BEFORE DAVID
The mysterious figure of Melchizedek King of Salem haunted the memory
of Hebrew writers in later times.[46] The author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews says, “Now consider how great this man was unto whom even
the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.” Salem appears to
have been Jerusalem, according to the Psalm[47] in which we read, “In
Salem is His dwelling, and His abode in Zion”; and the “King’s Dale”
is placed by Josephus near the city, where perhaps it is again noticed
later.[48] The Samaritans, who grouped so many sacred sites round
Gerizim, seem to have believed that Salem was the Shalem afterwards
visited by Jacob, east of Shechem--the Salim of the Fourth Gospel, now
the village of Sâlim, which is mentioned in the Paschal Chronicle;
while in the fourth century, according to Jerome, “The palace of
Melchisedec was there shown, its magnificence witnessed by the size of
ruins of ancient workmanship.”[49] We may, however, accept the Hebrew
belief that Salem (“safety”) is the same as _Uru-salimu_ (“the city of
safety”), which we now know to have been the Amorite name for their
royal city.
Melchizedek appears and disappears suddenly, without any explanation
as to his race or lineage. Josephus believed him to have been a
Canaanite, and fixes his date as founder of Jerusalem about 2058 B. C.
The chronology of the Hebrew text of Genesis would, however, make it
about a century earlier, in the “days of Amraphel king of Shinar,”
whom Sir Henry Rawlinson identified with ’Ammurabi, the famous sixth
King of Babylon, who has been shown to have acceded in 2139 B. C.,[50]
and who was thus the contemporary of Abraham. It would seem that this
priest-king of Jerusalem was the suzerain of the petty kings of the
cities in the Jordan Valley; but Abraham’s tithes are said to have been
offered to Jehovah as the “most high God,” and not to Melchizedek as
his over-lord. Jerusalem thus appears, even in the earliest notice, to
have been a sacred city,[51] and we are no longer surprised--in reading
the account in Genesis--at the civilisation of Abraham’s age, since we
know that Canaan then shared, in some measure at least, the culture of
the two ancient empires of Babylon and of Egypt, which disputed its
possession.
The original population of the city is said to have been both Amorite
and Hittite,[52] nor is there any reason to doubt that an outlying
tribe of the latter race, coming south from Syria, may have then
occupied the mountains of Salem and Hebron, though early in the
sixteenth century B. C. they were driven out of Palestine by Thothmes
III. It is now very generally agreed that the Amorites were a Semitic
race, and the existing tablets written in and after the fifteenth
century by Amorites are in a Semitic language like that of the
Babylonians. Hittite letters, on the other hand, show quite as clearly
that this race of pigtailed warriors was Mongoloid, and closely akin
to the Akkadians of Babylonia, whose speech was very similar to pure
Turkish.[53]
[Sidenote: EARLY NAMES]
The antiquity of Jerusalem seems to be indicated by the fact that
certain names connected with the city cannot be explained as ordinary
Hebrew words. Jebus, Zion, Hinnom, and Topheth are terms not traced to
any Hebrew roots, and they have always puzzled scholars as much as the
name Jerusalem itself did until it was shown to be of Amorite origin.
Even the meaning of Moriah--the name of the Temple hill--is doubtfully
explained as “vision of Jehovah,” for the Greek translators understood
it to mean “the high.”[54] It is, however, connected[55] both with
Abraham’s vision of Jehovah, and also perhaps with that of David when
the “Angel of the Presence” sheathed his sword on the Temple hill.
Jebus (_Yebûs_) is perhaps Hittite for “strong abode,” equivalent to
the Amorite Uru-Salimu, or “safe city.”[56] Zion has been supposed to
mean a “fortress,” but the derivation is forced; as a Hittite word it
would rather seem to signify a “palace” or “temple.”[57] For Hinnom and
Topheth no Hebrew explanations have been found possible, yet both may
perhaps be rendered as of Canaanite origin: the former would signify
“prince” (_En-num_), and the latter “flat” or “low” (_tuptu_), applying
to the lowest part of the valley junction on the south-east side of the
city.[58] The “King’s Vale” may have been the “deep valley of Molech,”
or it may have been equivalent to the older Hinnom (or Ben-Hinnom),
“the valley of the prince” or of the “prince’s son.” It is remarkable
that its modern name (_Wâdy Rabâbeh_) appears to mean the “valley of
lordship.”
