Encyclopaedia Biblica/Jerioth-Jesu

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


(n llPT, 75 ; iep[e]ico6 [AL]), one of the wives of CALEB (q.v. ) ; perhaps originally a placename, i Ch. 2i8 (eAioo9 [B]). See AZUBAH.


(DtfTV, Amm fights 1 [see AMMI, NAMES WITH, 3]. More probably a modification of SJHT, JERUBBAAL [like cjne", JASHOBEAM, from Sj,*3c" = Vj?3 B -N] ; cp te/>o/3aa\, Hos. 10 14 [AQ a ], where < B Q* has tfpojBoa/j. ; so Klost. \Gesch. 189] and Marq. [Fund. 15]; Gray, HPN 59 ( 96) and Ki. [Kon. 99] adhere to the usual Heb. sense of ay. people ; Ki. the clan is numerous ; cp the doubt as to the meaning of Hammurabi (see HAM) ; a play on the name seems at any rate to be proved [see REHOBOAM] ; ifpopoa/j, [BAL]).

I. Jeroboam I., the first king of N. Israel (circ. 930 B.C. ). Dean Stanley's sketch of this king (Smith s DB, s. v. ) was based on the separate account contained in i K. 12:25-39 (Lag.), or 11:43b-12:14a (Swete), which is Lucian's text of @ (cp TEXT AND VERSIONS, 52^). Recently the same line has been taken by some good critics. It conduces greatly to a genuine comprehen sion of Jeroboam, especially if the underlying text be first of all carefully purified from its errors. We thus arrive at the following view of the rise of Jeroboam. He was an Ephraimite of the clan of Nabat or Nabath (va/3ar, vafia.0 ; cp Naboth) ; but his mother came from the same N. Arabian land of Musri 2 to which the mother of Hadad III. of Edom belonged. This half- Arabian extraction is of importance not only with reference to his name [see above], but also as illustrating the second chapter of his history. It did not lessen his Israelitish sympathy ; but it gave him a second home to flee to. His abilities soon marked him out as a leader of men ; Solomon, we are told, made him superintendent (Apxavra. ~^>5 ~&, i K. 12:28 BL) of the corvee imposed on the Ephraimites (cp DISTRICT). Jeroboam, no doubt, felt patriotic or tribal indignation at Solomon s despotism, and also saw in the situation great possi bilities for himself. He fortified his native city (not Zereda, but Tirzah, or rather Bethzur ; see TIRZAH), nominally perhaps for Solomon (12:29 < BL ), but really for himself, and, like the equally ambitious Absalom (if in 28. 15 1 we render chariots ; see <S) procured chariots and horses, a sign of his pretensions to the throne, and of his readiness for warlike operations. (The Greek actually fixes the number of the chariots at 300. ) Jeroboam had not sufficiently matured his plans, however, and he escaped the punishment which Solomon designed for him only by a hasty flight to the country of his mother. There he enjoyed the protection, not of course of Shishak, 1 but of Pir u, king of Musri ; the statement that he married an Egyptian princess implies a confusion of his story with that of Hadad (see HADAD, 3).

1 So Neubauer, Sayce, Hommel (ZDMG, 95, p. 526), Che UQR 11 559 f 99])-

2 See JQR, I.e. In i K. 1126 = 1228 L, nyrix, Hfff* and njll (BL n-dpiTj) are all, most probably, corruptions of !"J "}!>p. The true text is approached by , o E<j>pa&et c/c [TTJS] 2optipa uio yucoKcbs xrjpas (i K. 11 26 BL), i.e., fiytf]3 IIS rT33 Vrr.N- rv^i D. Fora similar critical conjecture, see HADAD, 3, and cp MIZRAIM.

On the death of Solomon , Jeroboam returned to Tirzah 2 (Bethzur), strong in the consciousness of his unimpaired popularity. Though he doubtless knew the incapacity of the son of Solomon, he was too wise to commit any overt act of rebellion, and suffered Rehoboam to assume the crown. If Lucian s text can be trusted, it was during this period that his son Abijah fell sick and" died ; it is not very likely, however, that such was the meaning of the original tradition. Another statement of Lucian s text, which apparently relates to this period, is that he fortified i.e. , still further fortified his native city (12:39 L, 12:24/. B). One can hardly believe even this. Rehoboam would surely not have ventured to Shechem without a bodyguard 3 if his father s old enemy had made himself so strong. At any rate, Jeroboam must have arranged the details of his plot when, as Lucian s text states, he went to Shechem which is in Mount Ephraim, and assembled there all the tribes of [northern ?] Israel, and Rehoboam (a N. Israelite on his mother s side ; see REHOBOAM), son of Solomon, went up thither (<5 L , i K. 13:14, < B 12:24 n. ). The heads of the tribes laid their wishes before Rehoboam ; they depre cated a continuance of the old despotic policy. Reho boam acted as Jeroboam foresaw that he would. By his arrogant answer to the tribesmen he pronounced sentence on himself and his dynasty.

Of Jeroboam's subsequent history we have only fragmentary notices. Shishaks predatory invasion extended to N. Israel (see EGYPT, 63, and SHISHAK) ; did the bold usurper make no attempt to oppose it? Had the fortification of Penuel, a place on the E. of the Jordan, any connection with this raid? 4 That Shechem also was fortified, needs, of course, no explanation. There was the possible danger of an invasion from Judah. The narrative in i K. 1221-24 may perhaps be believed when it states that the Judahites on one great occasion retreated, though in its present form it is un acceptable (see Ki. ) ; but there is no detailed statement of successes of Jeroboam, and we know that the war was handed on by Rehoboam to his successors. 5 Jero boam also directed his attention to religion. The redactor of Kings had before him a record of certain important changes effected by this king, who aimed, on political grounds, at severing the religious intercourse between Israel and Judah. A great yearly festival was appointed on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the festival in Judah, and two golden or gilded images in the form of bulls were placed in the sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan (see CALF, GOLDEN ; IDOLATRY, 6). These images were in the eyes of the redactor the 'sin of Jeroboam, which he made Israel to sin', 1 and which ultimately ruined, not only the house of Jeroboam, but also the kingdom of Israel.

1 pwtff in i K. 11 40 is an interpolation, or rather perhaps v. 40 has taken the place of some fuller, as well as more accurate, statements.

2 So L at 12 39 (Lag. =12 24.x:, B in Sw.), and originally MX of 11 40 (cp 12 2 MX and 11 43 B).

3 i K. 12 18 clearly implies this.

So Stade. 5 So Kittel.

The three narratives in which prophets appear (i K. 11:29-39 14:1-18 and 13:1-32) cannot be treated as historical. Xhe last of the three expresses a purely mechanical conception of prophecy. Xhe other two are the expressions of a faith that God directs human affairs which is religiously valuable ; they are none the less idealising constructions of history. It is possible, however, that Jeroboam had friendly relations with a prophet residing at Shiloh named Ahijah (in i K. 11:29 for D Sc lTD read D lSED, 2 from Mizrim (Musri). Xhe northern prophets were of course on Jeroboam s side. Possibly too a son of Jeroboam, named Abijah, may have fallen sick and died, though the circumstance that <B BL makes Abijah the son of Jeroboam s Egyptian wife, may suggest scepticism as to Abijah s existence. Xhe death of Abijah would naturally be interpreted as a sign of the divine dis pleasure, at any rate by those unfriendly to Jeroboam. On the criticism of the Jeroboam-narratives see Klostermann (especially on the text), Winckler (A T Untersuch. 1-15, GI 2 273), Benz. and Ki. (comm.), and Cheyne (JQR 11 556.^ [ 99]).

2. Jeroboam II. ben Joash, fourth king of the line of Jehu (782-743 B.C.). The fragmentary account in 2 K. 14:23-29 permits us to see that the compiler knew more about Jeroboam than he has cared to communicate. 'The rest of the matters of Jeroboam, and his martial prowess, and how he warred all this' has no interest for the writer, who is absorbed in the thought of the approaching captivity of Israel, and regards Jeroboam's successes against foreign foes as only a breathing-time granted to Israel in mercy (2 K. 18:23). Even what he communicates has not come down to us in a per fectly intelligible form. 3 We can understand the statement in 2 K. 14:25 that Jeroboam recovered the territory of Israel from the approach to Hamath (the old Solomonic northern limit) as far as the sea of the Arabah (i.e. , the Dead Sea), and we can realise that this must have involved victories over Aram. When we are told, however, that he recovered Damascus, and Hamath [which had belonged] to Judah, for Israel (v. 28 RV), we are perplexed. The Assyrian king Ram- man-nirari (see ASSYRIA, 32) would never have allowed Jeroboam to conquer Damascus, 4 and, as for Hamath, it never did belong to Judah the supposed Assyrio- logical evidence (see UZZIAH) having proved to be illusory. The original text must simply have said that N. Israelitish regions which had been conquered by Aram were recovered by Jeroboam, and we may perhaps discern underneath the present text the statement and how he recovered Manasseh and Ramoth-gilead from the hand of Benhadad son of Hazael. 5 Jeroboam II. was in fact the helper or saviour anticipated by the prophet JONAH [^.^.]. Of his other warlike enterprises, no information has reached us. Probably he continued to exercise, or at least to claim, suzerainty over Judah ; at any rate Azariah does not appear to have followed the bad example of Amaziah (2 K. 14:8-14). Many scholars (e.g., Ewald) infer from z K. 14 25 that Jeroboam conquered the land of Moab. Certainly the description does not absolutely forbid this view, which is recommended to some by the light which it may seem to throw on the oracle of Moab in Is. 15-16:12. 6

On the other hand, it is very far from certain that Is. 15-16:12 is a pre-exilic work (see ISAIAH ii. , 9), and we may fairly suppose that if Jeroboam had really made such an important conquest, the redactor would have referred to it in distinct terms. Enough reason, however, remains for regarding Jeroboam II. as the most successful of the N. Israelitish kings, and we may be sure that in more ideal aspects his long reign deserved to be remembered. It was probably in this period that the Elohist (E) wrote, and the prophetic ministry of Amos and Hosea certainly falls in Jeroboam s time. The records of these prophets supplement to some extent the scanty fragments of contemporary history. T. K. c.

1 The phrase occurs constantly in Kings, but nowhere in Chronicles. Ben-Sira has it once (Ecclus. 4723). a Cp BL j K. 11 43*. Klo. Dp.SSD, from Egypt.

3 See Ewald, Hist. 4 124, n. 3 ; and especially Klo. and Ben- zinger, ad loc.

4 GASm. is content with supposing that he occupied at least part of the territory of Damascus (Twelve Prophets, 1 32).

5 Wirrp mnf p TD! ty^i navrmi ntnoviN. Cp2K. 1033; also i K. 22 3 2 K. 8 28. Xhe latter part is from Klostermann. Winckler s suggestion (Gesch. 148) is too hazardous; Ew. s (G VI 8603) and Schr. s (COT \ 208) are quite inadequate.

6 In this case the announcement of the destruction of Moab in Am. 2:2 received a speedy fulfilment, and it is perhaps not an accident that the earliest OX mention of the important Moabite city Keriyy5th (see KERIOTH), occurs in this eighth century prophet (Am. 2:2). On the other hand, when some critics use Am. 6:14 ( from the approach to Hamath as far as the Wady of the Arabah ) to prove that Israel s territory extended over Moab, we must for various reasons decline to follow them. Cp Wellhausen, ad loc. F.B.


(DITV, pitied [by God], 53 ; iepo&M [AL] ; but in r. , at all events, reads perhaps rightly [so Dr.] JERAHMEEL [?..]; i S. 1 1 iepe/v\6HA [B], lepeMmA [L]> and i Ch. 627 [12] 34 [19], lepAM&HA [L]).

i. Samuel's grandfather (i S. 1:1 i Ch. 6:27-34 [12-19], i&atp, ijaoA [B], tepo|3oa/A, iepea/A [Al). The name is more probably a gentilic and should be read Jerahmeel (cp above) ; it thus corre sponds to the Ephraimite gentilic Tohu (= Tahan, or Tahath). The seer's ancestry appears then as a combination of two separate genealogies which trace his origin to the clans of Jerahmeel and Tahan respectively (so Marq. Fund. izx, cp TAHATH, TOHU). For the suggestion that 'Jerahmeel' refers really to Eli's origin see JERAHMEEL, 3. The names Tahan, Tahath, etc. remind one of the Judaean Jahath - a descendant of Shobal (also Calebite), which is possibly the parent of the name Samuel, see JAHATH.

2. b. Hushim in a genealogy of BENJAMIN ( 9, ii. /3) ; see ]QR 11 103, i. i Ch. 8 27 (i/paajm [B], lepea/u. [L]). JEREMOTH in v. 14 is probably a corruption of the name.

3. A Benjamite, father of Ibneiah (i Ch. 98, ipaa/ix [B]).

4. Father of Adaiah, a priest of the b ne Immer in a list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (EZRA ii., $[6], 15 [i]), i Ch. 9 12 (ipao.fi [B], lep. [A]) = Neh. 11 12 (om. BK*, ipo.|ix [tfC.a mg. inf.]).

5. A Benjamite of Gedor, one of David s warriors (i Ch. 12 7, paap. [BN]). See DAVID, n, c, col. 1031.

6. A Danite, father of Azareel (i Ch. 27 22, iiopofi [BA]).

7. Father of Azariah (2 Ch. 23 i, iiupan [HAL]).


iepoBA&A [BAL] ; but in Judg. 632 A.pB&A,A [B], AIK&CTHPION TOY B&&A [A] ; 7 1 lApBAA [B]; ipoB&^A [A]; 829 ie<\po- [B] ; i S. 12 ii ifpofioafj. [B] ; 2 S. 11 21, JERUBBESHETH, iepo-BOAM [BA], -<\A [L] ; C P JEROBOAM), a second name of Gideon, or perhaps the name of a second hero whose career has been fused by the narrator with that of Gideon (Judg. 632 7 1 etc.).

Explained in Judg. 632 as if 'Let Baal contend', though the narrative itself rather implies 'He who fights against Baal'. Wellhausen (TBS, 37) suggests Jerubbaal= Jeruel= Jirmejahu, -i.e., 'he whom God bas founded'(f0unds). But JERUEL [g.u.] is very doubtful, and Jerubbaal may be = Urubaal, i.e., 'city of Baal', or may come from Jerahmeel. Areli, or rather Uriel, was a Gadite ; so perhaps was Jerubbaal. See ARELI, GIDEON, JERUBBESHETH. T. K. C.


(HB a^ ; for see JERUBBAAL), the form assumed by the name Jerubbaal in MT of 28. 11 21. Besheth is usually supposed to \x. = bosheth, shame ; Jerubbesheth, for Jerubbaal, would thus be || to Ishbosheth for Ishbaal. For Jastrow's divergent view (Beseth = Bast, a Babylonian deity) see ISHBOSHETH.


(S-r^, iepmA[BAL], reads differently). The wilderness of Jeruel was the place where Jehoshaphat was directed by JAHAZIEL to look for the invading army. The enemy had mounted the ascent of Hazziz (see Ziz), and reached a ivddy C?m), the upper part of which was before l this wilderness (2 Ch.20i6).

Jeruel may in all probability be emended to Sxjn! -, Jezreel in Judah the situation of which (near Cain, Carmel, and Maon) suits the description in 2 Ch. 20. No doubt the watch-tower in the wilderness (v. 24) was a well-known landmark. See JEZREEL, 2. T. K. C.



