoth. Lepsius called Rameses II. the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and Mineptah, his son, the Pharaoh of the Exodus, though he ruled two centuries later than the time of Joshua. As, however, we now have a text by Mineptah, in which he notices Israel as being already in Palestine in the fifth year of his reign, it is impossible that the Exodus and the forty years in the desert could have coincided with this period of incipient Egyptian decay. We are left free to accept the new monumental evidence, which illustrates in so remarkable a manner the historic statements of the Book of Joshua.

Jerusalem was not taken by Joshua, though its Amorite king Adonizedek was slain at Makkedah, with Japhia, king of Lachish, and three others.[67] It is remarkable that the Amarna correspondence gives us the name Japhia (yap’aa) as that of the contemporary king of Gezer, for Gezer came to the aid of Lachish, according to the Bible account. Joshua is not named in these tablets, which refer only to a certain Elimelech (a Hebrew name[68]) as one of the invaders, but the letters speak of incidents identical with those narrated in the story of the Hebrew Conquest. The more important passages bearing on the history of Jerusalem may be thus rendered:

JERUSALEM LETTERS

“To the King my Lord thus says ’Abd-ṣadaḳ thy servant, at the feet of my Lord the King seven times and seven times I bow. What have I done to the King my Lord? They urge on thee that an enemy, a sinner, should be seized, that ’Abd-ṣadaḳ has rebelled before the King his Lord. Lo! as for me, no man is my father and none is my friend supporting me. They rebel in this place, great King, striving with me for my father’s house. Why should I sin against the King of Kings? Behold the complaint, O King my Lord. I say to the governor of the King my Lord, ‘Why are ye afraid of the Hebrews?’ and they are afraid to go out, so they send to the presence of the King my Lord.[69] Lo! I say there is ruin of the lands of the King my Lord, as they have sent to the King my Lord; and let the King my Lord know.... The lands of the suzerain[70] have revolted, all that Elimelech has wasted, all the King’s land; and let the King beware as to his land, which I say pleading, and let the King my Lord behold the tears, and the warfare that is mighty against me; and I receive nothing from the King my Lord, and no order ordered in the presence of the King ... as to whether he will order men for a garrison. And let the King my Lord learn, and regard the tears; and now arise, O King my Lord. Now they have expelled the [Egyptian] governor. I say there is ruin of the lands of the King. Will you not hear me?... They have destroyed all the rulers: there is not a ruler [left] for the suzerain.[70] Let the King give countenance to the people: let him order soldiers[71] of the King my Lord. There is not one in the lands of the King. The Hebrew has wasted all the King’s lands, since the King’s soldiers[71] were sent away this year: they were sent away from the lands of the suzerain.[70] Since there was not a soldier [left], there was ruin to the lands of the King my Lord. O Scribe of the King my Lord, this is ’Abd-ṣadaḳ’s plea for soldiers. The lands of the King my Lord are ruined.”

This appeal was repeated more than once, but seems to have met with no reply, except perhaps a demand for hostages to be sent to Egypt (as in the case of the king of Gezer also), though this may refer to a previous period. Meanwhile, the petty kings allied to Jerusalem gathered forces in aid of the city.[72] The Hebrews, it may be noted, are not mentioned in any of the Amarna letters except those from Jerusalem.

“[Behold] what Milkilu [of Gezer] and Suardatu [of Keilah] have done for me as to the land of the King my Lord. They have hired soldiers of Gezer, soldiers of Gimzo: they have taken Rabbah. The King’s land has rebelled to the Hebrews; and now as regards the city Jerusalem, the city called Beth Baalah[73] has revolted [sending?] to the city of Keilah. Let the King listen to ’Abd-ṣadaḳ thy servant, and order soldiers, and recover the King’s land for the King: as there were no soldiers the King’s land has revolted to the Hebrews, who have confounded me and Suardatu and Milkilu.”