Whatever be thought as to the meaning of these ancient and obscure
words, we know that a Hittite still lived in Jerusalem in David’s
time, and his name Uriah has no probable meaning in Hebrew. In Hittite
it was no doubt _Ur-ia_, “the worshipper of Ya,” while the Jebusite
King Araunah--whose name is so variously spelt--was probably known
as _Ur-ena_, “the worshipper of Baal.”[59] Thus the geographical and
personal names alike seem to indicate the early presence of both
Amorites and Hittites in Jerusalem.
Between the time of Abraham and that of Joshua’s conquest we hear
nothing about the city for six hundred years. After this we have
remarkable evidence of its existence as a royal city in the extant
tablets of the Tell Amarna collection, written to the Pharaoh by
the Amorite king of Uru-salimu. Amenophis III. of Egypt was the
contemporary of Rimmon-nirari of Assyria, who reigned about 1500 B. C.,
and Amenophis IV. was the contemporary of Burnaburias of Babylon,
who acceded about 1440 B. C.[60] Palestine, having been conquered
by Thothmes III. about 1580 B. C., was peacefully ruled by Egypt
when Amenophis III. acceded to the throne. The population appears at
this time to have been entirely Semitic, no letters in any but the
Babylonian language occurring among those of its rulers, while the
names of all the cities mentioned, even in the sixteenth century B. C.,
are also Semitic. The Philistines, like the rest of the Canaanites,
used the Babylonian language and script, and they worshipped the
Babylonian sea-god Dagon, whom ’Ammurabi had adored. Their names are
also Semitic, not only in the Bible but in the Tell Amarna tablets, and
in the later inscriptions of Sennacherib.[61] If any Hittites still
remained in the south, they were no longer a ruling tribe, though in
North Syria and Cappadocia they were then powerful and independent. The
Philistines were loyal to Egypt, but they do not appear to have had
any power in the mountains till four centuries later, and the loyalty
of the Amorite kings of Jerusalem and Gezer was much suspected by the
Pharaohs.
[Sidenote: THE AMORITES]
About the middle of the reign of Amenophis III. a rebellion broke
out in Syria.[62] Hittites and Amorites invaded Phœnicia, attacked
Damascus, and spread in Bashan, shortly before the time when Israel
appeared in Moab according to the Bible chronology. Amenophis was,
however, allied with the Kassite ruler of Babylon, and with the
Armenian and Cappadocian monarchs of the same Mongoloid race. He sent
soldiers to Gebal, and the Cappadocians subdued the Amorites. Some
twenty years later, Amenophis IV. (son of Amenophis III.) having begun
his unfortunate reign, another more formidable revolt occurred. The
friendly Armenian king Dusratta had died, and Aziru the Amorite had
deserted his obedience, allying himself with the Hittite suzerain of
Cappadocia. The Amorites conquered Phœnicia, and Egypt was powerless
to aid its Syrian subjects. The hatred of the memory of Amenophis IV.,
shown in later times, was perhaps due to his loss of the empire rather
than to his worship of Asiatic gods, who had been adored in Egypt in
the time of his father also; for,[63] like his father, he is addressed
by the Asiatic kings as a worshipper of the Egyptian god Amen, and
texts from the Egyptian ritual occur on his coffin.