  • Name (1-2).
    • Excavations (3).
    • Site of city (4-7).
    • Site of temple (8-9).
    • City walls (10).
    • Water-supply (11).
    • Earliest times (12).
    • David (13-15, 21).
    • City of David (16-20).
    • Pre-exilic (22-23).
    • Nehemiah's walls and gates (24).
    • Persian and Greek times (25-26).
    • The Akra (27).
    • Last century B.C. (28-29).
    • NT times (30-31).
    • 70 A.D. : walls (32-33).
    • Later ( 34-36).
  • Bibliography ( 37).

1 The 1611 version has lerusalem in the OT and Apoc., but Hierusalem in the NT.

2 See Ges. T/ies., s.v.

1. The name.[edit]

The English spelling of the name Jerusalem which is common to many modern languages was derived by the AV of 16 1, through the Vulgate, from the LXX lepoyC&AHM. [IEROUSALEM] 1 and approximates to what was probably the earlier pronunciation in Hebrew, 'Yerushalem'. Yet notice, below, the persistence with which, through Assyrian, Syriac, and Arabic, the initial syllable is given as Ur-.

The pronunciation 'Yerushalaim' (D7Ch"Vj in pause D_7.ENT) was adopted by the Massoretes in conformity with the fuller spelling 'Yerushalayim' (D ?C")T) which appears in five passages of the OT (or, according to Baer, in three, Jer. 26:18, Esth. 26 2 Ch. 32:9; in the other two, i Ch. 3:5 and 2 Ch. 25:1, Baer reads D^) as well as upon some Jewish coins, which belong either to the reign of Simon the Maccabee, 142-135 B.C., or to the revolu tion against Rome, 66-70 A.D. (Eckhel, Doctr. Nummoru>n, 3^66^., Madden, Coins of the Jews, 66-71 ; cp Schiir. Hist. 2379^-)- The termination D _ has been variously explained as a dual indicative of the double city, 2 or as a local termination (Barth, NB 194 c. n. i). This fuller spelling, however, occurs only in later passage? and inscriptions, and is probably due to the same attempt as was made to convert other geographical terms into a Hebrew form (cp Del. Par. 182). The earlier spelling of the consonants, the Greek transliteration, Iepoi>o-aAr)fi, the Aramaic Yerushlem (oSchT, EzraS^Cg; D/ffc Fi Ezra 4:20 24:51 ; cp 4:12 52 Dan. 5:2-3)and the Hebrew contraction D^B* (Ps. 76:3 iv eip>jvr)), 2 prove that the earlier Hebrew pronunciation was Yerushalem. Cp SALEM.

In the Tell el-Amarna letters, circa 1400 B.C., the name appears as U-ru (or Uru)-sa-lim (Berlin collection, Nos. 103, 106, 109 ; Winckler, Thontafeln von Tell el- Am., 306, 312, 314; Sayce, RP^, 5 60 ff. 72 /.).

Compare the Syriac Urishlem, tt^j^JO/. On the Assyrian monuments the transliteration is Ur-sa-li-im- mu (Del. Par. 288, Schr. COT ^214). [See further Haupt, Isaiah, SBOT (Heb. ), appendix to note on Win, Is. 29 L]

Various etymologies have been suggested both for the Hebrew and for the cuneiform forms of the name; but the original meaning still remains uncertain.

On the supposition that the name was originally Hebrew, several derivations (besides the Rabbinic fancies, 'sight' or 'fear of peace' ) have been proposed : e.g., cSs? B*n^, 'possession of peace' (Rel. and others), and oW IV (from nv) 'foundation of peace' or 'of Shalem' (Ges. Thes. s.v. ; Buhl, Lex.V-), s.v. nV > Grill, ZATIV, li^ff. [ 84]). Sayce interprets the cuneiform U-ru-sa-lim as 'city of (the god) Salim' (A />C 2 ) 56i, Crit. Man. 176); but his reading of a line of the letter (Berlin Coll. 106) in which he says this fact is plainly stated is not confirmed by other scholars, and Zimmern (ZA, 91, p. 263) opposes his interpretation.

Later forms of the name are due to the fashion which prevailed in the Greek period for Hellenising Hebrew proper names.

This is responsible for the initial aspirate in the lepoucroAr;^, and for such forms as IcpocroAujoia the sacred Solyma, 2oAt>M a (probably from Shalem) having been, according to Josephus (BJ vi. 10 1), the original name of the city. 1 Philo calls it lepoTroAts. The NT^has both lepoucraATjju. and T<X Iepoo-oA.uju.a, the Vg. in different codd. Hierusalem and Hicrosolyma, and lerusalem and Icrosolyma. The Greek and the Latin classical writers use I<?po<roAv/,a. (e.g. Polyb. 163/1), Hierosolyma (e.g.-, Pliny, NH 5 14).

2. Name of Hadrian's city.[edit]

When Hadrian rebuilt the city after destroying it in 135-136 A.D. , he named it AElia Capitolina (see ISRAEL, 115).

Hence Ptolemy's KaTrtroAias [kapitolias]. AElia was for long the official name (so also with Euseb. AiAia, and Jer. sElia in the OS) and even passed over into Arabic as Iliya (Yakut 4:592). One of the Arabic forms of the Hebrew name preserves the first vowel of the cuneiform transliteration, Aurishalamu (Yakut 386) : other forms are Shalamu, Shallamu (Le Strange, Pal , under Moslems, 83). The Arabs, however, commonly designate Jerusalem by epithets expressive of its sanctity, Beit el-Makdis, el-Mukaddas, el -Mukadclis (Yakut 4590; Taj el-Arus 4214), or in the modern vernacular, el-Kuds esh-Sherif, or more briefly el-Kuds, the sanctuary." Compare the full designation on the Jewish coins cited above, nCHp DTtT or rtBHpn D StyV) ar >d tne NT designation TJ ayi a TroAis, Mt. 4$ 2753. Modern Jews, Levantines, and native Christians use the Arabic form Yerusalim. 2

G. A. S.

1 Cp CHERITH, col. 740, n. 3.

2 Whether the narrator of Gen. 14 18 means Jerusalem by Salem, the city of Melchizedek, is still disputed, and the decision of the question is embarrassed by the uncertainty attaching to the date of his narrative. If the chapter is early, Salem can hardly mean Jerusalem ; but many critics now assign to it a very late date (WRS). [Cp MELCHIZEDEK.]


3. Excavations.[edit]

The history of Jerusalem exploration dates from the year 1833, when Bonomi, Catherwood, and Arundale succeeded in obtaining admission into the Haram enclosure and made the first survey of its buildings. In 1838 and 1852 the city was visited by the famous American traveller Robinson, and his bold impeachment of the traditional topography, whilst raising a storm of controversy, laid the foundation of a truer understanding of the antiquities of Jerusalem.

In 1849 Jerusalem was surveyed by Lieutenants Aldrich and Symonds of the Royal Engineers, and maps by Vandevelde, Thrupp, Barclay, and others were subsequently published. In 1860-63 De Vogue explored the site of the temple.

All these earlier attempts were, however, superseded in 1866 by the ordnance survey executed by Captain (now Lieut. -General Sir Charles) Wilson, R.E. , whose plans of the city and its environs, and of the Haram enclosure and other public buildings are the standard authorities on which all subsequent work has been based. During the years 1867-70 excavations of a most adventurous description were carried on by Captain (now Lieut. -General Sir Charles) Warren, R.E. The results, especially in the vicinity of the Haram, were of primary importance, and many stoutly contested theories have now succumbed to the testimony of the spade.

During 1872-75 some further explorations were carried on by Lieutenant (now Lieut. -Colonel) Conder, R.E. [In 1874 Mr. Henry Maudslay examined the rock cuttings and scarps W. of the Coenaculum above W. er-Rababi. Later Herr Guthe made some excavations, discovering the continuation of the wall partly laid bare by Warren to the S. of the temple Area ;] 3 while for many years a most valuable series of observations of the levels of the rock beneath the rubbish on which the modern city stands was carried out by Herr C. Schick, architect. 4 [In 1881 the Siloam inscription was accidentally discovered near the mouth of the tunnel l leading from the Virgin's Spring (see CONDUITS, The erection of many modern buildings has led to the discovery from year to year both of original levels and of ancient structures reared upon them. Finally, from 1894 to 1897 the Palestine Exploration Fund conducted a series of underground explora tions to the S. of the present city. Starting from the end of Maudslay s excavations at the Protestant Cemetery to the S. of the Coenaculum, Mr. F. J. Bliss, assisted by Mr. A. C. Dickie, laid bare a line of walls (of various dates) round the S. end of the W. hill, across the mouth of the Tyropoeon and thence N. along Ophel above the Kidron valley. Their work included also excavations and the discovery of levels within this area : the recovery of a fifth -century chapel at Siloam, of the wall of Eudocia (about 450 A.D.) enclosing the Siloam pool; and of the Crusader's wall on the SW. hill, dating 1243 A.D., which enclosed the Church of the Apostles. Stairs also were found leading up the Tyropoeon valley from Siloam (see Neh. 3 15) ; but the recovery of any very ancient walls is doubtful. ] 1

The present account of the city is based on the results which have thus been obtained by actual exploration ; but, although so much has been done during the last thirty years to clear up disputed questions, much still remains to be accomplished.

1 The reading Iepo<7aAr)/otT)i C. A /. 1 22 is suspected : ibid. TO. oprj. losephus gives a fanciful derivation in C. Ap. i. 34.

2 , 172 57 .

4 See the results in the Memoirs of the Survey of Western Palestine, Jerusalem Volume, 1883, and for further con tributions by Herr Baurath Schick to the exploration of Jeru salem see PEFQ for subsequent years to the present date ; as well as various volumes of the ZDPV.

4. Site.[edit]

[1. Sketch of site goes here]

The geographical situation of Jerusalem (the dome of the Holy Sepulchre church) has now been determined by trigonometry to be 31 46 45" N. lat. and 35 13 25" long. E. of Greenwich.

i. Situation.[edit]

The city stands at the southern extremity of a plateau which shelves down SE. from the watershed ridge of Judaea (here somewhat contorted), between the ridge and the chain of Olivet.

About a mile N. of the town the ridge coming from the N. is deflected towards the W. at an elevation averaging 2600 feet above the Mediterranean, and thus passes clear of the city on its W. side. From this ridge at the point of deflexion an important spur with steep and rugged eastern slopes runs out SE. for a mile and a half, and thence southwards for a mile and a quarter more. The spur culminates in two principal summits, the most northerly 2725 feet above the sea, the second (now crowned with a village and a minaret) 2650 feet above the same level (there is a third summit or knoll on the S. terminating the spur and rising to an elevation of 2410 feet). To this chain (more especially to the central summit with the minaret on it, now called Jebel et - Tor) applies the name Olivet.

The plateau N. of Jerusalem between the Olivet chain and the main watershed ridge is drained by two flat open valley heads which form a junction about half a mile N. of the NE. angle of the modern city.

ii. Boundaries of Site.[edit]

(a) The valley thus formed becomes a deep ravine, with sides steep and in places precipitous, running immediately beneath and W. of Olivet for a distance of a mile and a half from the junction mentioned above (i. ) to a well called Bir Ryyub, where the bed is 1979 feet above the Mediter ranean and 430 feet below the termination of the Olivet chain. It is this valley, the brook (nahal see BROOK) Kidron, that bounds the site of Jerusalem on the E. (b) The western boundary is a second waterless valley (W. er-Rababi) which has its head in a shallow depression NW. of the city close to the watershed. Running first S. for about half a mile, and then rapidly deepening and flanked by low precipices trending E. for another half mile, it joins the Kidron in an open plot close to the Bir Eyyub mentioned above (a). The second valley thus flanking Jerusalem on the W. and S. encloses an area half a mile wide and rudely quad rangular, -the seat of the city itself whether ancient or modern. The Bir Eyyub is probably ancient. It was rediscovered and opened by the Franks in 1184 A. D.

1 Yet see Bliss and Dickie, Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894-97 PEF, Lond., 1898.

5. Geology.[edit]

The site thus generally described, standing on spurs of hill surrounded on three sides by valleys 300 to 400 feet deep, is a natural fortress. Its weak ness is its imperfect supply of water. There is only one spring anywhere near the city, namely that in the Kidron valley, about seven hundred yards above the junction with the western ravine, now called the spring with steps ( Ain Umm ed-Derej), or the Virgin s spring (cp 12, end). The scarcity of springs (see below, 11) is explained by the geological conformation.

The vicinity of Jerusalem consists of strata of the Eocene and Chalk formations, having a general dip down from the watershed of about io u ESE.

The action of denudation has left patches of the various strata ; but generally speaking the oldest are on the W. The upper part of the Olivet chain consists of a soft white limestone, known locally as Kakfili, with fossils and flint-bands belonging to the Upper Chalk; beneath this are first, a hard silicious chalk, Mezzeh, with flint bands ; secondly, a soft white limestone, Meleki, much used in the ancient buildings of the city ; thirdly, a hard dolomitic limestone, often pink and white, and then known as Sta. Croce marble. [These beds account for the natural drainage of the city, the water sinking through the porous Meleki, and issuing in a spring only where the dolomitic limestone comes towards the surface m the Kidron valley.] The underlying beds, belonging to the period of the Greensand, are not visible, the lowest strata in the Kidron precipices belonging to the Lower Chalk epoch.

6. Ancient levels.[edit]

The actual position of the city at various times has differed but little in comparison with other capitals. The outline of the small spurs concerning which so many famous controversies have arisen is now much obscured by the accumulation of rubbish, which has been increasing ever since the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 44[io]). There is an average depth of from 30 to 40 feet of this debris through out the town, and the foundations of the modern houses often stand upon it. In the valleys there is a depth 01 70 feet, and E. of the temple in one place shafts were sunk 1 20 feet before the rock was reached. The natural features of the ground, although unaltered and traceable to a practised eye, are thus less sharply accentuated than in the ancient period of the city's history. As, however, we have now several hundred actual observations of the rock levels in an area of 210 acres, there is no difficulty in recovering the general features of the ancient natural site of the town.

7. Heights and valleys.[edit]

The quadrangle included between the two outer valleys described above ( 4 ii. ) is split up by a valley, the Tyropaeon of Josephus, into two main spurs - that on the E. being the temple hill, that on the W. (divided in its turn into two summits) the seat of the upper city.

The Tyropoeon is both shallower and broader than the boundary ravines noticed already ( 4 ii.), its depth averaging only from 100 to 150 feet below the crests of the ridges. Its real head is immediately outside the present Damascus gate and the N. wall of the modern city, whence it runs with a curved course southwards to join the Kidron just above the junction with the western boundary valley (W. er-Rababi), a distance of about 1600 yards. There is, however, a second affluent or head of the central Tyropoeon valley on the W. side of its main course a kind of dell or theatre-shaped depression extending westwards for more than 300 yards, and measuring not quite 200 yards N. and S.

Thus while the eastern Jerusalem ridge is unbroken, the western is divided into two summits, joined by a narrow saddle which separates the secondary head of the Tyropoeon valley just described from the upper part of the western boundary valley (the W. er-Rababi ; 4ii).

Of the two western hill tops, that towards the S. is the larger and more lofty.

It has a trapezoid shape, and terminates on all sides in steep slopes, sometimes precipitous, and its only connection with the watershed is by the saddle mentioned above, which is scarcely 50 yards in width. This high southern hill measures 2000 feet N. and S. by about 1300 feet E. and W. The highest part is towards the W., where the level of the flat broad summit is about 2520 feet above the Mediterranean.