In this connection it should be noted that Baalah, or (as also called) Kirjath-jearim, was one of the Hivite cities which did not join the Amorite league, but submitted with Gibeon to Joshua. The passage[74] which seems to refer to hostages is as follows:

“Behold the King my Lord has established his law from the rising of the sun to the setting of the sun. It is false what they have falsely said against me. Behold, as for me, am not I a ruler, a man of the house of the King my Lord? Behold I myself am a servant of the King, and I have sent tribute to the King. As for me, no one helps me, no one is my friend, rising for the King. I have remained in this Chiefs city.[75]... I have given eight slaves to Suta, the King’s governor, in charge against me: twenty-one women ... twenty men our prisoners, to remain in the hands of Suta, obeying the King my Lord. There is ruin to all the lands of the King that they have taken fighting me. From the lands of Seir to the city Hareth Carmel they gathered to the rulers, and fought me. Now they despise the Commander, and the King my Lord does not regard tears as they fight against me. Lo! I remain a ship amid the waves. Make ready, great King; you will march to the land of Nahrima and the land of Chezib—and lo! these are fortresses of the King—you will march on the Hebrew. There is not a ruler [left] for the King my Lord, all are destroyed. Lo! they have cut off Turbazu in the city Beth-zilu, with Zimrida, lo! of the city of Lachish—slaves wore him out, they did him to death. The region of Rimmon bewails slaughter ... in the city Zilu there is destruction.”

HEBREW RAIDS

A later letter,[76] referring to four previous messages, gives further details of the war:

“Lo! the land of Gezer, the land of Ashkelon, and the land of Lachish have given them corn, wine, and all else that they have taken away.” “Behold this land of the city Jerusalem—no man aids me, no tribe supports me, nor has risen to support me. Lo! it is done to me as was done to Milkilu, and to the sons of Labaya, who have given the King’s land to the Hebrews. Behold the King my Lord will be just to me, for the men are sorcerers [or malicious]. Let him ask the governors. Lo! strong and many and committing sin, very proud, they demanded property and [threatened] death.... You will purge the lands in the hands of the city of Ashkelon. Let the King ask about them—much corn, much oil, much ... to the command of Pauru the King’s Governor, as far as Jerusalem.” “The men taking messages for the King they bound—four messages sent out by men of the fortress. They marched to block the roads. Like a bird in a snare [I remain]: they [spy?] the city Ajalon. Let me tell the King my Lord, I do not speak rashly sending about the road for the King my Lord, for it is not easy. Lo! the King has established his law in the city Jerusalem for ever, and will not rashly speak of the desertion of the lands of Jerusalem. To the scribe of the King my Lord thus says thy servant Abd-ṣadaḳ. I bow at thy feet, I am thy servant. Render the news well to the King my Lord. O scribe of the King, I am afflicted, great is my affliction, and you do a deed not faithful, against the land of Cush. Hear us. Is there not slaughter, and you ... him, that men of the land of Cush are ... in my city? Let it ... the King to ... salute the King my Lord seven times and seven times for me.”

Another letter, on a different kind of clay, possibly refers to a final retreat from Jerusalem,[77] but it is a fragment only.

“And now the city Jerusalem. Since he went away this land is faithful to the King. Lo! Gaza has remained to the King. Behold, the city Hareth Carmel is Tagi’s, and the people in the city ’Aiath[78] have bowed down. He went far away from the fortress; and have we done this? Lo! Labaya gave gifts to the Hebrews, as Milkilu sent for tribute and the young men said, ‘Is not this fortress annexed by us?’ The men of Keilah gave all they asked; and have we left the city of Jerusalem? The garrisons you ordered are blockaded by the ravages of this fellow whom I fear. Addasi has remained in his fortress at Gaza, [sending] the women ... to Egypt.... To be given to the King.”

The parallelism between the details of this monumental account and those of the Bible narrative in the Book of Joshua, which—in its present form—appears to have been composed in the time of David or of Solomon, is very remarkable, and it is certain that Jerusalem was a royal city and a strong fortress, which at the time when the letters were written had not fallen to the ’Abiri or Hebrews, though there were signs already that its further defence was becoming impossible.

JEBUS

From the Book of Judges we learn that after the death of Joshua the children of Judah smote Jerusalem, and set it on fire. The border between Judah and Benjamin ran on the south side of the city, along the Valley of Hinnom, and to the head of the Valley of Rephaim. The town thus lay in the lot of Benjamin, but the conquest was not complete; for the “children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem, but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day”—that is, till the time of David at least. Josephus thought that the lower city only—perhaps not yet protected by a wall—was taken, and that the upper city was the Jebusite stronghold; nor is this an improbable explanation, since the lower city seems—as will appear later—to have already existed in David’s time. In the time of Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, Jebus was regarded as “the city of a stranger that is not of the children of Israel,” and it even possessed a Canaanite king in David’s time.[79]