[Sidenote: THE ABIRI]
The six letters written to Egypt by the King of Jerusalem do not
mention the name of the Pharaoh addressed, but, judging from those of
other personages concerned, they seem to belong to an early period
in this story of rebellion, though Canaan remained in a disturbed
condition even as late as 1440 A. D., when Burnaburias of Babylon
and Assur-uballid of Assyria--writing to Amenophis IV.--speak of
interrupted communications and the robbery of caravans. The name
of Jerusalem (_Uru-sa-limu_ or _U-ru-sa-limu_) has been read with
certainty by Dr. Winckler, but the name of the Amorite king is
variously rendered. It seems, however, to have probably belonged to
the same class with that of Melchizedek, and of Adonizedek, the king
killed by Joshua.[64] Jerusalem was being attacked by a people called
_’Abiri_ or _Ḥabiri_, who destroyed all the Canaanite rulers at Ai,
Ajalon, Lachish, and other places; and, since the period is that of the
Hebrew Conquest under Joshua, according to the Bible, it is natural to
identify these ’Abiri with the Hebrews, as proposed by Dr. Zimmern in
Germany. It is true that scholars who follow the views of Lepsius[65]
and of Brugsch, formed before any notice of Israel had been discovered
in Egyptian monumental texts, have denied this identification. Lepsius
argued that the city of Rameses, built by the Hebrews, could not have
been so named before the time of Rameses II.; but as it is noticed
even as early as the time of Jacob,[66] he was obliged to regard this
allusion as an anachronism, which might equally apply to the passage
on which he relied. Clearly, however, the allusion can only serve to
date the age in which the story of Joseph, as we now have it, was
written down together with the narrative of the Exodus. The conclusions
of Lepsius--who preferred the libels of Tacitus, and those with which
Josephus charges Manetho, to the chronological statements of the
Bible--are quite destructive to Old Testament dates. Rameses, however,
was the later name of Zoan, the city where the Hebrews dwelt in Egypt,
while the site of Pithom--the other “store city” which they built for
the Pharaoh--is still doubtful, though supposed by Dr. Naville to be
the same as that of Succoth. Lepsius called Rameses II. the Pharaoh
of the Oppression, and Mineptah, his son, the Pharaoh of the Exodus,
though he ruled two centuries later than the time of Joshua. As,
however, we now have a text by Mineptah, in which he notices Israel
as being already in Palestine in the fifth year of his reign, it is
impossible that the Exodus and the forty years in the desert could have
coincided with this period of incipient Egyptian decay. We are left
free to accept the new monumental evidence, which illustrates in so
remarkable a manner the historic statements of the Book of Joshua.
Jerusalem was not taken by Joshua, though its Amorite king Adonizedek
was slain at Makkedah, with Japhia, king of Lachish, and three
others.[67] It is remarkable that the Amarna correspondence gives us
the name Japhia (_yap’aa_) as that of the contemporary king of Gezer,
for Gezer came to the aid of Lachish, according to the Bible account.
Joshua is not named in these tablets, which refer only to a certain
Elimelech (a Hebrew name[68]) as one of the invaders, but the letters
speak of incidents identical with those narrated in the story of the
Hebrew Conquest. The more important passages bearing on the history of
Jerusalem may be thus rendered:
[Sidenote: JERUSALEM LETTERS]
“To the King my Lord thus says ’Abd-ṣadaḳ thy servant, at the feet of
my Lord the King seven times and seven times I bow. What have I done
to the King my Lord? They urge on thee that an enemy, a sinner, should
be seized, that ’Abd-ṣadaḳ has rebelled before the King his Lord.
Lo! as for me, no man is my father and none is my friend supporting
me. They rebel in this place, great King, striving with me for my
father’s house. Why should I sin against the King of Kings? Behold the
complaint, O King my Lord. I say to the governor of the King my Lord,
‘Why are ye afraid of the Hebrews?’ and they are afraid to go out, so
they send to the presence of the King my Lord.[69] Lo! I say there is
ruin of the lands of the King my Lord, as they have sent to the King my
Lord; and let the King my Lord know.... The lands of the suzerain[70]
have revolted, all that Elimelech has wasted, all the King’s land; and
let the King beware as to his land, which I say pleading, and let the
King my Lord behold the tears, and the warfare that is mighty against
me; and I receive nothing from the King my Lord, and no order ordered
in the presence of the King ... as to whether he will order men for a
garrison. And let the King my Lord learn, and regard the tears; and now
arise, O King my Lord. Now they have expelled the [Egyptian] governor.
I say there is ruin of the lands of the King. Will you not hear me?...
They have destroyed all the rulers: there is not a ruler [left] for
the suzerain.[70] Let the King give countenance to the people: let him
order soldiers[71] of the King my Lord. There is not one in the lands
of the King. The Hebrew has wasted all the King’s lands, since the
King’s soldiers[71] were sent away this year: they were sent away from
the lands of the suzerain.[70] Since there was not a soldier [left],
there was ruin to the lands of the King my Lord. O Scribe of the King
my Lord, this is ’Abd-ṣadaḳ’s plea for soldiers. The lands of the King
my Lord are ruined.”