The smaller northern knoll or hill top, bounded on the E. by the great central (Tyropoeon) valley of Jerusalem, on the S. by the theatre- shaped (branch) valley which separates it from the high southern hill, and on the W. by a small subsidiary depression running N. rises to a summit not more than 2490 feet in elevation, or 30 feet below the flat top of the larger southern hill.

The eastern ridge, on which the temple stood, has a height towards the N. of about 2500 feet ; it then becomes narrower, and is artificially divided by a deep rock-cut trench running E. and W.

Its original form within the temple enclosure was that of a rounded top with a steep western slope and a more gentle gradient on the E., the level of the ridge falling from 2460 to 2300 feet in a length of about 500 yards. The S. end of this ridge is formed by a tongue of ground between the Kidron and the shallow central (Tyropoeon) valley, falling rapidly southwards in 400 yards to a level only 50 feet above the valley beds.

8. The Haram.[edit]

The identity of the present Haram (or sanctuary) with the ancient temple enclosure is undisputed, the only question which has arisen being whether the present boundary walls coincide with the outer ramparts of Herod's temple enclosure. The Haram is a quadrangle containing 35 acres, the interior surface roughly levelled, partly by filling up with earth the portions where the rock is lowest, partly by means of vaulted substructures of various ages.

The most important results of Sir Charles Warren's excavations were those connected with the exploration of the rampart walls, which measure 1601 ft. on the W., 922 on the 8.^1530 on the E., and 1042 ft. on the N., the SW. angle being 90 and the SE. 92 30 . The height of the wall varies from 30 to 170 ft. On the W., on the S., and on the E. for probably 1090 ft. from the SE. corner, the masonry is all of one style, the stones being of great size with a marginal draft, the imperfect finish of the faces in some of the lower courses apparently showing that the foundation-stones were never visible above the surface. The N. part of the E. wall consists, however, of masonry differing somewhat from the rest, the finish being rougher and the stone of inferior quality. It was found that this wall is continued for some distance beyond the NE. corner of the present area. The present N. wall is of masonry of quite a different kind, and appears to be much more recent, the substructures immediately inside being only as old as the twelfth Christian century. The N W angle is formed by a projecting scarped block of rock measuring 350 ft. E. and W. and 50 ft. N. and S., the height above the interior court being about 30 ft. On this scarp stand the modern barracks, and a fosse 60 ft. deep and 165 ft. wide is still trace able outside the rock on the N. A valley bed 100 ft. below the level of the Haram court ran across the NE. portion of the area into the Kidron ; and S. of this the remains of a scarp running E. and W. have been discovered, but are not as yet completely explored. The prolongation of this scarp eastwards cuts the E. wall of the Haram at the point, 1090 ft. from the S. angle, at which the change in the character of the masonry described above probably occurs.

The evidence thus obtained seems to indicate that an area of about seven acres and a half has been added to the ancient enclosure on the NE. to give it the present quadrangular form, and the rougher masonry on the E. appears to have belonged to the city wall constructed by Agrippa, not to the older wall of Herod's temple.

At the SW. angle of the Haram enclosure are the remains of an ancient arch (Robinson's arch), 42 feet span, belonging to a bridge across the Tyropoeon, the W. pier of which Sir Charles Warren discovered, as well as the fallen voussoirs, lying on a pavement 40 ft. beneath the surface, whilst under the pavement 20 ft. lower was found the voussoir of a former bridge on the same site (cp Jos. BJ i. 7 2).

At the SE. angle of the enclosure Sir Charles Warren found beneath the surface remains of an ancient wall of finely drafted masonry abutting on the E. rampart of the Haram, and here some unexplained marks in red paint and a few well-defined letters of a Semitic alphabet were discovered on the lower stones. The buried wall runs southward for 250 yards at a height of 70 ft., and is held to be part of the wall of Ophel ( 3). The base of a great projecting tower also was laid bare, and identified by the discoverer with the tower of Neh. 3:25. Another noticeable discovery was the fact that an ancient aqueduct is intersected by the W. Haram wall, which must consequently be more recent than the rock tunnel thus destroyed.

9. Temple area.[edit]

The facts thus ascertained allow of the identification of the great walls still standing with those that supported the outer cloisters of the temple enclosure when the edifice was reconstructed by Herod, who doubled the area of the temple enclosure of Solomon (BJ\. 21 1).

Herod took away the ancient foundations and made a quadrangle extending from the fortress of Antonia ( 28) to the royal cloister, to which a great bridge led from the upper city (BJ vi. 6 2), whilst the eastern limit was formed by the Kidron ravine, the Ophel wall joining the plateau of the temple at the SE. angle (A nt. xv. 11 5 ; BJ v. 4 2).

The scarped rock at the NW. angle of the Haram, with its outer fosse dividing the temple hill from Bezetha ( 30), answers exactly to Josephus ' description of the tower of Antonia (BJ v. 5:9) and thus serves to identify the NW. angle of the ancient enclosure with the corresponding angle of the modern Haram. The correspondence of the SW. angles of the two areas is established by the discovery of the great bridge (above, 8), and that of the SE. angles of the same by the exploration of the Ophel wall. The northern boundary of Herod's temple prob ably coincided with the scarp already described ( 8), 1090 ft. N. of the SE. angle.

The area of the temple enclosure was thus, roughly, a quadrangle of 1000 feet side, from which the citadel of Antonia, as described by Josephus, projected on the NW. (cp BJ vi. 5 4 ).

10. City walls.[edit]

Outside the temple area the lines, natural and artificial, of the various city walls can now be traced with some certainty.

i. Upon the N. this task is rendered difficult, partly by the facts that the distinctive natural features are few, and that the ground is largely covered by buildings.

(a) The first of the three walls described by Josephus (see below), followed in its northern portion a line W. from the Temple enclosure to the N. of the western hill now called Zion. Excavations for the foundations of houses have revealed here more cliffs and steep slopes. Its NW. angle was at the present citadel, where there is a large scarp ; thence it ran S. along W. er-Rababi.

(b) Of the second wall nothing has been discovered unless the masonry laid bare in 1883 on the rising ground to the W. of the Patriarch's Pool belonged to it [see, however, 32].

(c) The line of the third wall coincided with certain scarps and rocks to the E. of the present Damascus gate. Robinson observed remains of it which have disappeared.

[ii. We turn now to the walls recently discovered on the S. of the city.

(a) From the fosse by the tower base found just outside the English cemetery above W. er-Rababi, Bliss traced a line of wall SE. for 150 ft. to a corner tower and thence E. to the Jewish cemetery (see Plan). This line consists of a lower and an upper wall of two distinct periods ( 30, 33). The lower wall was recovered emerging from the E. side of the Jewish cemetery, and followed to a point S. of the Pool of Siloam where it forms an angle with a tower. Near this angle are the remains of a gateway, displaying proofs of three periods, with a drain that was subse quently traced below a paved street N. up the Tyropceon Valley. From the towered angle the wall displaying like the gateway signs of three periods was followed N. across the mouth of the Tyropceon, enclosing both the Old Pool and the Pool of Siloam, and up the ascent of Ophel ; whence it seems to have been carried by Guthe s scarp to the wall traced by Warren from the SE. corner of the Temple area.

(b) SW. of the Old Pool another line of wall was observed branching NW. to the inside of the Old Pool and the Pool of Siloam.

(c) A third line of wall making use probably of Maudslay's scarp and running thence NE. was found, enclosing the top of the western hill. For other discoveries made, see above, 3.

Bliss dates from Solomon s time Maudslay s scarp, and the earliest wall on the line round the top of the western hill. The lower wall on the long outer line from Maudslay s scarp to the angle at Siloam and thence to the SW. angle of the temple area he assigns to the later Jewish kingdom. In Herodian times he thinks this wall curved inside the Old Pool and the Pool of Siloam. At all later periods the S. wall of the city followed the line from Maudslay s scarp along the western hill except in the time of Eudocia, who, he thinks, built the more recent wall on the longer line round by Siloam and up Ophel to the SW. corner of the Temple area (Bliss and Dickie, Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894-97, Pal- Expl. Fund, London, 1898). J 1

11. Water supply.[edit]

The natural water-supply of Jerusalem is from the Virgin's Spring mentioned above ( 3, end ; 5), which comes out from beneath the Ophel ridge in a rocky cave (12 feet deep in the eastern face of the hill) reached by flights of twenty-eight steps. The water flows intermittently, rising from beneath the lowest steps, at intervals varying, according to the season and the rainfall, from a few hours to a day or even two days. This is due to a natural syphon which connects the spring with an underground basin.

From the Virgin's Spring an aqueduct 2 runs south in a rock-cut tunnel 1708 feet in length, through the Ophel ridge to the Pool of Siloam 3 (now Birket Silwan). The Pool of Siloam is a rock -cut reservoir with masonry retaining - walls measuring 52 feet by 18 feet (see below), having a rock -cut channel leading from it southeast wards to a larger pool (the Old Pool") formed by damming up the flat valley -bed with a thick wall of masonry close to the junction of the Kidron and the Tyropoeon. A rock-cut passage leads from the Virgin's Spring westwards to the foot of a shaft which reaches the surface of the ground 120 feet above and 180 feet west of the spring. The rock tunnel to Siloam mentioned before was known in the seventeenth century ; but the shaft (which formed a secret entrance to the one spring of Jerusalem), was dis covered by Sir Charles Warren ( 19, last note). The water of Siloam was originally sweet ; but it has been fouled and made bitter since the twelfth century. From the reservoir it runs southeastwards some 450 yards to the Blr Eyyftb* referred to already ( 4, ii. ), a well 125 feet deep. The original Pool of Siloam is now known to have been 52 feet square, and a channel led from it some 150 yards to Roman baths on the S. W. of the temple hill is an underground cave -well now called Hammam esh-Shefa, under the west Haram wall.

The remaining reservoirs of Jerusalem are fed by aqueducts and by the rains.

West of the city, at the head of W. er-Rababi, is the rock-cut Mamilla Pool. Lower down Hinnom, opposite the SW. corner of the present walls, is Birket es-Sultan, constructed in the twelfth century. Since the fourteenth century these two tanks have been erroneously named the Upper and Lower Pools of Gihon : with more probability some have identified the Mamilla with the Serpent Pool of Josephus (BJ\. 3 2)]. Inside the city, near the west, is the Patriarch's Pool (the ancient Amygdalon or Tower Pool, BJ v. 11 4).* Immediately N. of the Haram are the Twin Pools made by roofing in part of the ancient fosse, and the Birket Isra'in, measuring 360 by 130 ft., and ap parently constructed after the great destruction of 70 A.D.

The Twin Pools just mentioned were identified in the fourth century with Bethesda ; but since the twelfth that name has been given to the Birket Isra'in. The site of Bethesda (sometimes even supposed to be Gihon) is still doubtful.

[A little to the NE., outside the city wall is the Birket Hammam Sitti Mariam, probably of mediaeval construction.] Another fine reservoir has been found N. of Birket Isra'in and W. of the Church of St. Anne. It was known in the twelfth century, when it was called the Inner Pool.

There were three aqueducts to supply the many reservoirs.

One, constructed by Pilate (Ant. xviii. 3 2), led from the so- called pools of Solomon, 7 m. distant, to the temple, and still conveys water when in repair ; its course appears on the map. The second, from the same locality, probably fed the Birket Mamilla, but is now lost. The third, from the N., collected surface drainage and led underground to the temple enclosure (a distance of 2000 feet). The great reservoirs in this enclosure, about thirty in number, were capable of holding a total supply often million gallons of water. C. R. C.

1 Conder is of opinion that the remains of a wall discovered by Guthe on this line on the E. of Ophel are from Byzantine and crusading periods.

2 In PEFO St., 86, p. 197; 89, pp. -$<-,ff. ; go, p. 257, a second aqueduct is described. It is above ground, a channel cut in the rock of Ophel outside the eastern line of the ancient walls. But there is still doubt as to whether it was connected with the Virgin's Spring. Conder regards it as modern.

3 For a translation of the inscription found here in June 1880, see CONDUITS, 5.

4 Job s (but perhaps meant for Joab s) Well, or EN-ROGEL.

5 [rS~UD J1DT3 Hellenised by Josephus to A.fi.vySa\ov. The modern name is Birket Hammam el-Batrak; a tradition without any grounds ascribes it to Hezekiah.]


12. Earliest times.[edit]

[The earliest historical notice of Jerusalem appears in the Amarna Letters, circa 1400 B.C. (ISRAEL, 6). Seven of these (Berlin Coll. 102-106, 174, 199; Wi. Th.onta.feln von Tell el- Am. 179-185) are from a certain Abd-hiba (so Winckler ; -heba, Zimmern and W. Max Muller ; taba or tob, Sayce and others), the ruler of Jerusalem and vassal of the king of Egypt. The decipherments by various Assyriologists differ in details ; but with Winckler we may take the following to be the substance of what the letters say regarding Jerusalem. Abd-hiba speaks of the 'land of Jerusalem', which appears to have stretched S. and SW. through part of what was afterwards Judah.

Abd-hiba describes himself as owing his position to neither father nor mother ; and the phrase has been interpreted as analogous to Melchizedek, King of Salem, in Gen. 14 18. But as Abd-hiba also calls the territory of Jerusalem his paternal territory (Berl. Coll. 102, /. 13, according to Winckler s translation), his reiterated claim that not father or mother, but the strong arm of the king of Egypt 1 gave it to him is merely the protestation of his subjection to the latter and abjuring of all thoughts of independence.

Like other Syrian vassals of Egypt Abd-hiba had been slandered as disloyal. He protests that all he had said was that the king's power was certain to be overthrown, unless the king sent help to his vassals. Abd-hiba himself has sent tribute and begs for troops to withstand the Habiri. He was unable to assist the king's caravans that had been robbed in Ajalon and is innocent in the case of certain Kali or negro-troops of the king who have suffered. All this proves that by 1400 B.C. Jerusalem had already been for some time the fortified capital of a small territory under hereditary princes : it was possible by garrisoning it to hold that territory against invaders. It is to be noted that the garrison deemed necessary appears to be described as very small (Berl. Coll. 103, /. 4 ; cp WMM As. u. Eur. 276).

There are no grounds for supposing that at this time Jerusalem was famous for a shrine or oracle (see i ; also below, footnote) ; it is not advantageously situated for trade, nor is the immediate neighbourhood at all fertile. In all these respects it must have been less important than its neighbours on either side, Bethel and Bethlehem. Probably it was no more than a small mountain-fortress surrounded by a small village. These would naturally be on the E. hill, at the foot of which (see above, 5) is found the only spring.

1 Berl. Coll. 102, /.I2 Sayce renders 'prophecy of the mighty king' i.e., the god Salim. He therefore takes Abd-hiba to have been a priest appointed by oracle. Both Zimmern and Winckler, however, read ami : it is at least more natural to take 'mighty king' as the king of Egypt.

13. Next 400 years.[edit]

In the next 400 years, between Abd-hiba and the time of David, we have at the most one or two references to Jerusalem, and these are of doubtful historical value. The Yahwistic narrative in Judg 17 relates that after his defeat and wounding by Israel (on their invasion of Western Palestine), a chief Adoni-bezek or (Josh. 10:1 E) ADONI-ZEDEK (q.v. ) was brought to Jerusalem presumably by his own people, for v. 21 (from the same source) adds that Jerusalem was not taken by Israel. 1 One of the older sections of the Elohist narrative, 2 Judg. 19:10, describes the city as at that time in the hands of the Jebusites and called JEBUS [q.v.].