We may endeavour therefore to form some idea of the position and extent of Jebusite Jerusalem. It was a royal city, a sacred place, and a fortress of great strength, the taking of which was one of David’s greatest exploits. The site indeed seems to have been chosen for its strength, which has again and again been proved by many long and desperate sieges. The city has always been taken from the north, and the upper city on the south-west hill has always been the last quarter to fall. This flat hill, rising 2,500 feet above the level of the sea, measures about 600 yards east and west by 800 yards north and south, thus containing an area of about 100 acres. Since the fourth century A. D. the name Zion has been applied to this hill, which is surrounded on all sides by deep valleys having steep slopes or precipices—that called Hinnom forming a natural fosse which sinks some 400 feet below the hill plateau, and defends the hill on the west and south, while the Tyropœon Valley—about 500 feet wide—sinks on the north to about 150 feet below the plateau, and turns south, defending it on the east. The hill of Zion is only joined to the watershed by a narrow neck, or isthmus, of high ground at the north-west corner of the upper city, and it required to be defended by a fortress wall at this point, which has always been the place attacked by besiegers. The lower city lay to the north, in the broad Tyropœon, and was defended by a smaller summit, now occupied by the Cathedral of the Holy Sepulchre, which rises 2,497 feet above sea-level, and bulges out eastwards from the plateau of the Judean watershed which runs north, west of Jerusalem. Thus, as Josephus says, the city as a whole lay “over against the temple in the manner of a theatre”[80]; for the horseshoe shape was caused by the head of the Tyropœon on the north side of the upper city, the original form of which has been somewhat obliterated by the accumulation of from 40 to 90 feet of rubbish under David Street, which leads east to the Temple ridge. Yet even now there is a sharp descent eastwards along this street, and steep side streets lead up southwards thence to Zion.[81]

OPHEL

Such, then, was the natural fortress which made the capture of Jerusalem so difficult, and which appears to have been occupied from the earliest times. The temple ridge on the east was 60 feet lower than Zion even at its highest point; and, as this ridge became narrower and tailed off towards the south, it sank—on the Ophel spur—to about 200 feet below the level of the upper city. The Ophel spur was unfit for a fortress, and the part south of the temple contained an area of only about 15 acres. It is impossible, therefore, to regard it as having at any time been by itself a “city,” for the more important cities of Palestine were much larger than such a small hamlet would have been. Tyre covered 100 acres, Cæsarea and Samaria about 300 acres each, while even Gezer—a town of less importance—included 40 acres within the walls. Ophel is not mentioned in history till three hundred years after David’s time. Nor are the remains of caves or cellars on this narrow tongue of land apparently of any remote antiquity, though some writers have supposed them to be of Jebusite origin, and have even called them “neolithic”—a term which has no meaning in Palestine, because (as in Egypt and in Babylonia) instruments of stone and of flint are found at all levels in the excavations, and are contemporary with others of bronze and of iron. The remains found in connection with these caves are of Roman origin, and one of the largest of them was a dyeing establishment, in which Byzantine objects were discovered. There are similar caves or cellars on the hill of the upper city, and these may be equally late.[82]

The rock strata at Jerusalem fall with an inclination of about ten degrees south-east from the watershed, so that the rain-water is carried naturally in this direction towards the junction (below Siloam) of the Kidron, the Tyropœon and the Hinnom valleys. The town indeed has the appearance of sliding downhill towards the south-east, the Ophel spur being the lowest of those covered by the city at its time of greatest magnitude, when Jerusalem—including the 30 acres of the Temple enclosure—covered about 300 acres in all, being half as large again as the present city within the Turkish walls. The lowest rock stratum, which appears in the low cliffs on the east side of the Kidron, is a hard dolomitic limestone, impervious and forming the bed for streams which sink through the more porous upper limestone. It appears again on the watershed to the north-west, and is known as the Santa Croce marble, being mottled with red, which—on the hillock of the traditional Calvary—was regarded as being due to the blood of Christ. This formation is of the Greensand period geologically, and the stone is known as mezzeh, or “superior,” in Arabic. Above it lie beds of fine but rather soft building stone, belonging to the Lower Chalk age, and called in Arabic meleki, or “royal” stone.[83] In this white limestone the Temple cisterns are cut. Another stratum of hard limestone, or mezzeh, lies over the meleki, and above this on Olivet is the white Upper Chalk, full of ammonites, hippurites, and other characteristic shells, with beds of the Eocene age, including a capping of nummulitic limestone. These porous strata are known as k’akûli, or “conglomerate,” and nâri, or “fire stone.”