This appeal was repeated more than once, but seems to have met with
no reply, except perhaps a demand for hostages to be sent to Egypt
(as in the case of the king of Gezer also), though this may refer to
a previous period. Meanwhile, the petty kings allied to Jerusalem
gathered forces in aid of the city.[72] The Hebrews, it may be noted,
are not mentioned in any of the Amarna letters except those from
Jerusalem.
“[Behold] what Milkilu [of Gezer] and Suardatu [of Keilah] have done
for me as to the land of the King my Lord. They have hired soldiers
of Gezer, soldiers of Gimzo: they have taken Rabbah. The King’s land
has rebelled to the Hebrews; and now as regards the city Jerusalem,
the city called Beth Baalah[73] has revolted [sending?] to the city
of Keilah. Let the King listen to ’Abd-ṣadaḳ thy servant, and order
soldiers, and recover the King’s land for the King: as there were
no soldiers the King’s land has revolted to the Hebrews, who have
confounded me and Suardatu and Milkilu.”
In this connection it should be noted that Baalah, or (as also called)
Kirjath-jearim, was one of the Hivite cities which did not join the
Amorite league, but submitted with Gibeon to Joshua. The passage[74]
which seems to refer to hostages is as follows:
“Behold the King my Lord has established his law from the rising of
the sun to the setting of the sun. It is false what they have falsely
said against me. Behold, as for me, am not I a ruler, a man of the
house of the King my Lord? Behold I myself am a servant of the King,
and I have sent tribute to the King. As for me, no one helps me, no
one is my friend, rising for the King. I have remained in this Chiefs
city.[75]... I have given eight slaves to Suta, the King’s governor,
in charge against me: twenty-one women ... twenty men our prisoners,
to remain in the hands of Suta, obeying the King my Lord. There is
ruin to all the lands of the King that they have taken fighting me.
From the lands of Seir to the city Hareth Carmel they gathered to the
rulers, and fought me. Now they despise the Commander, and the King my
Lord does not regard tears as they fight against me. Lo! I remain a
ship amid the waves. Make ready, great King; you will march to the land
of Nahrima and the land of Chezib--and lo! these are fortresses of the
King--you will march on the Hebrew. There is not a ruler [left] for the
King my Lord, all are destroyed. Lo! they have cut off Turbazu in the
city Beth-zilu, with Zimrida, lo! of the city of Lachish--slaves wore
him out, they did him to death. The region of Rimmon bewails slaughter
... in the city Zilu there is destruction.”
[Sidenote: HEBREW RAIDS]
A later letter,[76] referring to four previous messages, gives further
details of the war:
“Lo! the land of Gezer, the land of Ashkelon, and the land of Lachish
have given them corn, wine, and all else that they have taken away.”
“Behold this land of the city Jerusalem--no man aids me, no tribe
supports me, nor has risen to support me. Lo! it is done to me as was
done to Milkilu, and to the sons of Labaya, who have given the King’s
land to the Hebrews. Behold the King my Lord will be just to me, for
the men are sorcerers [or malicious]. Let him ask the governors. Lo!
strong and many and committing sin, very proud, they demanded property
and [threatened] death.... You will purge the lands in the hands of
the city of Ashkelon. Let the King ask about them--much corn, much
oil, much ... to the command of Pauru the King’s Governor, as far as
Jerusalem.” “The men taking messages for the King they bound--four
messages sent out by men of the fortress. They marched to block the
roads. Like a bird in a snare [I remain]: they [spy?] the city Ajalon.
Let me tell the King my Lord, I do not speak rashly sending about
the road for the King my Lord, for it is not easy. Lo! the King has
established his law in the city Jerusalem for ever, and will not rashly
speak of the desertion of the lands of Jerusalem. To the scribe of the
King my Lord thus says thy servant Abd-ṣadaḳ. I bow at thy feet, I am
thy servant. Render the news well to the King my Lord. O scribe of the
King, I am afflicted, great is my affliction, and you do a deed not
faithful, against the land of Cush. Hear us. Is there not slaughter,
and you ... him, that men of the land of Cush are ... in my city? Let
it ... the King to ... salute the King my Lord seven times and seven
times for me.”