The Yahwist (Josh. 1663) describes the Judahites as unable to dispossess the Jebusites who inhabited Jerusalem ; the Jebusites live with the Judahites in Jerusalem to this day. In drawing the boundary between Judah and Benjamin the priestly writers style either the W. or the E. hill (according as we take the valley of Hin- nom to have been the W. er-Rababi or the Tyropoeon (see below, 24) as the shoulder or ridge of the Jebusite (Josh. 15:8-18 16), but assign Jerusalem to Benjamin, in conformity with which an editor of Judg. 1:21 has substituted Benjamites for Judahites in the parallel Josh. 16:63 : see BENJAMIN, 8a. The Jebusites are likewise represented in the story of David (2 S. 5:6, cp v. 8 and 24:16-18 : 'Araunah the Jebusite' ) as in possession of Jeru salem and some territory round about inhabitants of the land till David s capture of the city. 3 When the Jebusites came into possession of Jerusalem we have no means of knowing. In all probability they were one of the Canaanite and therefore Semitic tribes of Palestine. They appear in line with the others in the list of Canaanite tribes (see CANAAN, and Dr. on Dt. 7 i) : JE, Gen. 10:16 15:20, Ex. 38:17 (perhaps Deuteronomist) ; 33:2 (P), 34:11, Nu. 18:29 (where they are assigned with Hittites and Amorites to the mountain, the Canaanites dwelling by the sea and along Jordan); D, Ex. 18:5 23:23. Dt. 7:1 20:17, Josh. 3:10 9:1 11:3 12:5 24:11, Judg. Ss, i K. 9:20 ( = 2 Ch. 5:7); and also in Ezra 9:1, Neh. 9:5. and the Apocrypha. This constant association with other Semitic tribes (especially in JE, the writers of which lived when Jebusites were still found in Jerusalem, Josh. 15:63), and the geographical position of the tribe justify us in assuming its Semitic character. The name Adoni-zedek is also Semitic ; and so too is Abd-hiba (see also ARAUNAH). But while the pre- Israelite inhabitants of Jerusalem were thus certainly called Jebusites, the testimony that the city itself was called Jebus is doubtful. The name is found only in Judg. 19:10-11 and in i Ch. 11 $f. In the latter passage it has evidently been intruded. With regard to the former, we have seen that the city was called Jerusalem at least from 1400 B.C. onwards (cp Josh. 15:63 = Judg. 17:21 and 2 S. 5:6) ; it may have had two names ; and Jebus can hardly be reckoned a later insertion in Judg. 19:10-11. Yet Jebus may have been a geographical designation -i.e. for the tribal territory from which the writer wrongly transferred it to the city, or possibly it was artificially formed from Jebusite at a time when the ancient existence of the name Jerusalem was forgotten in Israel.

The exact condition of the Canaanite enclaves in the earliest centuries of Israel s occupation of the land is unknown ; but probably the inhabitants lived in peaceful intercourse with their Hebrew neighbours. In any case the silence of history proves that Jerusalem remained small and unimportant.

14. Strategic value.[edit]

Jerusalem lay on the highway which runs N. and S. along the backbone of the central range, but at some distance from any of the roads crossing the range ; in a comparatively unfertile and badly-watered district, and without an important shrine. These reasons as we have seen (12) account for its historical insignificance at a time when its neighbours Hebron, Bethlehem, Gibeah, Bethel, and Jericho, each of which possessed one or other of the advantages it lacked, already played considerable parts in the history of the land. Probably also its in significance was the reason of the willingness of the Israelites to leave it alone.

The one feature of political importance possessed by Jerusalem - besides its military strength - was that it lay a neutral spot on the border of two Hebrew tribes, Judah and Benjamin, destined shortly to be rivals. The keen eye of David caught this feature, and to his choice of a position so indispensable to him in the political exigencies which ensued upon his call to the kingdom of all Israel (2 S. 5:3) (and not to those fictitious virtues of position with which some scholars have invested the site), Jerusalem owes that sovereign role which it has played in the history of Israel and Christendom.

David's previous capital Hebron lay too far south to be a centre for all Israel. The choice of one of the historical sites in Benjamin or among the northern tribes would have aroused the jealousy of Judah. Jerusalem was neutral and without traditions. It commanded the main line of communication between N. and S. , was favourably situated for the immediate military require ments of Israel against Philistia, and offered a fortress of considerable strength (cp DAVID, 10, ISRAEL, 17^ ).

As history proved, Jerusalem s aloofness and dry surroundings were of advantage to the capital of a country so much in the way of foreign invasions whether of arms or of culture. The whole Judaean plateau is isolated and Jerusalem commands it ; army after army of the great empires crossed the plains below and left this mountain town alone ; the narrowness of the passes leading to the plateau and the scarcity of water on it held back some invaders 1 and probably repelled at least one other after he had reached the walls of Jerusalem. 2 It is very significant that neither of the two greatest invaders of Judaea, who feared a real defence of her central plateau, ventured upon this till he had mastered the rest of Palestine and occupied strongholds round the Judaean border. 3 Nor was the neighbourhood of the desert, the borders of which are hardly an hour from its gates, a disadvantage ; a hand could be kept on the nomad tribes, or in case of an irresistible siege the desert would be, as it often proved, a refuge to which the garrison might cut their way. The whole land of Israel is small : Jerusalem is distant from the sea only 33 miles, from Jordan about 18, from Hebron 19, and from Samaria 34 or 35.

1 Verse 8 which contradicts v. 21 (cp Josh. 1663 J) is a post-exilic addition to the narrative.

2 So Moore, SBOT Judges, but it may be J. See, however, BENJAMIN, 5.

3 [On the tribal character of the population of old Jerusalem cp note on text of 2 S. 568 in Crit. Bio.]

15. David.[edit]

The Jebusite citadel was deemed impregnable, and the garrison at first laughed at their assailants (2 S. 5:6). [Cp. WL 6V2l 97. and Crit. Bib.} Yet David took the stronghold or hill-fort (i"nsp) of Zion and dwelt in the fort and called it the town or burgh of David. He carried the fortifications round about from the Millo inwards (Ib. 9) ; the description is obscure, but may refer to wider walls thrown round the town below the fort.

Within these walls David built a house for himself with the aid of Tyrian craftsmen and materials, and brought up the ark of Yahwe to a tent. Before his death, in order to build an altar to Yahwe, he purchased (2 S. 24:8-9) from a Jebusite (see ARAUNAH) - a proof that Israelites and Jebusites continued to live peaceably together - a threshing floor, which became the site of the temple built by Solomon.

16 City of David : Josephus's view.[edit]

The site of the 'City of David' forms the fundamental question of the topography of Jerusalem.

i. The view of Josephus (BJv. 4 1) which has been the current traditional view, and prevailed among Christians as early as the fourth century, 4 identifies Zion with the southern eminence of the western hil1 ( see above > 7) and places David's city there. This view, accepted by Reland and by Robinson (BR 1388^), was up to the time of the latter unassailed (LBR, 206 ). 5 Since the detailed English survey it has been defended chiefly by Colonel Conder ( 7^ent Work, new. ed. 192 ; PEF Mem. , Jerusalem 95 ; Hastings BD 2 591 ), 6 who places the fort which David took on the southern and higher end of the W. hill and even follows Josephus in identifying the Millo with the lower city on that hill to the N.

1 e.g., Richard Lionheart.

2 Cestius Gallus in 66 A.D.

3 Vespasian and Saladin. See the present writer s HG, 298.

4 See Bordeaux Pilgrim of 333 A.D., and Eus. and Jer. OS.

5 It was also accepted by Ritter, Williams, De Vogue and Stanley.

6 Sir Charles Warren also placed Zion on the western hill but at the N. end (PEP Mem. Jerus. 93), yet he appears now to have abandoned this view, for he says that it appears that to accept the Ophel spur as the city of David or Zion, and the high ground east of the Holy Sepulchre as the Millo or citadel of the ancient Jerusalem will satisfy the various data in the OT, the books of Maccabees and Josephus (Hastings BD 2 387) ; of recent geographers Henderson {Palestine, 1884), Stewart {Land of Israel, 1899), and most maps place Zion on the W. hill.

17. Birch's view.[edit]

In 1878 (PEFQ), however, Mr. W. F. Birch attacked the traditional view and reasoned for the location of David's town on the south end of the eastern hill. In l881 Stade 1 presented this view, and in the same year Robertson Smith argued for it in detail and with great force. In 1883 Sayce supported Birch s opinion in two papers in the PEFQ and affirmed that no other is now possible. Since then it has commanded the adherence of a majority of experts in the subject.

See Guthe, ZDPV 1883 ; Sir Charles Wilson (City and Land, 92, \f)f. ; Smith s BDw, art. Jerus. p. 1648); Socin and Benzinger in Baedeker s Pal. ( 3 ), 25 ; Benzinger, HA , 1894; Buhl, Geogr. des Alt. Pal. 132; Ryle on N eh. 3 1 5 (Camb. Bible for Schools); Driver (Hastings DB 2 554); Warren (#. 3 86_/:) ; Bliss> Exca-u. at Jerus. 1894-1897, pp. 2*57^ ; practically also David son, The Exile and Restoration (Bible Class Primers) ; cp V. Ryssel in ZDPV 23 96.

There can be little doubt that this view, which places the city of David on the southern part of the eastern (temple) hill, also called Ophel, is correct : for

  • (a) it suits the natural conditions ;
  • (b) it does most justice to the language of the historical books of the OT, taken along with the archaeological discoveries on Ophel ; and
  • (c) it is confirmed by the oldest post-biblical tradition.

18. Suits natural conditions.[edit]

(a) The new view suits the natural conditions. We have already seen ( 12, end) that the early Canaanite hill-fort cannot have been raised on the W. hill, for that is faraway from the only known spring of the district, the present Virgin's Well ( 5), anciently called Gihon, in the Kidron Valley. The fort probably rose somewhere above this spring on the E. hill The hill has been very much altered in shape ; but there appears to have risen to the S. of what afterwards became the temple plateau, an independent summit, separated from the temple site by a natural hollow in the rock. The existence of the hollow is not certain ; but Guthe's excavations have rendered it probable. 2 The hollow seems to have run on to the Kidron Valley not far from the spring. In all probability the rock to the S. of the hollow was once higher than at present (see below, in 27 iii. , the probable occasion of its re duction) ; the hill sinks rapidly into the Tyropoeon and almost precipitously into the Kidron valley ; in front to the S. there is the long gradual slope to the Pool of Siloam. 3 This height is by no means an unlikely posi tion for a fort : the summit of the W. hill (which overtops the present summit of Ophel) is nearly 600 yards away ; but above all Ophel commands the spring. The long slope, covering some 15 or 16 acres, may easily have held a large village, which could be extended into the sur rounding valleys, and up their opposite slopes.


2 ZDPV, 1883, p. 271 ff. Conder denies that there is any evidence for the existence of the hollow.

3 Gradually sloping down through a horizontal distance of 2000 ft. Its highest point near the Triple Gate is 300 ft. above its foot at the Siloam Pool. The descent into the valley of the Kidron is very steep (about 30) and the natural surface of the rock is covered with debris from 10 to 50 ft. in height. Warren PEF Mem. Jerus. 368.

19. Suits biblical and archaeological evidence.[edit]

(b) This view also does most justice to the language of the historical books of the OT, taken along with the archaeological discoveries on Ophel] G. A. S.

It is necessary at the outset to clear away the popular idea that the capital of David was already a great town, occupying a site comparable in extent with that of the later city.

Certainly if all the Levites and sacred ministers mentioned in Chronicles were actually assembled at Zion in David's time, we might conclude that the town was already a capital on a grand scale. But the Chronicler constantly carries back later institu tions into primitive times, and the early history, which alone can be viewed as a safe guide, gives quite another picture. Zion was merely one of the mountain fortresses found all over Palestine as places of refuge in time of invasion, and was garrisoned by a handful of mercenaries (the Gibborim). The whole levy of Israel in David s time was but 30,000 men (2 S. 6:1 ; cp the 40,000 of Judg. 5:8), and before the development of trade among the Hebrews Jerusalem had not the natural condi tions for the growth of a great city. In the first instance the town doubtless consisted mainly of the court and its dependants, with the Jebusite population, who must have been predominantly agricultural and limited in number by the limitation of their territory.

Now it is quite incredible that the temple hill was ever excluded from Zion.

Throughout the OT Zion appears as the holy mountain, the seat of the sanctuary. It is true, at the same time, that Zion and the site of Jerusalem are interchangeable ideas in Hebrew literature ; but this only proves that the mountain of the sanctuary was essentially the mountain on which the city stood. 1

Further, it is clear, from i K. 8:1-2, 2 S. 24:18, that the temple stood above the city of David, as elsewhere in Hebrew holy places the sanctuary crowned the hill on whose slopes the town stood. Moreover, the graves of the kings, which were certainly in the city of David, encroached on the temple enclosure 2 (Ezek. 43:7-8 ), which indeed at the time of the captivity was closely built up (ibid.}, and stood in the middle of the city (Ezek. 11:23). Again, Mi. 48 identifies the ancient tower of the flock, the original seat of the kingdom at Jerusalem, with Ophel of the daughter of Zion ; and Ophel is one of the few topographical names that can be traced down to the time of Josephus, whose description shows that it lay to the SE. of the temple. 3

Still more precise is the determination given by references to the one fountain of Jerusalem, which, as we have seen (5), springs out under the temple hill on the E. According to Neh. 3:15 12:37, the city of David was reached by a stair in the vicinity of the fountain gate and the pool of Shiloah. 4 This ascent led up above David's palace to the water gate (see 24), where in Nehemiah s time there was an open space in front of the temple (cp Neh. 8:1-16 with Ezra 10:9). Thus we see that David s palace lay between the temple and the pool of Shiloah or King s pool (Neh. 2:14).

These notices are the more important because the water system connected with the Virgin s spring forms one of the few certain parts of Jerusalem s topography. The spring itself is Gihon, which from its name must have been a true spring, whilst 2 Ch. 33:14 teaches us to look for it in the Kidron valley (Wu). The subterranean conduit in which the famous inscrip tion was found had for its object to conduct the water inside the city, and appears to be that constructed by Hezekiah (2 K. 20:20). B In Is. 22:9 n we read of a lower pool and an old pool (no doubt identical with the upper pool, Is. 7:3; 2 K. 18:17), whose waters were collected in the time of Hezekiah, under apprehension of siege, in a reservoir between the two walls. From this passage, compared with Neh. 8:15, we gather that Hezekiah's pool was protected by an outer line of fortification, and here lay the gate of the two walls (2 K. 25:4), 6 with the royal gardens beside them. 1 The supplementary notices of the conduit and the outer wall, given in Chronicles, have not the weight of contemporary history ; but they show the writer to have still possessed the same tradition as to the place of the city of David, for he describes its outer wall as running along the Kidron valley W. of Gihon (i.e., so as to leave the fountain outside, 2 Ch. 33i4; cp 32 3/), and tells us that Hezekiah s conduit brought the water of Gihon in a westerly direction to the city of David (chap. 8230). 2

1 The explanatory note of an editor in i K. 8 i, the city of David, which is Zion, cannot be strained to mean that the removal of the ark from the city of David to the temple was its removal from the mountain of Zion to another hill.

2 [This is not held by all who agree with Robertson Smith in placing the city of David on the eastern hill. Sayce supposes the tombs to have been hewn in the cliffs above the Pool of Siloam (PEFQ, 83, p. 219). Clermont Ganneau (Rev. Critique, 83, p. 329^, PEf Q, 98, p. 164 ff.) thinks that the southern curve of the Siloam tunnel was due to the necessity of avoiding the royal vaults, which ought to be found on the N. of the curve. Jewish traditions certainly placed these tombs near to the Kidron and connected them with it by a tunnel, affirm ing that their position was known up to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. See PEFQ 85, p. 192 ./ Nehemiah (81516) mentions the tombs in close connection with Siloam and apparently to the E. of it. G. A. s.]

