Archæology and the Bible

by George A. Barton

(1) Millo.—After occupying his new capital David “built round about from Millo and inward” (2 Sam. 5:9). What was Millo? This is a great puzzle, and there are many varying opinions about it. The word literally means a “filling,” and is employed in Assyrian for the building up of a terrace on which a building may be erected. It may have been a “filling” on the line of the valley that separated the hill of the citadel of David from Moriah or the temple hill. It would seem to have been on the edge of the city, since David built from there “inward.” Some have supposed it to be a fortress, and the Septuagint translated it by “akra,” which means “citadel.” Some have thought of it as a fort, others as a solid tower. If on the line of the valley mentioned, it may have been at the northeast corner, or at the northwest corner of the town. Some have supposed that it was at the southern end of the eastern hill in order to protect a pool there. Just below the southern end of the eastern hill in the valley of the Kidron lay the “King’s Gardens,” and just across the valley, the village of Siloah. In 2 Kings 12:20 it is said that Joash was killed in Millo, leading down to Silla. We know of no Silla. Is it a corruption of the Hebrew word for “shade” or is it a corruption of Siloah? In the former case the reference might be to the King’s Gardens, in the latter to the village of Siloah. Either of these suppositions would favor a site for Millo at the south end of the hill, but the words “leading down to Silla” may have had quite a different origin and meaning.[235] We must, therefore, confess that the location of Millo cannot at present be determined.

(2) David’s Reign.—As David’s reign advanced and his success in war compelled neighboring nations to pay tribute, probably the population of Jerusalem increased. Such an increase would naturally lead to the erection of houses outside the walls, as it has in recent times. It is altogether probable that a settlement on the western hill was thus begun in the reign of David. There is no hint, however, that he took any steps to enclose such a settlement within a wall. The phrase “the way of the gate” in 2 Sam. 15:2 implies that there was still but one gate in the walls. This is in striking contrast to the number of gates in later times. The only record that we have of further action on David’s part that affected the future growth of Jerusalem refers to the way in which he took over the rock on Mount Moriah and the sacred cave under it and made a sanctuary to Jehovah. (See 2 Sam. 24.) This action, at a later time, determined the site of the temple.

7. Solomon’s Jerusalem.—David left Jerusalem a military fortress; Solomon transformed it into a city with imposing buildings. This creation of a more imposing city was in accord with the general character of Solomon’s reign. He established a large harem, made marriage alliances with many neighboring kings, maintained such an establishment that it was necessary to make a regular levy on a different portion of the country each month for supplies, and endeavored to make his capital as splendid as the capital of a rich commercial Phœnician monarch. Such a policy necessitated, probably, the enlargement of Jerusalem. David, who began life as a shepherd-boy, was content to live the simple life to the end; Solomon, born to the purple, desired to surround himself with a pomp befitting his rank. The Biblical writers were more interested in the construction of the temple and of Solomon’s palace than in any other phase of his work, but they have left us some hints of his activities in other directions.

They tell us that he “built Millo and the wall of Jerusalem” (1 Kings 9:15), that he “built the wall of Jerusalem round about” (1 Kings 3:1), and that he “built Millo and repaired the breach in the city of David, his father” (1 Kings 11:27). Evidently Millo had fallen into disrepair since David rebuilt it, and the walls of the city of David on the eastern hill were also in need of repairs. These repairs he made, but did he go further? It is intrinsically probable that he did. The king who fortified Hazor in Naphtali, Megiddo, Gezer, Beth-horon, Baalath, and Tamar would hardly leave a large suburb of his capital on the western hill unfortified. The statement that he “built the wall of Jerusalem round about,” while it does not clearly state that he did more than fortify the “city of David” on Zion, seems to imply that he did. This view is strengthened by Bliss’s discovery on the western hill of some walls that connected once with a great fortress at the southwest corner of the western hill, which he believed to be the work of Solomon.

The site of this fortress is now occupied by “Bishop Gobat’s School,” an English foundation for the education of native boys. When the school was rebuilt in 1874 Mr. Henry Maudsley examined the surface of the rock, which is escarped, or cut perpendicularly, for about 100 feet to the southeast of the school and 43 feet north of it. The scarp is about 40 feet high at the highest point; ([Fig. 242]). The school is built on a large projection of the scarp 45 feet square and 20 feet high. The surface of the rock under the school bears unmistakable signs that there was once an ancient tower there. To the eastward of this Bliss discovered the foundations of an ancient tower. Beyond this to the east there was a deep rock-cut ditch. The tower on its northeast corner fitted into another rock-scarp which ran northward into land on which they could not excavate.[236] The deep rock-cut ditch or moat at the east of the scarp suggests that at the period of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1188 A. D., this fortress formed the fortification of the southwest corner of the city, from which the wall ran off sharply in a direction a little east of north. This view is confirmed by the discovery which Bliss made of a wall, apparently built by the Crusaders, that ran in a north-easterly direction by an irregular course along the high part of the western hill toward the temple area. As this wall rested on remains of the Roman time it cannot well have belonged to a time earlier than the crusading period. May not, then, Maudsley’s scarp itself have been cut by the Crusaders who were most energetic and masterly builders? This seems hardly probable, for Josephus, in describing the course of the wall on the west side of the western hill, says that beginning at Herod’s palace (the modern Turkish fortress) the wall ran southward through a place called “Bethso.”[237] Bethso is a corruption of Beth-zur, which means rock-fortress—an apt description of the tower on Maudsley’s scarp. As Josephus makes no mention of the construction of a fortress at this point by Herod, it was probably built at an earlier period. The writer holds with Bliss that it is probable that the original fortress on the site of Bishop Gobat’s School was constructed by Solomon and that he enclosed the top of the western hill with a wall. Whether that wall simply enclosed the top of the hill and followed something of the same course as the wall of the Crusaders mentioned above (so Bliss thinks), or whether it ran down the eastern slope of the western hill to the southern point of the “City of David,” it is impossible now to determine.