Another letter, on a different kind of clay, possibly refers to a final
retreat from Jerusalem,[77] but it is a fragment only.
“And now the city Jerusalem. Since he went away this land is faithful
to the King. Lo! Gaza has remained to the King. Behold, the city Hareth
Carmel is Tagi’s, and the people in the city ’Aiath[78] have bowed
down. He went far away from the fortress; and have we done this? Lo!
Labaya gave gifts to the Hebrews, as Milkilu sent for tribute and
the young men said, ‘Is not this fortress annexed by us?’ The men of
Keilah gave all they asked; and have we left the city of Jerusalem?
The garrisons you ordered are blockaded by the ravages of this fellow
whom I fear. Addasi has remained in his fortress at Gaza, [sending] the
women ... to Egypt.... To be given to the King.”
The parallelism between the details of this monumental account and
those of the Bible narrative in the Book of Joshua, which--in its
present form--appears to have been composed in the time of David or
of Solomon, is very remarkable, and it is certain that Jerusalem was a
royal city and a strong fortress, which at the time when the letters
were written had not fallen to the ’Abiri or Hebrews, though there were
signs already that its further defence was becoming impossible.
[Sidenote: JEBUS]
From the Book of Judges we learn that after the death of Joshua the
children of Judah smote Jerusalem, and set it on fire. The border
between Judah and Benjamin ran on the south side of the city, along the
Valley of Hinnom, and to the head of the Valley of Rephaim. The town
thus lay in the lot of Benjamin, but the conquest was not complete;
for the “children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that
inhabited Jerusalem, but the Jebusites dwell with the children of
Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day”--that is, till the time of David
at least. Josephus thought that the lower city only--perhaps not
yet protected by a wall--was taken, and that the upper city was the
Jebusite stronghold; nor is this an improbable explanation, since the
lower city seems--as will appear later--to have already existed in
David’s time. In the time of Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, Jebus
was regarded as “the city of a stranger that is not of the children of
Israel,” and it even possessed a Canaanite king in David’s time.[79]
We may endeavour therefore to form some idea of the position and
extent of Jebusite Jerusalem. It was a royal city, a sacred place, and
a fortress of great strength, the taking of which was one of David’s
greatest exploits. The site indeed seems to have been chosen for its
strength, which has again and again been proved by many long and
desperate sieges. The city has always been taken from the north, and
the upper city on the south-west hill has always been the last quarter
to fall. This flat hill, rising 2,500 feet above the level of the sea,
measures about 600 yards east and west by 800 yards north and south,
thus containing an area of about 100 acres. Since the fourth century
A. D. the name Zion has been applied to this hill, which is surrounded
on all sides by deep valleys having steep slopes or precipices--that
called Hinnom forming a natural fosse which sinks some 400 feet below
the hill plateau, and defends the hill on the west and south, while
the Tyropœon Valley--about 500 feet wide--sinks on the north to about
150 feet below the plateau, and turns south, defending it on the east.
The hill of Zion is only joined to the watershed by a narrow neck, or
isthmus, of high ground at the north-west corner of the upper city, and
it required to be defended by a fortress wall at this point, which has
always been the place attacked by besiegers. The lower city lay to the
north, in the broad Tyropœon, and was defended by a smaller summit,
now occupied by the Cathedral of the Holy Sepulchre, which rises 2,497
feet above sea-level, and bulges out eastwards from the plateau of the
Judean watershed which runs north, west of Jerusalem. Thus, as Josephus
says, the city as a whole lay “over against the temple in the manner
of a theatre”[80]; for the horseshoe shape was caused by the head of
the Tyropœon on the north side of the upper city, the original form of
which has been somewhat obliterated by the accumulation of from 40 to
90 feet of rubbish under David Street, which leads east to the Temple
ridge. Yet even now there is a sharp descent eastwards along this
street, and steep side streets lead up southwards thence to Zion.[81]
[Sidenote: OPHEL]
Such, then, was the natural fortress which made the capture of
Jerusalem so difficult, and which appears to have been occupied from
the earliest times. The temple ridge on the east was 60 feet lower than
Zion even at its highest point; and, as this ridge became narrower and
tailed off towards the south, it sank--on the Ophel spur--to about 200
feet below the level of the upper city. The Ophel spur was unfit for a
fortress, and the part south of the temple contained an area of only
about 15 acres. It is impossible, therefore, to regard it as having
at any time been by itself a “city,” for the more important cities of
Palestine were much larger than such a small hamlet would have been.