3 Whether the whole of the southerly slope of the eastern hill, or if not, what part of it, was called Ophel ( = swelling ) are questions we cannot answer.

4 The fountain gate is the gate beside Shiloah, which is itself called the fountain (m)-y>j) by Josephus (BJ v. 4 i).

5 [The Shiloah or conduit in existence in the reign of Ahaz (Is. 8 6). may have been the conduit above ground which leads from Gihon round the Ophel hill. See however above, n n.]

6 [This is a much more probable explanation of the two walls than Benzinger s (HA 50 n. i), that the W. and E. hills had parallel lines of walls on either side of the Tyropoeon. As we have seen, no trace of any such lines of wall has been seen by Bliss, who has, however, made clear the existence of a wall outside the two pools of Shiloah and probable the existence of another running inside them in agreement with the above explanation of Robertson Smith.]

20. And early post-biblical.[edit]

(c) Birch's view is also confirmed by the oldest post-biblical tradition. According to the First Book of Maccabees, circa 100 B.C. (e.g. ,4:37, 5:54, 7:33 , Zion was the temple hill. So also in 1 Esd. 8:81 (probably too , Judith 9:13) and Ecclus. 24:10. It is true that Josephus, as we have seen ( 16), identifies Zion with the Upper City of his time on the SW. hill ; but his statements as to the topography of the city of David and Solomon are of no independent value ; he possessed no sources except the OT ( 27 i. ). [Nor did the early Christian tradition altogether follow Josephus. Origen (ad Joan. 4:19-20 ) makes Zion and the temple hill identical : and though Eusebius and Jerome in the OS place Zion on the W. hill, Jerome in his Comm. in Jes. 22:1-2, seems to take the other view. The rise of the prevalent Christian tradition would appear to have been assisted by the building of Constantine s Church of the Resurrection and Basilica on the NW. hill ; just as, no doubt, the anticipation of the prevailing view by Josephus was due to the rise of Herod s palace with the great towers on the same ridge (cp Sir C. Wilson, Smith s DD ( 2 \ art. Jerusalem p. 1651).]

21. Royal buildings.[edit]

According to the OT, then, the city of David lay on the southern part of the hill which his son crowned with the temple. The chief feature in the fortifications was a tower named the Millo , [rj K ^g ?i probably meaning a solid, not a hollow, tower ; cp ZPDV 1:226, but also MILLO) ; its site is quite uncertain : modern scholars are divided between the E. and the W. hill. We have no means of determining whether David's city included more than the E. hill. If it was confined to this then the wall ran up the W. edge of Ophel above the Tyropoeon valley. It is significant, however, that after careful examination, Bliss found no remains of a city wall, and such scarps as he uncovered appear to have been made only for dwellings or cisterns. 3 The new wall assigned to David ( i Sam. 69) may have been built round an increase of his city in the Tyropoeon and on the lower slopes of the W. hill ; 4 yet if the Tyropoeon, as Robertson Smith argues (see 24), was the gai of Hinnom in which the heathen sacrifices afterwards were offered and the Canaanite quarter lay, its inclusion in the city in David s time would not be possible.] The town had but little splendour. The king occupied a wooden palace, the work of foreign craftsmen ; and the ark still dwelt in curtains. Under Solomon, who had the true Oriental passion for building and luxury, and squandered enormous sums on his court, great improvements were made, especially by the erection of the twin palaces the house of Yahwe and the house of the king, constructed of stonework strengthened by string courses of wooden beams in the still familiar style of Arabian building. The palace, which took nearly twice as long to erect as the temple, consisted of a great complex of buildings and porticos, including the porch of judgment, an armoury, and the palace of the queen.

The site of the palace has been variously assigned by topographers. It lay above the old residence of David 1 (i K. 9:24), and all the indications given in the OT lead us to place it quite close to the temple, with which its porticos seem to have been connected (2 K. 16:18, 23:11). Wellhausen indeed, from an examination of i K. 6-7, has made it probable that the royal buildings lay within the outer court of the temple (Wellh. C//( 3 264). The clearest details are connected with a court of the palace called the prison court (Jer. 32:2), where there was a gate called the prison gate, and a great project ing tower (Neh. 8:25-27). This part of the building must have been close to the temple, for it was at the prison gate that the second choir in the procession of Neh. 12 halted and stood in the house of God, meeting the other choir, which ascended from Shiloah by the stair above David s house and reached the temple at the water gate. It appears further from Neh. 827 that the fortifications of the prison were adjacent to Ophel, so that the palace seems to have stood about the SE. corner of the temple area. 2 [On the temple and the other buildings of Solomon see further Stade, GVI 1 311 ff. t as well as Benzinger s HA, and Nowack s ; and on the relevant text of Kings, Benzinger in the KHC, also Stade, ZATW 8129-177 ( 83).]

1 2 K. 25 4 Jer. 39 4 Neh. 3 15.

2 [Hezekiah s conduit is not the only rock-cut passage in Ophel in connection with the Virgin s Spring. Sir Charles Warren (see PEF Mem. Jerus. 366^) discovered at the end of the serpentine tunnel from which the conduit breaks off, a perpen dicular shaft 44 ft. high, and above it a series of sloping passages issuing in a vault three-quarters of the way up the hill and due \V. from the Virgin s Spring. See n.]

3 Excav. at Jerus. 94- 97, iTSjff- with plate.

  • So Benzinger, HA 45.

22. Solomon's Jerusalem.[edit]

[here goes picture of Contours and walls of ancient Jerusalem, etc]..

[The extent of Solomon s Jerusalem is quite uncertain. The rise of a considerable foreign trade, the rapid increase of wealth, the splendour of the court, the multiplication of officials, and the incursion of many foreigners, must have greatly enlarged the city ; but whether the new population was settled in suburbs, or the walls of the city were extended to receive them, we cannot determine. Many of those who hold that David s city was confined to the E. hill believe that Solomon threw walls ( i K. 3:1 9:15) round the W. hill (Sir C. Wilson, Smith s DBW, Jerus. , 1648; Buhl, Pal. 135). On this hill two divergent lines of fortification have been laid bare by Bliss, following the excavations of Maudslay and others. From the so-called Maudslay s scarp (see plan), which Bliss takes to be the (probable) SW. angle of Solomon s city, a line of scarp runs NE. across the brow of the SW. hill towards a rect angular line of wall on the slope of the hill above the Tyropoeon. From this Bliss infers a continuation to the present S. wall of the city at Burj el-Kebrft, and so across the Tyropoeon to the E. hill. If this was the line of Solomon s wall, Bliss takes the lowest strata on the other line laid bare by him SE. from Maudslay s scarp to Siloam round the S. end of the W. hill to be a farther extension of the walls made by kings after Solomon. All this is still very uncertain ; and it is possible that the \V. hill was not inclosed within walls before the exile (see below, 28). G. A. s.]

1 So in Neh. 3 25 it is called the upper palace in distinction from the house of David, chap. 1237.

" Another view is that Solomon s palace stood on the western hill, and was connected with the temple by a bridge. But the ascent of the AV of i K. 10:5 is not in the original, and seems to rest on a false reading in Chronicles. In Ezek. 44:1-3 the sovereign enters the temple from the east.

23. Pre-exilic.[edit]

After the division of the kingdoms Jerusalem was shorn of its political glory. The city itself was taken by Shishak in the reign of Rehoboam, and lost the riches accumulated by Solomon. The great houses of Omri and Jehu quite overshadowed the kingdom of Judah, which forgot its weakness in the reign of Amaziah only to receive signal chastisement from Jehoash, who took Jerusalem, and partly levelled the walls (2 K. 14:8+). The decline and fall of Samaria raised the relative importance of the southern capital ; the writings of the prophets show that wealth had accumulated and luxury increased, and so we find King Jotham adding an upper gate in the northern or higher court of the temple (2 K. 15:35, Jer. 36:10, Ezek 9:2), whilst Hezekiah, as we have already seen ( 19), laboured for the improvement of the water supply, and so rendered the city more capable to resist siege. [Whatever additions had been made by this time on the W. hill, it is clear from Hezekiah s conduit in Ophel that on the latter lay still the citadel and chief part of the city. *] The later history in Chronicles adds details of fortifications erected by Uzziah and Manasseh, which probably express the oral tradition current in the author s day. In the later days of the monarchy Jerusalem had so far increased that we read of a second town or quarter (2 K. 22:14 Zeph. 1:10 Heb. ; cp Neh. 8:9); see, however, HULDAH, HASSENAAH, where the true title is represented to have been the old city. There was also a trading quarter called the Maktesh, inhabited by Canaanites or Tyrians (Zeph. In), who still formed a large part of the mercan tile population in post-exilic times (Neh. 13i6Zech. 14zi). Maktesh means mortar, whence we must suppose that the traders lived in a hollow valley, perhaps the upper part of the Tyropoeon (but cp MAKTESH). 2 The main part of the town, however, was still grouped round the temple plateau, from which steep streets ran down the slope of the hill (Lam. 4 1), the houses rising tier above tier, so that the roof tops commanded a view of the environs ( Is. 22 1 ). According to Eastern custom the handicrafts - e.g. , the bakers, Jer. 37:21 - had their own streets or bazaars.

[Down to the reign of Hezekiah Jerusalem had been simply one of many sanctuaries of Yahwe ; although in the eyes of the Judasan prophets (Am. 1:2 Is. 6) Yahwe s dwelling-place was there, Jerusalem was ignored by the great prophets of North Israel and does not seem to have been a place of popular pilgrimage (in the pages of Amos, Bethel, Gilgal, and Beersheba are described as such, while Jerusalem is not). What hope, therefore, was there that it would survive the fate which had over taken Samaria and all the other Syrian shrines? (cp Mic. 8:12). The extraordinary faith of Isaiah in the inviolableness of Yahwe s hearth, and its wonderful rescue from the Assyrians, at the time when the rest of Judah with the local sanctuaries was overrun by them, effected a vindication of the city, and assisted a change in her religious position which was slowly becoming inevitable in the interests of the sole deity of Yahwe and of the purity of his worship (cp DEUTERONOMY, 13). The other shrines of Israel, however consecrated by the national history, had all associations with the unpurified popular religion ; and just as Jerusalem s freedom from political entanglements in the time of David had, as we have seen ( 14), secured the choice of it as a capital for all Israel, so now its freedom from religious associations of an impure kind (Zion had never, as we have seen, been the shrine of any god before it was the resting-place of Yahwe s ark) secured the choice of it as Israel s one sanctuary : the only place where sacrifice was permitted, the shrine where Yahwe set his name and to which all Israel were commanded to make pilgrimage three times a year. That this change rendered inevitable both by the political events and by the religious interests of the eighth and seventh centuries was codified as law (in the Book of Deuteronomy) and carried into effect by the nation before the exilic period, was what prevented the destruction of the city and temple by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 B.C. from being regarded as final, inspired Jeremiah s prophecies of a return, and the hopes and programmes of reconstruction by Ezekiel and other priestly writers (see especially Ps. 51:18). G. A. s.]

_! [But see below, footnote to 24, on the difficulty of holding Siloam without fortifying the W. hill.]

2 [It is doubtful which head of the Tyropoeon should be pre ferred ; whether the hollow between the NW. and SW. hills or the other head.]

24. Nehemiah's walls and gates.[edit]

For the compass of the walls of Jerusalem at the time of its capture by Nebuchadrezzar the chief document is the account of the restoration of the fortifications by Nehemiah, who followed the old line, and speaks of the various gates and towers by their old names. His description presents many difficulties, the most intelligible part being that which deals with the eastern wall, from Shiloah and the fountain gate to the point where the temple and the palace joined one another. The western boundary of the city is particularly obscure, and its position must be determined mainly by reference to (i) the valley gate (Neh. 2:13 8:13). The valley (gai) is used as a proper name, and is no doubt identical with the valley (gai) of the son of HINNOM (q.v. , 4), the Kidron valley being always called nd/ial (the Ital. fiumara]. The common opinion makes this gai the valley to the W. of modern Jerusalem (Wady er-Rababi), in which case the valley gate must necessarily have occupied much the same position as the modern Jaffa ( Yd/a) gate, and the whole of the later upper city on the SW. hill must already have been included within the walls. This view, however, is far from being indisputable. 1

A thousand cubits S. of the valley gate was (2) the dung gate,- the gate before which lay the rubbish heaps of the city [probably identical with the gate HARSITH]. S This, on the common theory, must have been about the SW. corner of the hill, near the present Protestant school. 4

Between this point and (3) the fountain gate 6 in the vicinity of the pool of Shiloah is nearly half-a-mile in a straight line, and the inter vening wall must have been much longer if it followed the natural line of defence.* Yet Nehemiah gives no account of this section of the ramparts (Neh. 3:14-15). His record seems to imply that the fountain gate was near the dung gate ; and similarly in chap. 12 the procession which went southward to the dung gate is immediately afterwards found at the fountain gate. It is hardly possible that so important a part of the circuit should be twice omitted, and in fact the vast lacuna disappears at once if we suppose that the^az is the Tyropceon, and that the upper city of Josephus on the SW. hill was not enclosed in the circuit of Nehemiah s walls.

If the gai is the Tyropoeon the valley gate lay on the Tyropceon, somewhere near the SW. angle of the Haram area, and the wall ran southward along the E. side of the valley, 7 till at the pool of Shiloah an outwork was thrown out to protect the water-supply.

1 [It is still adhered to by Benzinger, HA 41, and Buhl, Pal. 94 132, as if indisputable ; for curiously neither of them even mentions the rival view advanced by Robertson Smith.]

2 [nsirNri ~\yy, Neh. 213 814 1231; ns-.yn e , 813, from which some have thought the name Tyropceon = cheese-making is derived ; as if niS w = cheeses or curds had been substituted for nstyx- But see also WRS Rel. Setn.W 357 n., (2) 377 n.]

3 Jer. 192, according to which it lay on the valley of Hinnom. See HAKSITH.

4 [Just S. of the Protestant school Bliss uncovered a gate ; but it is over 2500 feet from the Jaffa gate.]

5 [The gate between the two walls, 2 K. 264 Jer. 394 52 7, is probably the same as the fountain gate : see above, 19 ; cp ZDPV 0357 8280.]

6 [The line of wall uncovered here by Bliss measures only about 1950 ft. between the gate S. of the Protestant school and the gates at the SE. corner of the wall S. of Siloam. ]

7 [The identification of the Tyropoeon with the valley of Hinnom is accepted by Prof. Sayce, PEFQ, 1884, p. 217, also by Birch, PEFQ, 1882. p. 55^, and Schwartz, Das Heil. Land, 190. Yet it is not altogether without objection or difficulty. In the first place, the border between Judah and BENJAMIN ( 8) ran along Hinnom ; yet the Tyropceon appears too insignificant a natural feature, in comparison with the valleys on either side of it, to form so important a boundary ; especially when in the time of the Priestly Writer, who draws the boundary (Josh. 15s 18 16), Jerusalem had perhaps grown out across it to the W. hill. Again, as we have seen ( 21), no line of wall has ever been un covered on the W. side of the Tyropceon or along the W. slope of Ophel (yet cp the wall described in 10 \\.b~). Moreover, it is difficult to conceive that after the reservoirs at Siloam (of which we have evidence in the time of Ahaz) were finished, the W. hill could have remained unfortified. The possession of that by an enemy must have rendered the security of the reservoirs almost impossible. Besides, there is the difficulty of conceiving how the population, during the prosperous times of Solomon and Uzziah, can have been confined to the E. hill, unless, of course, we take for granted that there were large suburbs. Then there is the phrase the Second City (but cp above, 23, first par.), which is suitable to a large extension on the W. hill (2 K. 22 14 Zeph. 1 10). All this makes it probable that in the time of the later kings the Tyropceon was inclosed in the city ; but if that was the case, would the burning of children to Moloch (2 K. 23 10 Jer. 2 23 19 4 (f. 32 35) have been there ? Of course, this difficulty would not affect Robertson Smith s theory, which holds that there was no extension of the city to the W. hill till post-exilic times ; but in any case the buryings may have been at the mouth of the valley below Shiloah (Jerome, Coinni. in Jer. 7 31). For Sir Charles Warren s theory that Hinnom was neither the W. er- Rababi nor the Tyropceon, but a name given to the whole Wady en-Nar, thus including Kidron, see Hastings, BD 2385-388.