This description may be sufficient to account for the natural water-supply, which was always most abundant on the south-east, where the dolomite bed is nearest to the surface in the valleys. The principal spring is in the Kidron, below the steep eastern slope of the Ophel spur south of the Temple. It rises under the floor of a cave, where there must be an underground reservoir in the rock, resembling many in the Lebanon and in other limestone regions. Towards the end of winter, when the heavy rains have fallen, this reservoir overflows frequently through a fissure which acts as a natural syphon, sucking out all the water as soon as the reservoir is full. The sudden gush—like that of the Sabbatic River in Syria—occurs every few hours in early spring, but at the interval of several days in autumn. The stream originally flowed down the rocky bed of the Kidron, which is now filled in to a depth of 30 feet. But from early times it would seem that attempts were made to carry the water to the foot of the east slope of the upper city hill, in order to bring it nearer to the fortress. By the time of Hezekiah at least—as will be detailed later—a rock tunnel carried the waters of the spring to Siloam, or “westwards to the city of David.”[84] This statement—in consequence of the English mistranslation—has become the foundation of a literary theory according to which the city of David was a mere hamlet of 15 acres on Ophel, whereas in reality it appears to show that the stronghold of Jebus lay towards the west. It is not impossible that a yet earlier rock-cut channel existed, with the same object of conveying the waters of this intermittent spring towards the western citadel; and, as the point has some importance in connection with the history of the city, the reasons may be given more fully.

GIHON

Excavations were made in front of the cave in which the Kidron spring bursts forth, in the year 1902, and it was then discovered that a rock tunnel leads away towards the south outside the entrance to the cave.[85] The level of its floor is only 5 feet above the water-level at Siloam, and this aqueduct unfortunately has not been explored along its whole length, nor has it furnished any indications of the age in which it was made. It has been thought to be part of an old rock channel traced for 600 feet northwards from the old pool below the Siloam reservoir. This, however, is doubtful, as the channel in question rises rapidly, and the levels in consequence would oblige us to suppose that pipes must have been used, as water does not run uphill in an open channel.[86] This Siloam channel was still connected, in 1874, with a series of surface channels on the slopes of Ophel, which have been quarried away since, but which once carried the surface rain-water to the old pool.

The excavations at the spring showed that a large tank or pool probably once existed before the cave. The overflow from the cave was also carried away by the aqueduct, and perhaps brought round to tanks still existing below Siloam south-west of the pool. If this work was really ancient, representing the “brook that flowed through the midst of the earth”[87] even before Hezekiah’s tunnel was made, it is an argument in favour of the view that the upper city of Jerusalem was the original Jebusite stronghold.

EN-ROGEL

The earliest reference to any feature of Jerusalem topography is the notice of the spring called En-rogel, on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin east of the Valley of Hinnom. The meaning of the name has been differently conjectured,[88] but if the true rendering be “spring of the water channel,” it would seem that an aqueduct must have existed at En-rogel when the Book of Joshua was written; and the topographical evidence in that book indicates a date earlier than the time of Isaiah and Hezekiah, thus favouring the conclusion that the aqueduct in front of the cave is ancient.

En-rogel has, it is true, been placed in quite another position. Brocardus, in the thirteenth century, supposed it to be the well at the junction of the Kidron and Hinnom valleys which Christians called “Nehemiah’s Fountain,” in connection with the apocryphal legend of a fire fountain which was in Persia and not at Jerusalem at all.[89] The Moslems called it the “Well of Job,” from a legend of the fountain which sprang up when Job stamped on the ground[90]—perhaps confounding Job with Joab, since En-rogel was near the “Stone Zoheleth” where Joab proclaimed Adonijah king. But a well is not a spring, and Zoheleth is supposed by M. Clermont-Ganneau to be the rock still called Zahweileh (“the slippery”), close to the village of Silwân, and opposite the cave spring already described, which is the only spring on this side of Jerusalem. Neither Josephus nor any ancient pilgrim speaks of the well in question before 1184 A. D., when it was cleared out. There is no doubt that this well is ancient, but how old it is not easy to say. It is now 125 feet deep, and at 113 feet below the surface the old well-shaft rises from a rock-cut cave below. After the rains, in March, when the Kidron is full of water beneath the surface, a stream here rises to the surface, and flows down the valley for some distance. West of the well is a remarkable aqueduct, with another rock reservoir fed by two channels. This aqueduct is 90 feet below the rock surface, and runs south for 600 yards. It was discovered by Sir Charles Warren in 1869, and he suggests that this may be the “brook that flowed through the midst of the earth” which has been noticed above. These works were evidently intended for the storage of the winter rain waters; but, on the other hand, the description of the tunnel, with its flights of steps leading to the water, recalls the aqueduct of Cæsarea,[91] which is certainly not older than the time of Herod, and may be considerably later. Whatever be the age of these remarkable waterworks, they have no connection with a “spring,” such as we must suppose En-rogel to have been.