Tyre covered 100 acres, Cæsarea and Samaria about 300 acres each, while
even Gezer--a town of less importance--included 40 acres within the
walls. Ophel is not mentioned in history till three hundred years after
David’s time. Nor are the remains of caves or cellars on this narrow
tongue of land apparently of any remote antiquity, though some writers
have supposed them to be of Jebusite origin, and have even called them
“neolithic”--a term which has no meaning in Palestine, because (as in
Egypt and in Babylonia) instruments of stone and of flint are found
at all levels in the excavations, and are contemporary with others of
bronze and of iron. The remains found in connection with these caves
are of Roman origin, and one of the largest of them was a dyeing
establishment, in which Byzantine objects were discovered. There are
similar caves or cellars on the hill of the upper city, and these may
be equally late.[82]
The rock strata at Jerusalem fall with an inclination of about ten
degrees south-east from the watershed, so that the rain-water is
carried naturally in this direction towards the junction (below
Siloam) of the Kidron, the Tyropœon and the Hinnom valleys. The town
indeed has the appearance of sliding downhill towards the south-east,
the Ophel spur being the lowest of those covered by the city at its
time of greatest magnitude, when Jerusalem--including the 30 acres of
the Temple enclosure--covered about 300 acres in all, being half as
large again as the present city within the Turkish walls. The lowest
rock stratum, which appears in the low cliffs on the east side of the
Kidron, is a hard dolomitic limestone, impervious and forming the bed
for streams which sink through the more porous upper limestone. It
appears again on the watershed to the north-west, and is known as the
Santa Croce marble, being mottled with red, which--on the hillock of
the traditional Calvary--was regarded as being due to the blood of
Christ. This formation is of the Greensand period geologically, and
the stone is known as _mezzeh_, or “superior,” in Arabic. Above it lie
beds of fine but rather soft building stone, belonging to the Lower
Chalk age, and called in Arabic _meleki_, or “royal” stone.[83] In
this white limestone the Temple cisterns are cut. Another stratum of
hard limestone, or _mezzeh_, lies over the _meleki_, and above this on
Olivet is the white Upper Chalk, full of ammonites, hippurites, and
other characteristic shells, with beds of the Eocene age, including
a capping of nummulitic limestone. These porous strata are known as
_k’akûli_, or “conglomerate,” and _nâri_, or “fire stone.”
This description may be sufficient to account for the natural
water-supply, which was always most abundant on the south-east, where
the dolomite bed is nearest to the surface in the valleys. The
principal spring is in the Kidron, below the steep eastern slope
of the Ophel spur south of the Temple. It rises under the floor of
a cave, where there must be an underground reservoir in the rock,
resembling many in the Lebanon and in other limestone regions. Towards
the end of winter, when the heavy rains have fallen, this reservoir
overflows frequently through a fissure which acts as a natural syphon,
sucking out all the water as soon as the reservoir is full. The sudden
gush--like that of the Sabbatic River in Syria--occurs every few hours
in early spring, but at the interval of several days in autumn. The
stream originally flowed down the rocky bed of the Kidron, which is
now filled in to a depth of 30 feet. But from early times it would
seem that attempts were made to carry the water to the foot of the
east slope of the upper city hill, in order to bring it nearer to
the fortress. By the time of Hezekiah at least--as will be detailed
later--a rock tunnel carried the waters of the spring to Siloam, or
“westwards to the city of David.”[84] This statement--in consequence
of the English mistranslation--has become the foundation of a literary
theory according to which the city of David was a mere hamlet of
15 acres on Ophel, whereas in reality it appears to show that the
stronghold of Jebus lay towards the west. It is not impossible that a
yet earlier rock-cut channel existed, with the same object of conveying
the waters of this intermittent spring towards the western citadel;
and, as the point has some importance in connection with the history of
the city, the reasons may be given more fully.