G. A. S.]

Besides simplifying the topographical difficulties of Neh. 3, this view has several other advantages. 1

On the received view the Tyropoeon is nowhere mentioned in the OT, though it lay in the heart of the city. This difficulty is removed by the view suggested above, and the third valley (W. er-Rababi) appears to be quite out of relation to the circuit of the biblical Jerusalem, so that one does not look for much mention of it. Again, we have seen that the Canaanite quarter of the city lay in a hollow presumably in the Tyropoeon and it is very natural that the seat of Canaanite worship in the valley of Hinnom should be in the vicinity of this quarter. Once more, by placing the valley gate quite near the temple, we understand how it was in this neighbourhood that the sacred procession in Neh. 12 began its course. Even at a much later date the temple hill was the real stronghold of Jerusalem, which Judas and his successors were concerned to fortify with walls. It would have been folly in Nehemiah to enclose a much vaster and less defensible circuit when the inhabitants were so few that it was necessary to draft one-tenth of the whole people into the capital (Neh. 11:1).

The course of the wall N. of the valley gate must still have skirted the base of the Temple hill E. of the Tyroposon. It is not improbable that the Maktesh or Canaanite trading quarter lay outside the fortifica tions, a bazaar beyond the gate being common in Eastern towns. 2 From the tower of furnaces (see FURNACE, 2, OVEN) the broad wall ran to the point where in the Persian time the governor of the Syrian provinces had his throne. 3 The throne would stand in an open place by a gateway, and comparison of Neh. 87 with 12s9 shows that the gate must have been (4) that of Ephraim i.e., the gate of the main road leading to the N. , which then as now must almost of necessity have followed the upper course of the Tyropoeon, and so would skirt the walls for some distance before entering the city.

In fact there were 400 cubits between the gate of Ephraim and (5) the corner gate (nssri nyc*, 2 K. 14:13). The corner gate is named also 'the first gate' 4 (jis>tnn B>, Zech. 14:10), and so is prob ably identical with the old gate of Neh. 3:6 12:39 (cp HASSENAAH). For obvious engineering reasons the eminence at the NW. of the Haram area must always have been a principal point in the fortifications, and here the old gate may very well be placed. It is indeed possible that this was the site of the ancient bastion of Millo.

From the corner gate the N. line of the wall ran by (6) the fish gate 6 to the towers of HAMMEAH (q.v. on the reading) and HANANEEL, the latter of which appears in Zech. (I.e. ) as the opposite extremity of the city from the royal wine vats in the gardens by Shiloah, whilst in Jer. 3] 38 the line between it and the corner gate is named as the natural direction of extension for the city. The tower, therefore, must have stood very near the NE. corner of the wall, but not so far E. as the angle of the Haram area, which is here built out, disguising the natural line of the hillside.

From Zech. (I.c. ) we see that (7) the Benjamin gate was at the E. end of the N. wall. There was a road into Benjamite territory over the Kidron (i K. 2:37), and to this there was a natural descent by a small valley now nearly obliterated, having its head a little S. of the Birket Isra in. Here too is the direct way to Anathoth, which was through the Benjamin gate (Jer. 37:13).

1 [The distance from the SW. angle of the Haram area to the upper pool of Shiloah in a straight line, is about 1850 ft., which, on WRS s theory that the valley gate was near the former and the dung gate near the latter, would give room for the 1000 cubits mentioned by Nehemmh as between these two gates.]

2 In fact at the siege of Titus the wool and clothes market and the brassworkers bazaar still lay in much the same quarter, in the new city, outside the old line of fortification, though within the second wall (BJ v. 8 i).

3 See below, 32.

4 [Or rather fanner gate. Some would identify it with the gate of Ephraim. 1

5 [crrn &, Neh. 3 3 12 39 Zeph. 1 10 2 Ch. 33 14 ; for the name cp Neh. 13 16, the Tynans brought fish, etc. A point on the N. wall would be its natural position.]

6 [jxsrr y, Neh. 3 i 32 12 39 : all place it in the N.]

In Nehemiah's record (8) the sheep gate seems to have the same position. 6 From the angle near the tower of Hananeel and the Benjamin gate the line of the hill ran southwards, trending to the E.

At the extreme E. point, beyond the present line of wall, and a little S. of the modern golden gate, must be placed (9) the horse gate (Jer. 31:40). l South of this again came the fortifica tions of Ophel and the upper palace, and from this point the enceinte swept round to the pool of Shiloah. The lower wall of Manasseh in 2 Ch. 33:14 is described as an outwork in the Kidron valley extending all along the eastern side of the town and round the NE. corner.

[Other city gates mentioned are : (10) the gate of the Miphkadh (npBSfi "IJW ; miphkadli perhaps = muster ; but cp Ezek. 43 21 [EV, appointed place], where it seems to be some locality just outside the temple, see HAMMIPHKAD), between the horse and sheep gates according to Neh. 831; (n) the middle gate (7]in,T iy&), probably on the N. wall, Jer. 39 3, by some identified with the gate of Ephraim (DHSN "IJ^) ; (12) the water-gate (Q Ori "WE ) is not mentioned by Nehemiah on his circuit of the walls, but appears from Neh. 12:37 (cp 3 26 813 16) to have been an entrance to the temple courts. Still some take it to be a city gate opening above Gihon. The other gates mentioned in Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were temple doorways or approaches, including those of Jer. 17:19 and 26:2 ; with the exception of the two in 2 K. 11:6, Gate of Sur ("UD iyc> ; in 2 Ch. 285, TlDVt, the foundation ) and && gate of the couriers (D Siri ~\VW), both of which were connected with the palace.

Nehemiah reports the rebuilding of the whole city wall, as it had been before Nebuchadrezzar's destruction of it. The temple was rebuilt before his time (in 518-515). Nehemiah mentions for the first time the castle the Birah, 2 for whose gates he brought timber with him (2:8) ; it lay on the N. of the temple (see below, 28). He also mentions the king s house (3:25) i.e., Solomon s palace but does not say what he did with it ; we do not hear of it again. The house of the high priest appears to have lain to the SE. of the temple (20) ; those of the priests to the E. above the horse-gate (28) ; the Nelhinim dwelt on Ophel (26). David s citadel is not men tioned (but see below on the Akra, 27 iii.). There was an upper tower lying out from the king s house (25), and a great tower lying out below the horse-gate (27). G. A. s.]

25. Persian period.[edit]

The long blank in the history of the Jews which follows the time of Nehemiah makes it impossible to trace the progress of Jerusalem in any detail. Under the Persian empire the Jews enjoyed little prosperity. [It is very probable that like their neighbours they suffered much violence ; and upon certain ancient traditions of this the hypothesis has been raised that the temple itself was destroyed. Under Artarxerxes Ochus (about 350 B.C.) there was a widespread rebellion in Phoenicia and other western parts of the empire, which was put down with great severity. Syncellus 3 records a battle between Jews and Persians, which resulted in the capture of Jericho (?) and the exile of many Jews to Hyrcania and Babylonia, whilst Josephus (Ant. xi. 7i) says that Bagoses the general of another Artaxerxes, on a murder being perpetrated by the high priest in the temple, made this the excuse for entering it, and thereby, in Jewish opinion, polluting its sanctuary. The revolt of the Jews, if it took place, was undoubtedly a religious revolt ; and it is easy to believe that Ochus or his general Bagoas punished it, as they punished similar revolts in Egypt and Phoenicia, by the devastation of the temple. Robertson Smith suggested that the story of Josephus about the minor defilement of the temple by Bagoses is really a pragmatical invention designed partly to soften the catastrophe of the Jews, and partly to explain it by the sin of the high priesf. This has been accepted by Cheyne, and both scholars have transferred to the campaign of Bagoas Pss. 44, 74, and 79, which describe a destruction of the temple and were generally regarded as Maccabean. 4 The occurrence of such a catastrophe, however, is by no means certain, or accepted by all authorities. 1 It is possible that the psalms cited refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by Ptolemy Soter in 320 (see next ). (On the historical points involved, and on the reference of these Psalms and of Is. 64:10-11 , cp ISAIAH ii. 21 ; PSALMS.) G. A. s.]

1 [Q plDn tT. According to Neh. 828 it lay on the SE. corner

of the temple ; it had been connected with the palace, 2 K. 11 16 2Ch. 2815.]

2 " T??- The name is in Hebrew only post-exilic and is thought to be borrowed from Assyrian, in which bi>tu=^ castle.

3 Ed. Dindorf, 1486.

  • WRS, 077C(2) 207 438^ ; Che. Introd. to Isa. 358^!

26. Greek period.[edit]

[The Greek period of the history of Jerusalem opens with Josephus's charming story (Ant. xi. 8 3 ff.} of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem after the capture of Gaza, and of the sacrifice he offered in the temple. There is nothing impossible either in the visit or (even) in the sacrifice ; a still they are not mentioned by any ancient Greek author. Alexander is not likely to have turned back from Gaza on Jerusalem with Egypt still unsubdued ; and, as Ewald remarks, the whole tone of Josephus's narrative is unhistorical (see ALEXANDER).

In 320, according to Appian (Syr. 50), Ptolemy Soter destroyed (KaOypriKfi) Jerusalem. So tragic an event can scarcely have happened without some echo in Jewish literature, and it is possible that some of the Psalms usually referred to the time of Ochus or Anti- ochus Epiphanes date from this destruction by Ptolemy. Josephus (Ant. xii. 1 ; c. Ap. i. 22) quotes a con firmation of the capture of the city from Agatharchides of Cnidus (middle of 2nd cent. B.C.), who represents it as due to the unwillingness of the Jews to fight on the Sabbath, and Josephus adds that Ptolemy led a great many Jews captive into Egypt (see PTOLEMY). The subsequent struggles between Ptolemy and Antiochus for the possession of Palestine appear to have been limited to the seaboard, 3 and, for Jerusalem, a long period of prosperity followed. Ecclus. 50 records a series of embellishments under Simon the Just, circa 300 : the repair of the temple and the building of substructures and upper walls around it ; an alteration on the brazen sea of the temple ; and the strengthening of the city walls (after their destruction by Ptolemy). The city s prosperity, fostered by Ptolemy Philadelphus, culmin ated in the high-priesthood of Simon II. (219-199 B.C.). In 203 Palestine, passed from the Ptolemies into the hands of the Seleucids ; but in 199 Scopas retook Jerusalem and set an Egyptian garrison in the citadel. In 1981 the Jews assisted Antiochus to expel the garrison, and by treaty with Egypt in the following year the Seleucids were confirmed in their possession. On the accession of Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, vigorous measures were taken to Hellenize Judasa (ISRAEL, 70), and after the struggles of Menelaus and Jason for the city Antiochus entered it (169 B.C.), plundered the temple, destroyed the walls, and placed a Syrian garrison in a new citadel, and an altar to Zeus on the altar of Yahwe (Dan. 11 31).}

When Judas Maccabreus reconstructed the temple (165) he also fortified the holy mountain of Zion (the temple hill) with wall and towers, i Macc. 460. Once more rased- by the Greeks (662 954), the walls of the city were renewed with hewn stone by Jonathan, (10:10-11).

1 Cp Davidson, Crit. Rev., 93, p. 19; A. R. S. Kennedy,. Exp. T, 92, p. 247 ; Che. ib. 320.

2 Cp Schiirer, Hist. 1 187, 3 3or.

3 Diod. Sic. xix. ; Pseud. -Hecat. in Joseph, c. Ap. 1 22.

27. The Akra.[edit]

It is plain from i Macc. 46o 67 10:11 that up to this time the fortified city was still identical with the temple-hil1 but a new topographical problem is raised by what is related of the citadel (Akra) erected by Epiphanes to dominate the town.

i. Robertson Smith's view of site : N. of temple. The- Akra is identified by the author of i Macc, with the city of David. It continued to be held by the Greeks after the town was fortified by the Maccabees, and indeed was ultimately reduced by the erection of a special wall: cutting off the Greek garrison from access to the city and market (1236). The natural inference from all this is that the Greek citadel lay on the temple hill, and presumably on the site of the later Antonia, N. of the temple. 1 The temple hill is certainly the Zion of i Macc. ; and the city of David, with which the Akra is identified, had always meant the fortress of Zion. The same result seems to follow from the language of Josephus.

When Josephus lived, Jerusalem was almost a new town. Under the Maccabees, and again under Herod, the prosperity of the Jews was greater than at any previous time. The sanctu ary was a centre of pilgrimage from the most distant lands, and the sovereigns of Jerusalem had an empire greater than any of the kings after Solomon. The growth of the city must have been enormous, and the great buildings of Herod and his successors had wholly changed its aspect, especially in the quarter of the temple and on the western hill where the royal palace stood. These changes were very apt to mislead an uncritical writer with regard to the ancient topography, and in fact Josephus falls into a radical blunder by assuming that the fortress of David belonged to the upper city, like the royal castle of his own day, 2 and that the western hill had always been part of Jerusalem.