The view that Solomon extended the city to the western hill cannot be proved, since there is no definite reference in the Bible to the western hill in the time of Solomon, and there is no inscription on the masonry found definitely to connect it with him. In consideration of all the conditions it seems probable that Solomon enclosed a part of the western hill. If so, the wall built by Solomon on the north side of the western hill was probably on the line of what Josephus called the “first wall.” This wall, was rebuilt from time to time. The débris of a part of it seems still to be in place at the east end of “David Street” in modern Jerusalem. A short street, high above the surrounding levels, now runs on the top of this débris.[238]

(1) Site of Solomon’s Buildings.—Concerning the building of Solomon’s palace and the temple there can be no doubt, for the Bible contains accounts of the construction of these. Their general location is also well known. They were across the little valley which separated the part of Zion called Ophel (where the city of David was situated) from the part sometimes called Moriah.[239] This hill-top included the threshing-floor of Araunah, the Jebusite (2 Sam. 24), and Solomon now enclosed this with a wall. Sir Charles Warren believed that he found portions of this wall at the southeast angle of the ancient temple area, 80 feet below the present surface of the ground. During his excavations in the years 1867-1870 he sunk at this point a shaft to the native rock, from the bottom of which a tunnel was carried inward to the base of the wall. He found twenty-one courses of drafted stones below the surface at this point, and the stones in the lower courses bore quarry marks which resemble old Hebrew or Phœnician characters.[240] The lower courses of stones were from 3 feet 6 inches to 4 feet 3½ inches in height. Some of the characters were cut in the stones; some painted on them. It is most probable that these were remains of the work of Solomon; (see Figs. [244], [245], and [246]).

The enclosure of this hill-top with a wall set it apart from the rest of Jerusalem. It was a kind of separate fortress. At the time it emphasized the majesty of Solomon—his apartness from his people. This separate enclosure of the temple hill was perpetuated through the whole history of Jerusalem and is maintained today. In all periods the temple hill has been a fortress that could be defended apart from the city.

(2) Solomon’s Temple.—Of the form and situation of the buildings of Solomon on the hill that was enclosed by this new wall, there is a wide diversity of opinion. This diversity arises in part from the fact that some scholars take at their face value statements of Josephus, the Talmud, and other late sources concerning Solomon’s temple, while others attribute less weight to the statements of those sources which were written long after this temple was destroyed, and base their views rather on the earlier documents. The last is the only sound method of study, and is the course followed here. We shall take as evidence of the plan and situation of the buildings the Biblical writers who had seen them.

We are at the start confronted, however, with a difficulty, since no Biblical writer has given us an exact statement as to what part of the hill Solomon’s temple occupied. Most modern scholars hold, nevertheless, that it was built at the highest point of the hill just west of the sacred cave, which has already been mentioned,[241] and the old rock-altar above it. This view is confirmed by Josephus[242] and is undoubtedly correct, although three or four modern scholars have doubted it. The temple would naturally be built near the spot where the angel is said to have appeared to David (2 Sam. 24:16), and as angels are frequently represented in the Old Testament as appearing upon rocks (see Judges 6:11, f.; 13:19)[243] it is altogether probable that the appearance to David was on the rock-altar at the top of the hill. On this rock the animals for sacrifice were slain, as the conduits for blood still visible on its top indicate. Near it, then, or on it the altar of burnt-offerings stood. We learn from Ezekiel, who had served as a priest in the temple of Solomon, that the temple faced the east, that it stood to the west of the altar, and that there was room between the temple and the altar for twenty-five men. (See Ezek. 8:16.) The temple was a rectangular building with its greatest length running east and west. Its measurements were 124 feet for the length, 50 for the breadth, and 55 for the height. It was constructed of stones and cedar beams. The outer temple, afterward called the holy place, was 70 feet long, 34½ feet wide, and 52 feet high. Back of it was the holy of holies, where the ark was placed. It was a cube 34½ feet each way. Apparently there was a chamber above it.[244] This room was adorned with carvings of cherubim, palms, and open flowers (1 Kings 6:29, 32, 35). It had no window. According to 2 Chron. 3:14, it was separated from the holy place by a veil. The holy place contained the table of show-bread and ten golden lamp-stands (1 Kings 7:49).[245] The lattice work high up in the walls of this room (1 Kings 6:4) can have admitted only an uncertain light. The building was richly adorned with cedar and gold. It consisted of three stories, and the walls were of varying thickness, since ledges were built in them to receive the beams of the different stories. Each story contained a series of chambers for storage or the use of the priests. Those of the first story were five cubits wide, those of the second six, and those of the third seven; (see [Figs. 247-249]).