WATER SUPPLY

The fortress of the upper city was not, however, dependent entirely on the natural supply of water in the Kidron Valley, or—afterwards—at Siloam. Even in the time of Nehemiah another spring existed on the west side of Jerusalem, in the upper part of the Valley of Hinnom.[92] It was called the “Spring of the Monster,” or, according to the Greek translators (who regarded the word as Aramaic), the “Spring of the Figs.” It appears to have been unknown to Josephus, though he speaks of the “Serpent’s Pool”—apparently the present Mâmilla reservoir, which was called the “Upper Pool” in the time of Hezekiah. The “Spring of the Monster” seems to have been buried under the rubbish which has partly filled the Hinnom Valley, but in the Jebusite age it no doubt formed a supply on the west side of the upper city. It is also possible that the rock-cut tank within the city, immediately north of Zion (now called the “Patriarch’s Bath,” or “Hezekiah’s Pool”), was already ancient in Hezekiah’s time, when it was known as the “Lower Pool,”[93] and that it also supplied the original Jebus. There is, in addition to these supplies, another probably of great antiquity west of the Temple, outside the north-east corner of the upper city. This is now known as the Ḥammâm esh Shefa,[94] or “healing bath,” and it is connected with an ancient rock aqueduct which has been partly cut across by the Herodian wall of the Temple enclosure. This channel is now 60 feet under ground and 20 feet under a pavement which is older than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D.; it is apparently even older than the time of Pompey’s siege in 63 B. C., since a voussoir of the bridge then existing has fallen into the aqueduct. The shaft to the “healing bath” itself is now 86 feet deep, and—at the bottom—a vaulted passage of the Roman or Byzantine age leads to the original cave, which has a conduit opening out on the south side. The shaft is comparatively modern throughout, and the cave must have been on the surface in the Jebusite age. It receives the drainage of the valley (now filled in by some 40 to 80 feet of rubbish), which has its head outside the Damascus Gate north of the city. This supply was carried down the Tyropœon valley, on the east side of the upper city, apparently to Siloam.

The water-supply has been thus described in detail, because it is often assumed that the Jebusite city must have depended entirely on the En-rogel spring in the Kidron ravine, which was clearly not the case; but, even if it were so, it would not follow that the Jebusite town must have stood on Ophel, for cities in Palestine were built on the highest and strongest sites available, even if these were not very near the springs. Thus at Samaria the springs are a mile away from the nearest point of the city wall on the east, and other instances might be cited where cities, like Tyre and Cæsarea, depended on water brought by an aqueduct from a distance of some miles. Jerusalem, before the time of Pilate, depended entirely for water on the rainfall of a comparatively small area east of the Judæan watershed; but, as we have seen, the storage of this natural supply in caves and tanks gave a sufficient amount of water on each side of the upper city, and the various rock channels served to bring this supply close under, and within, the city walls. There is therefore no difficulty in supposing that Josephus is right in describing the upper city of his own times as having been the “mountain top of Zion” captured by David.

ZION

The name Zion was older than David’s time. Since the fourth century A. D. it has always been applied to the hill of the upper city, and it may have been so placed in the earliest ages. But in the Bible it is not restricted to this position, but appears as a poetical name for Jerusalem at large. Josephus never uses this name, but speaks of “Jerusalem” instead. Zion is mentioned 154 times in the Old Testament, but only four passages[95]—all referring to early times—are in the historical narratives, the large majority of the other notices being in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Psalms. Zion was a city with gates, and a “holy hill.” It is constantly used as a name equivalent to Jerusalem. It had walls and towers and “dwelling-places”; it is “the city of Jehovah, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel,” a high mountain, and a “city of solemnities.” It has been thought that, in the Greek age, the name applies specially to the Temple hill, but the passages cited do not really necessitate this conclusion. Ancient names are commonly preserved in the poetry of a nation, and Zion was a very ancient word, which—as we have seen—may possibly have meant a “chief’s abode,” or a “god’s abode,” even when the Hittites and Amorites still held Jerusalem, and when it was the sacred city of Melchizedek, long before the Temple of Jehovah was built on the ridge outside, at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Hence it is in the poetry of the prophets and psalmists of Israel that the name Zion occurs; and, though there is nothing really wrong in the Christian application of the word to the south-western hill, yet the term is only vaguely equivalent to the city generally. But there is one quarter to which it should not be solely applied—namely, the small spur which is called Ophel in the Bible.