Of Jerusalem as he himself saw it Josephus gives a vivid description (BJv. 4 1). The city stood on two hills divided by the Tyropoeon valley, into which the houses descended tier beneath tier. The higher (western) hill was called the upper market, the lower (eastern) hill across the Tyropceon was the citadel hill, and was called indifferently the Akra or the Lower City. That this Akra included the ridge S. of the temple is clear from several marks : the hill was a/j.<pli<vpTos, hog-backed ; it was cut off by ravines on the outer side, and had a continuous approach to the temple, which stood on the higher ground ; finally, it extended to Shiloah at the mouth of the Tyropceon. 3 Thus we see that though Josephus himself has lost the true tradition as to the city of David, he furnishes additional proof that the citadel hill, still identified with it by the author of i Macc. , was no other than the eastern hill.

ii. Robinson's view : W. of temple. A different view of the Akra was maintained by Robinson, and has been elaborated by Sir Charles Warren and Colonel Conder 4 in connection with better observations as to the two heads of the Tyropoeon valley. It is maintained that the Akra was a knoll, W. of the temple hill and N. of the traditional Zion, between the two heads of the Tyropoeon ( 7). To gain any show of plausibility for this view, it is necessary to lay great weight on a state ment of Josephus that the temple hill was once a third eminence lower than the Akra, and divided from it by a broad ravine, and that Simon after taking the Akra destroyed the citadel, and laboured for three years to reduce its site below the level of the temple plateau and fill up the intervening hollow (BJ\. 4 ; Ant. xiii. 66). This story is probably exaggerated, for, according to the early and trustworthy evidence of i Mace. 13, the Akra was not destroyed, only purged, and strengthened by additional fortifications on the sacred mountain. In any case we know that the Akra was opposite the temple, and that in the time of Josephus there was no longer a ravine between, whereas the city opposite the temple to the W. was still cut off by the deep Tyropoeon (Ant. xv. 11s), except where a bridge led to the palace on the western hill. Nor is it possible that the western branch of the Tyropoeon can be the deep ravine which, according to Josephus, separated the upper and the lower city, for that head is the theatre-shaped basin described in Ant. xv. 11s as facing the temple across the ravine.

iii. [Third -view: S. of temple. Though the Akra proper must thus have lain on the E. hill it is by no means certain that the view expressed above by Robertson Smith, that it lay N. of the temple on the site of the later Antonia, is correct. It may have lain to the S. of the temple, 1 on the site which, as we have seen ( 18), must have been occupied by the old Jebusite fortress, that is to say, on the higher ground opposite the temple plateau, beyond the deep hollow in the rock described in 18. If there be any truth in the account of Josephus, that Simon reduced the rock of the Akra to a level lower than the temple plateau, and filled up the intervening hollow, this would account for the dis appearance of the conspicuous rock from this part of the hill as well as for the fact stated by Josephus, that the hollow was no more in his day (about this he cannot be in error). Further, under the Akra lay the gymnasium or place of exercise which the high-priest Jason con structed (2 Mace. 4 12): for this a most likely spot would be either the Tyropceon or the Kidron Valley below the S. end of the temple plateau. It was probably on the same site that Herod built his Hippo drome, and this, according to Josephus (Ant. xvii. 102 ; Z?/ ii. 3i) lay to the S. Finally, notice the association of the Akra with Shiloah in BJ v. 61. G. A. s. ]

1 [So also Sir Charles Wilson, Smith s BDW, Jerus. 1644. But see below, 27 (iii.)]

2 A perpetuation of this blunder gives the current name Tower of David to the Herodian tower, probably Phasael, which still stands by the Jaffa gate. On this tower compare a paper by Schick in ZDPV vol. i.

3 BJ vi. 72 ; cp v. 4 i and the association of Shiloah and the Akra in v. 61.

4 See Warren, The Temple or the Tomb, London, 1880 ; and Conder, Tent Work in Palestine, London, 1878, vol. i. ; Has tings BD 1 594.

28. Hasmoneans : western hill ; Antonia.[edit]

Under the Hasmonean dynasty we meet with the first unambiguous evidence that the city had extended to the loftier western hill, where a new palace was erected overlooking the temple (Ant. xx. 8n). This con tinued to be the royal quarter, and was raised to great splendour by Herod, who covered a vast extent of ground with his palace, its courts, and its pleasure grounds. The palace of Herod embraced two edifices transcending the temple in magnificence ; and the three enormous adjoining towers, Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamme (Ant. xvi. 62; BJv. 4s), made the upper city the strongest part of Jerusalem. Here also in Herod s days -stood the xystus or gymnasium, be neath the Hasmonean palace, where a bridge spanned the Tyropceon. The bridge was already there under the later Hasmoneans, when the new quarter had as yet minor importance, and the temple hill was still the only citadel. Here the warlike high priest Hyrcanus usually dwelt in the castle (/3ap, rrva 2 ) which Herod afterwards converted into the fortress of Antonia (so called by him after Mark Antony) in the NW. corner of the enceinte of the temple (Ant. xv. 114; BJv. 58). Antonia had the form of a square keep, with loftier towers rising pinnacle-like at the corners. It commanded the temple and therefore the whole lower city, and by its two staircases the Roman soldiers descended into the porticoes of the temple to keep order among the worshippers (cp Acts2l3s). [The soldiers in Herod s palace and the towers would be only those which formed the guard of the Roman Procurator. 3 Another tower built by Herod was Psephinus, 32 iii.]

29. Romans.[edit]

When Pompey besieged the temple hill in 65 B.C. the bridge (28) was broken down, and the Tyropoeon afforded a complete defence on the W. Pompey's assault was made from the N. , where there was a strong wall with towers and a deep fosse which was with difficulty filled up to permit the advance of Pompey's siege train. 4 This fosse must be identified with the rock-cut trench N. of the Haram area, and from Josephus's description seems to have been still the northern limit of the town. The walls destroyed by Pompey were restored by Antipater/ [In 40 B.C. occurred the Parthian occupation of Jerusalem, resulting in the flight of Herod. Three] years later the city yielded, after an obstinate resistance, to Herod and the Romans (37 B.C.). 5 Like Pompey, Herod attacked from the N. The Baris, occupied by Antigonus, was not surrendered till the temple and the rest of the city had been carried by storm, and we now read of two walls which had to be reduced successively.

[The construction of the temple by Herod (18-16 B. c. ) x is considered elsewhere (HEROD, 4). He died in 4 B.C. of the usual chronology. Under Archelaus, and afterwards under the Roman procurators, nothing of structural or topographical interest happened at Jerusalem save the building by Pilate of an aqueduct from the Wady Arrub to Solomon's Pools, and so to the city and the temple ; and the growth of the northern suburb, Bezetha.

1 Cp P>enzinger, HA \iflff-, and Buhl, Pal. 142.

2 See 8 24.

3 Sir C. Wilson, Smith s BDW, Jerusalem, 1644.

  • Ant. 14 4; B/\T.

5 Ant. xvi. 16 .5/1 18.

30. The NT.[edit]

The appearance of Jerusalem in the Gospels and Acts repeats some of the general impressions of the city's situation which we have received from the OT, presents several new features of interest, and raises one or two topographical problems. The nearness of the city to the desert is emphasised (Mt. 35 4:5 Acts 2:1 38) ; the mountains are about it (Mt. 24: 16 etc. ). As the chief actors in the story are now pro vincials, Jerusalem appears mainly as a place of pilgrim age (the accounts of the Passover in all the gospels ; also Lk. 2:4 Jn. 5:1 7 23 1622) ; it is 'the holy city' (Mt. 4s 2?53). High over everything else bulks the temple, the wonder and admiration of all who visit the city (Mk. ] 1 ii 27 etc. ) ; beside it neither Herod's buildings nor the walls are thought worthy of notice ; David s tomb is mentioned once (Acts 229). The Roman occupation is in evidence ; the city is the residence of the Procurator with his guard (Mk. 156 Jn. 18:28), perhaps in the palace on the W. hill ; but his judgment seat (Mt. 27:19 etc. ) and a strong garrison are in the Antonia (Acts 21:34 22:24, cp above, 28) from which stairs descend into the outer court of the temple (Acts 21:38 22:30 23:10). As the capital and centre of pilgrimage from all parts of the world, thronged by crowds of many nationalities (Lk. 23:26 Jn. 12:20 Acts 2:7-11) Jerusalem becomes the head quarters of the infant church (Acts 8 9 11 13:13 15:1-4 21:17) ; but its aloofness from the world and the decline of its religious supremacy are emphasised by the gradual drift of the story in the Book of Acts down the hills on which the city stood to the Maritime Plain (826 930 32 ff. 10 etc. ). Even in the Gospels there is an interest ing foreshadowing of this decentralisation. Often as Jesus and his disciples are described as resorting to the temple to teach the people (Lk. 2137 Jn. 614 7s etc.), this is the only part of the city mentioned in connection with them (except the Pools of Siloam, Jn.9?, and Bethesda, Jn. 5 iff.}, and we find them far oftener outside the walls. In fact almost for the first time the curtain is lifted on the environs ; and we see especi ally Olivet (Lk. 21 37, at night he abode in the mount called of Olives ; 22 10, he came out and went as was his wont to the Mt. of Olives ; 2239 Mt. 2630 Mk. 1426 Jn. 81 18i, over the brook Kidron ), the garden there, Gethsemane ; the villages Bethphage, Bethany, and Siloam (Lk. 184) ; the roads to Jericho (Lk. lOso) and Emmaus (Lk. 24i3). The city herself is hostile to Jesus (Mt. 2337 Lk. 1934), and the shadow of her doom lies upon her (ibid. , etc. ).

The main topographical problems are few. The site of BETH ESDA (Jn. 62, near the sheep-gate; see above, 24, col. 2424, end) is still doubtful (see above, n, col. 2414, end). 2 On Aceldama and Golgotha see the special articles ; on Solo mon s Porch (Jn. 10 23 Acts 5 12) and the high priest s palace see TEMPLE ; and on the site of GABBATHA see PR^ETORIUM.

1 The court and cloisters were not completed till 9 B.C.

2 We. identifies with Be^efla (Be0ea, etc.) of Jos. RJ ii. 194, etc., which is explained to mean /ecu POTTO Ais, new city (i.e., Xrnn rra> cp also Offerhaus : Nrnn ITU \sic\, cited by G. Boettger, Lex.). On Bezetha see above, 9, 29 (end).

31. Agrippa I and II.[edit]

Under Agrippa I. , the third wall, to be described immediately, was built. Agrippa II. made in the Upper City an addition to the palace of the Hasmoneans which commanded a view into the interior of the temple courts (Ant. xx. 8:11), and the Jews replied by building higher the western wall of the inner temple court, which also intercepted the view into the outer court of the Roman garrison and led to difficulties with Festus. Under Floras the Jews destroyed the cloisters leading from the fortress to the temple (BJ\\. 156) ; but they were rebuilt. The defeat of Cestius Gallus in 66 A. D. proved the strength of the city, and the inhospitableness of its surroundings to an invading army. G. A. s.]

32. City Walls in 70 A.D.[edit]

The walls of the city as they stood at the time of the siege by Titus must now be described. They were three in number.

i. The first wall consisted of a rampart to the N. of Herod's palace, connecting Hippicus in the citadel of the upper city with the western porch of the temple, 1 and of another line skirting the face of the western hill from Hippicus southward, thence curving round beyond Shiloah, and joining the western wall of the temple enclosure at Ophel. Several traces of this wall survive. [Its course from Maudslay's scarp round the SW. hill and across the mouth of the Tyropooeon was traced by Bliss in the excavations of 1894-97 ; and its remains, as he appears successfully to prove, are those immediately under the debris, which he assigns to the long interval between the destruction of the wall by Titus and the building of a new wall (the remains of which now lie above the said debris) on the same line by the Empress Eudocia in the fifth century.]

ii. The second wall, connecting a point in the northern line of the first wall with Antonia ( 28), enclosed the new town or trading quarter. [By occasional excavations in recent years, recorded by Schick, the general course of this wall appears to be now beyond doubt. It must have started from Antonia, S. of the trench which separated the latter from Bezetha (BJ v. cp 6 2, 7 3 and 11 4), and have taken at first a westward direction ; but it was for long uncertain whether this direction was sustained to the N. or deflected to the S. of the site of the sepulchre church. Schick s observations appear to have proved the latter. A little NE. of the site of the church the wall turned S. at a right angle, then about 150 yards farther on resumed at a right angle the W. direction to the S. of the site of the Church, turning once more S. on the E. of the Pool Amygdalon, and so joining the first wall at, or in the neighbourhood of, Hippicus.] 2

iii. Outside both these walls, on the hillside sloping south wards towards the temple, had grown up a suburb called Bezetha, which Agrippa I. in the time of Claudius Caesar began to protect with a third wall conceived on a gigantic scale, but never altogether finished. The precise compass of this wall, which began at Hippicus ( 28), and rejoined the first wall in the Kidron valley, has been much disputed, the great tower of Psephinus, which stood on very high ground, and formed its NW. angle, being supposed by some to have stood near the modern castle of Goliath (Kasr Jalud), whilst others place it as far N. as the Russian cathedral. *

The measurements by which it has been proposed to decide the northern limits of Jerusalem are the distance of 3 stadia from the city to the tomb of Queen Helena of Adiabene (commonly identified with the Tombs of the Kings, Kubtir es-Saldttn), and the circuit of 33 stadia assigned by Josephus to the whole city. These measurements would seem to imply that the ancient city stretched farther N. than the modern walls ; but they can hardly claim to be taken as mathematically accurate ; the estimates of the compass of the city vary, and Eusebius places it at 27 stadia. This again would imply a line closely coincident with the N wall of the modern town, agreeing with the remains of ancient scarping still visible, and with the express statement of Josephus that the line of the third wall passed through the royal caves i.e. , the catacombs or the Cotton grotto and grotto of Jeremiah (which are separated by a kind of fosse cut through the live rock, manifestly forming part of the old wall line).

1 [The northern line of this wall must have run along the N. edge of the SW. hill; PEP Mem. Jerusalem 285, ZDPV 8279^1

2 [Both E. and S. of the sepulchre church Schick has pointed out the old ditch of the wall with remains of the latter in it. E. of the church he has recognised traces of a large tower or castle which, he suggests, maybe the site of the Persian governor s seat mentioned in Neh. 3 7 (ZDPVZ 259 ff. 11 ibff.). Cp Wilson, Smith s BD&), Jerus. 1646.]

3 [PEF Mem. Jerus. 126 ./ 145 264^; PEFQ, 1889, pp.

4 The Camp of the Assyrians, the site of a camp of Titus, lay between these walls towards the W.

33. Titus.[edit]

In the siege under Titus the Romans successively carried the third and second walls. 4 They then occupied * Antonia, which was levelled to facilitate the approach of the forces for the attack on the temple stronghold. The temple was opened by fire rather than force, and, the Jewish leaders having retired to the upper city, the lower town from the temple to Shiloah was burned by the Romans. The capture of the upper city was effected by a regular approach with mounds and battering-rams (September 70 A.D. ), and even then the huge citadel of Herod could only have yielded to famine had it not been abandoned by the Jewish leaders in a vain attempt at escape (ISRAEL, 106). Its three great towers, with a portion of the western wall, were left as a memorial, and of this group the so-called tower of David (Phasael) still stands.

34. Aelia Capitolina.[edit]

The rebuilding of Jerusalem by Hadrian seems to have been conceived in a spirit friendly to the Jews, and there is even some evidence that the restoration of the temple was contemplated or commenced. After the great revolt (132-135 A. D. ), however, AElia Capitolina was transformed into a purely pagan town with seven quarters and many buildings of heathen fashion. 1 [It was not nearly so large as the Jerusalem of the Herods : the SW. hill lay outside the walls (Jer. Mic. 812). The S. walls appear to have run very nearly on the lines of the present city wall. 2 ]

35. Christianity.[edit]

The spread of Christianity and the rise of the practice of pilgrimage gave a new importance to the city of the crucifixion and resurrection, and in the time of Constantine the discovery of the Holy Sepulchre and the erection of the magnificent church of the Anastasis (dedicated 336 A.D.), made Jerusalem again a great religious centre. In the pagan reaction under Julian an attempt was made to rebuild the temple ; but it was frustrated by an outburst of fire from the foundations (362). The unfortunate empress Eudocia spent her last years at Jerusalem (about 450-460), built the church of St. Stephen, founded monasteries and hospitals, enriched the churches [and above all rebuilt the walls of the city (Evagrius, HE 20-23) on the old and wider lines, especially on the S. Thus Siloam was again included, and is so described by Antoninus Martyr (25), about 560. 3 It is in all probability the ruin of Eudocia's wall that Bliss found in his upper wall from Maudslay's scarp to Siloam (see above, 10 ii. a, 30)].

The next great builder was Justinian, part of whose splendid church of St. Mary perhaps still remains in, or to the E. of, the mosque el-Aksa. In 614 Jerusalem was taken by Chosroes, and the churches and sepulchre were burned ; but the vicar of the exiled patriarch Modestus began to restore them even before the Persians retired. In 628 Heraclius retook the city ; but its Christian days were numbered.

36. Islam.[edit]

In 637 Jerusalem capitulated to the caliph Omar, who gave directions for the erection of a place of, worship on the site of the remotest shrine i.e., the temple, to which Mohammed, according to Kor. 17 1, was transported from Mecca in his famous night journey. From this verse the great sanctuary of Jerusalem received the name el-Aksa, now generally confined to the building at the S. end of the Haram. The original mosque as described by Arculphus (670) was a rude edifice of wood capable of containing] 3000 worshippers ; but, soon after, the sanctuary was reconstructed in a style of great magnificence by the caliph Abd el-Malik, whose date (72 A.H. =691 A.D.) is still read in a Cufic inscription on the Dome of the Rock, though the name of the caliph seems to have been changed to that of el-Ma'mun, who restored the buildings after a great earthquake, which, according to Mokaddasy, left nothing standing except the part around the mihrab or 'niche' indicating the direction of Mecca. In their present condition the buildings of the sanctuary show features of very various styles, from the Byzantine downwards. The architectural problems which they suggest are closely connected with controversies as to the topography of the TEMPLE (q.v.) and the true site of the Holy Sepulchre (see GOLGOTHA). Apart from the question of the holy sites, the later topography of Jerusalem presents no feature that need detain us, and the subsequent fortunes of the city belong to the general history of Palestine and the crusades.

37. Bibliography.[edit]

Among the countless volumes on the subject the following may be named as still of use : Robinson, BR, 38, and LBR, 52; Tobler, Ziuei Biicher der Topogr. Jerus. etc., 53- 54 . De Vogue, Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte, 1860, Le Temple de Jerus. suivie tfun essai sur la. topographie etc., 1864-5; Neubauer, Gtog. d. Talmud, 68; Guerin, Judee, 68- 69J Warren, Underground Jerusalem, 76 ; PEFM, vol. on Jerus., 84 ; this covers the work to 83 ; for subsequent work see the PEFQ, and the ZDPV, 84-1900; and to Col. Conaer in Hastings L)U, 99. bee also Baedeker s Pal.P) by Socin and Benzinger, 90, and Murray s by Haskett Smith, 1892. The sources for the Byzantine and Mediaeval topography are found in the volumes of the Palestine Pilgrims Text Society ; the Arabic topography in Guy 1 Estrange, Pal. under the Moslems, 1890, but its translations, often freely given, must be used with caution. On modern Jerusalem, besides notices in many of the above-cited works (especially the two guide-books), see Jerus. the Holy, by E. Sherman Wallace, U.S. Consul in the city.

1 Details in Chron. Pasch. Ol. 224 3.

2 Bliss, Excav. 306.

3 The mosaic plan of Jerusalem discovered at Medeba in 1897 omits the church of St. Stephen and represents the W. wall as turning NE. after including the church of Mt. Zion on the site of the present Coenaculum. Its date must therefore be earlier than Eudocia. There are also traces upon it of Hadrian's wall excluding the church on Mt. Zion.

G. A. S.-W. R. S., 1 I/, 12-36 ; C. R. C., 3-11.


(NKTIV a compound of -IT and WJ, the latter perhaps a divine name represented by XCJ> in NE>1?3 [see BAASHA, n. ij ; so S. A. Cook, Exp. T 10 526^ ( 99), lepOyCA [AL], ifpaffi) [Jos. Ant. ix. 11 2]), bath Zadok, the queen-mother of Jotham, 2 K. 1633 (epoyc [B], ie- [A]) = a Ch. 27 1 (where nBTP, Jerushah, lepoyCCA [B] ; possibly as though= pos sessed i. e. , married ).


twice AV Jesaiah (-liVyL ", rV^, 28, 'Yahwe saves', the same name as that of the prophet ISAIAH (q.v.. i. i) ; WCAIAC [BA], iecc[e]iA [NL]).

1. AV JESAIAH and Pelatiah, sons of Hananiah b. Zerubbabel (i Ch. 821 TyC . , lO-a/Sa [B], ie<7eia [A], -<ree [L]); according tc (B, Pesh., Vg., he was the son of Pelatiah.

2. A son of (the Merarite) Jeduthun (i Ch. 26315 JiTJi lP , craia, tuo-cia [B], leeia, i(rias [A], icraia [L]) ; cp 3 and 5 below.

3. A descendant of Moses (i Ch. 26 25 WTPC^, ICOOTJC [L]) who in i Ch. 242i appears as ISSHIAH (q.v.); cp 23 15 17; as a Levite he is probably assigned to Merari ; cp 24 21 with 23 17 21. See 2 above and 5 below.

4. b. Athaliah, one of the clan called B ne Elam in Ezra s caravan (see EZRA i., 2; ii., 15 [i]a), Ezra87 (.TyE? , loo-tia [B], rjtraia [A], ieo-erias [L])=i Esd. 833 JOSIAS, RV JESIAS (eaw [B], ie<r<r. [AL]).

5. A Merarite Levite in Ezra s caravan (see EZRA i., 2; , 8 IS [i]^), Ezra 8 19 (nW . icrata [A])=i Esd. 848, OSAIAS (om. B), which is based on some such form as iTJfC in ( C P -Neh. 12 32). See 2 above.

6. AV JESAIAH, a Benjamite (Neh. 11 7 TyB . , ie [B vid], leo-ia [Bb], leo-oMia [A]).


(n3B; THN KANA [B], THN ANA [A], lecCHNA [L], JESANA [Vg.]), a city taken by Abijah from Jeroboam (2 Ch. 1819), and doubtless also mentioned in i S. 7 12 (critically emended text ; see SHEN). Josephus {Ant. viii. 11 3) calls it tcravas ; see also A nt. xiv. 15 12, BJ i. 17s (KO.VO. ; v. I. laava}. It is mod. Ain Sinia, 3^ m. N. of Bethel, an interesting ancient site (Clerm. Ganneau, PEFQ, 77, p. 206, PEFM 2 291 302).


(H^N-lb"), i Ch. 25 14, see ASARELAH.


ptfllB*, 'he brings back a father' ? [as though 2N 385"], V 62 ; om. B, icBAAA [AL], ISKAABL [Vg.], cp Gray. HPN 24 J^f^/ [Pesh.]), the name of a priestly course (i Ch. 24 13). The readings point to an original Ishbaal, which has been adopted by Ki. (SBOT) ; but it is hardly likely that the Chronicler would give a priest a name compounded with that of the detested Baal. On the other hand, the name may well have been traditional, and perhaps intention ally disguised by the Chronicler (or rather by a later scribe), with the above rather weak result. Cp Oholiab for Oholibaal (see OHOLIBAH), and see ISHBAAL, JASHOBEAM, MEPHIBOSHETH. s. A. c.

1 The passages in square brackets are by G.A.Sm. ; also the following sections : if., 12-18, 20, 22, 25/1, 27 iii., 30.


(iKh [Gi.], ntr [Ba.], cp JESHURUN ; CAR [L], ICOAC. [BA]), son of CALEB and AZUBAH [^.f.], i Ch. 2 i8f.


In the six places where AV has Jeshimon as a place-name (Xu. 21 20 2828 i S. 281924 2613), RV invariably has the desert, while RV tf- retains Jeshimon [BAFL] in Nu. , rod [f]ifff<TaifjLOV [BA], [TGI)] teorcre/uouv [L] in S).

The vfordjeiit ian occurs frequently elsewhere as a common noun (Dt. 32 10 Ps. 68 7 [8] 78 40 106 14 Is. 43 19 etc.) with allusion to the wilderness of Sinai.

The Jeshimon of Nu. , which is immediately overlooked by Pisgah, is the long tract of barren land N. of the Dead Sea ; that of Sam., before which is the hill of Hachilah (see HACHILAH), is the eastern part of the hill- country of Judah. For a vivid sketch of the latter see GASm. HG^-izf., and cp BETH-JESHIMOTH, DESERT, 2 (2).


CWW, aged ? i[ec]cAl [BA], coyci [L], IESESI, om. Pesh. ), in a genealogy of GAD ( 13) (i Ch. 5i4t)- < BA suggests ^\ i.e., Jesse.


( rPrT^, 31 ; one might read JASHVAHIAH, 'Yahwe causes to grow', but this is hardly worth while. The passage contains three kindred names, derived from fliyy and JN or .T. First comes nirw, a corruption of JVcyJ/D, Maaseiah ; then IVbi>, Asaiah ; and lastly SlTO D", a corruption of 7N b j;p, Maaseel), a Simeonite, temp. Hezekiah (i Ch. 436, lacrovia [BA], lea-. [L]). T. K. C.


(1MB*, 28, 84; ,HCOY [BXA], coyA [L]), a place in the list of towns of Judah, Neh. 1125-30 (see v. 26), and obviously in the extreme S. towards Edom. It is mentioned just before MOLADAH (q.v. ), and is obviously only another form of the SHEMA [i.] of Josh. 1626, and the SHEBA [i.] of Josh. 192. 1

The most original form is doubtless Shema ; m became b, and b became 70 (cp Nil in Jerus. Talm. for N^N > Frankel, Vor- studien, 102), and finally < was prefixed by a copyist. The form Shu'a or Shew'a lies probably at the root of the Ar. Sa-weh, the name of a ruined place situated on a high hill a little more than half-way between Kh. Attlr (Jattir) and Kh. el-Milh, and due W. of Tell Arad. So Knobel in 1861, followed by most commentators. Conder, however, limits the identifi cation to Jeshua (ffM3 409). T. K. C.


(1MKK a later form of JOSHUA [q.v.} ; cp WZKMiy& f. ; mcoyc [BKAQFL]).

1. b. Nun; Neh. 817; see JOSHUA.

2. A family of the b ne Pahath-Moab in the great post-exilic list [see EZRA ii., 9, 8 c] ; Ezra 26 (ujo-ove [BA])=Neh. 7n = i Esd. 5 n, JESUS.

3. Father of Jozabad, a Levite, Ezra 833 = 1 Esd. 863 ; JESU RV JESUS (B reads Jesus Jozabad).

4. Father of EZER (ruler of Mizpah); Neh. 819.

5. Jeshua b. Jehozadak the high priest, who, together with Zerubbabel, is often mentioned in contemporary writings ; see Hag. , and Zech. 3-6, where, however, his name is uniformly written JOSHUA (j/anrr). As in Ezra 82 f. 43, he is mentioned prominently in connection with the building of the temple ; but to other questions Hag. and Zech. unfortunately give no answer. Was he one of the leaders in what is commonly called the Return ? (For a discussion of the large question here suggested, see EZRA-NEHKMIAH, 7, and cp ZERUB BABEL. ) The sons of Jeshua b. Jozadak were among those who had taken foreign wives (Ezra 10 18). His descendants are traced down to Jaddua (351-331 B.C.) in Neh. 12 iof. In the Apocryphal books of i Esd. and Ecclus. (e.g. , 49 12) the name appears regularly as JESUS.

6. The house of Jeshua was a priestly family among whom were incorporated the b ne Jedaiah (Ezra 2 36 = Neh. 7 39 = i Esd. 624). To show their antiquity the Chronicler mentions a Jeshua among the representatives of the twenty-four courses instituted by David (i Ch. 24 n ; AVjEsnuAH); cp also 2 Ch. 31 15, where Jeshua is a priest of the time of Hezekiah.

7. The b ne Jeshua and Kadmiel are names of levitical families, Ezra 240 (ujo-ove [B])=Neh. 743=1 Esd. 626, JESSUE, RV JESUS (irjcroue [A], -ei [B]) ; see GENEALOGIES i., 7 (i.), and cp HODAVIAH. They both occur together as individual names in Neh. $t,f. and 10g [10] (Jeshua b. Azaniah), and Jeshua alone in 87.2

1 RV here wrongly gives or Sheba, as if Sheba were a mere variant of Beersheba.

2 In the case of Jeshua, as with so many post-exilic names, there are numerous instances where identification is out of the question. Indeed, we may plausibly suppose that such a common and reputable name may have served to fill some of the gaps in name-lists which must often have troubled the Chronicler. The priestly ABISHUA (2) is perhaps related to Jeshua in the same way as Abiasaph to ASAPH (q.v., 3); cp GENEALOGIES i., 7 (iii. c. n.).


(IMtT 1 ), i Ch. 24 n AV, RV JESHUA (ff.v.,i. [6]).


in Is. 44:2 AV JESURUN (J-W*. o HrATTHMSNOC [BAFL in Dt.], o Hr&TT. ICRAHA [BNAQ], or [HP 90 144] simply icp&HA [in Is.]; the other Greek versions in Dt. eyQHC [Symm. , Theod.], in Is. eyOYTATOC or eyOHC [Aq., Symm., Theod.] ; Pesh. , Tg. Israel ; Vg. , Dt. 32 dilectus, Dt. 33 and Is. rectissimus ; Ar. Walt, mausun, praised [Dt. 32 33$, but in 8826 Israel ; Gr. Ven. icpAeAiCKOC = J-1?N"1^), a poetical name for the people of Israel (Dt. 32 15 33s 26 Is. 442). From the lateness of the writings in which it occurs Jeshurun might be an artificial formation, designed to represent the ideal of Yahwe's people, viz., 'righteousness' (from itr, yasar= upright). This view, however, is not favoured by the use of the term in the above four passages ; Jeshurun (if the vowels are right) is nothing more than a synonym for Israel. Late writers had access to and sometimes utilised archaeological facts. It is possible, therefore, that there was a shortened form of the ethnic name Israel, which was not unknown as -\w\ yeser (hence the name of a son of Caleb, i Ch. 2i8), but was still better known as \rw* (vocalised on the analogy of Zebulun, Siyyun [Zion]) or perhaps rather ]riw\ YifrSn.

The termination is probably not a diminutive (Ges. , with Gr. Ven. [above]), but indicates that the bearer of the name belongs to a certain category (Kon. Lehrgeb. 2a 405); Yisren will mean one who belongs to or represents the ethnic category of Yeser. Whether Yeser originally conveyed the idea of righteousness or (cp WN) prosperity, we cannot tell. In later times it may very well have done so ; the name ^Nicy, when its real origin (see JACOB, 6) had been forgotten, may have been explained by JN -\w\ God s righteous one. See JASHAR, BOOK OF, 4, and cp Bacher, ZATW5 ibifi ( 8s) : G. Hoffmann, ib. 16218 ( 96).

T. K. C.


0?VB), i Ch. 126 AV ; (HBty i Ch. 23zo AV ; RV. IsSHiAH [q.v., 2 4].


(eciAc[B] etc.), i Esd. 833, RV = Ezra 87, JESHAIAH, 4.


(^Nrp^l [Ginsb.], or t ?N 1| p <l b [Ba.] ; the text seems wrong ; but see NAMES, 31, where 7ND B" is favoured ; cp viov erac^aA [B?], tcr/uarjA [AL] ; see JESHOHAIAH), a Simeonite, temp. Hezekiah (i Ch. 436). T. K. C.


( , 52 ; contracted from tiVVW ? [see NAMES, 52] ; or from ^J 2N, ABISHAI ? cp Icabod from Abi-cabod [so Marquart, FunJamente, 24 ; see also Exp. T 10 526^ ( 99)]; for another view see JEZEBEL; in many MSS of i Ch. 213 t>"K; iecc&i [BAQL], lecrcu [N]), son of Obed and father of David (see DAVID, i).


(iHCoyeic [B], mcoye [A]), i Esd. 626= Ezra 240, JESHUA ii. , 7.


(iHCOYc[B],-OY[ AL ]) J Esd. 8 63 = Ezra 833, JESHUA ii., 3.