[Sidenote: GIHON]
Excavations were made in front of the cave in which the Kidron spring
bursts forth, in the year 1902, and it was then discovered that a
rock tunnel leads away towards the south outside the entrance to the
cave.[85] The level of its floor is only 5 feet above the water-level
at Siloam, and this aqueduct unfortunately has not been explored
along its whole length, nor has it furnished any indications of the
age in which it was made. It has been thought to be part of an old
rock channel traced for 600 feet northwards from the old pool below
the Siloam reservoir. This, however, is doubtful, as the channel in
question rises rapidly, and the levels in consequence would oblige us
to suppose that pipes must have been used, as water does not run uphill
in an open channel.[86] This Siloam channel was still connected, in
1874, with a series of surface channels on the slopes of Ophel, which
have been quarried away since, but which once carried the surface
rain-water to the old pool.
The excavations at the spring showed that a large tank or pool probably
once existed before the cave. The overflow from the cave was also
carried away by the aqueduct, and perhaps brought round to tanks still
existing below Siloam south-west of the pool. If this work was really
ancient, representing the “brook that flowed through the midst of the
earth”[87] even before Hezekiah’s tunnel was made, it is an argument in
favour of the view that the upper city of Jerusalem was the original
Jebusite stronghold.
[Sidenote: EN-ROGEL]
The earliest reference to any feature of Jerusalem topography is the
notice of the spring called En-rogel, on the boundary between Judah and
Benjamin east of the Valley of Hinnom. The meaning of the name has
been differently conjectured,[88] but if the true rendering be “spring
of the water channel,” it would seem that an aqueduct must have existed
at En-rogel when the Book of Joshua was written; and the topographical
evidence in that book indicates a date earlier than the time of Isaiah
and Hezekiah, thus favouring the conclusion that the aqueduct in front
of the cave is ancient.
En-rogel has, it is true, been placed in quite another position.
Brocardus, in the thirteenth century, supposed it to be the well at
the junction of the Kidron and Hinnom valleys which Christians called
“Nehemiah’s Fountain,” in connection with the apocryphal legend of a
fire fountain which was in Persia and not at Jerusalem at all.[89] The
Moslems called it the “Well of Job,” from a legend of the fountain
which sprang up when Job stamped on the ground[90]--perhaps confounding
Job with Joab, since En-rogel was near the “Stone Zoheleth” where Joab
proclaimed Adonijah king. But a well is not a spring, and Zoheleth is
supposed by M. Clermont-Ganneau to be the rock still called _Zahweileh_
(“the slippery”), close to the village of Silwân, and opposite the
cave spring already described, which is the only spring on this side
of Jerusalem. Neither Josephus nor any ancient pilgrim speaks of the
well in question before 1184 A. D., when it was cleared out. There is
no doubt that this well is ancient, but how old it is not easy to say.
It is now 125 feet deep, and at 113 feet below the surface the old
well-shaft rises from a rock-cut cave below. After the rains, in March,
when the Kidron is full of water beneath the surface, a stream here
rises to the surface, and flows down the valley for some distance. West
of the well is a remarkable aqueduct, with another rock reservoir fed
by two channels. This aqueduct is 90 feet below the rock surface, and
runs south for 600 yards. It was discovered by Sir Charles Warren in
1869, and he suggests that this may be the “brook that flowed through
the midst of the earth” which has been noticed above. These works were
evidently intended for the storage of the winter rain waters; but, on
the other hand, the description of the tunnel, with its flights of
steps leading to the water, recalls the aqueduct of Cæsarea,[91] which
is certainly not older than the time of Herod, and may be considerably
later. Whatever be the age of these remarkable waterworks, they have no
connection with a “spring,” such as we must suppose En-rogel to have
been.
[Sidenote: WATER SUPPLY]
The fortress of the upper city was not, however, dependent entirely on
the natural supply of water in the Kidron Valley, or--afterwards--at
Siloam. Even in the time of Nehemiah another spring existed on the
west side of Jerusalem, in the upper part of the Valley of Hinnom.[92]
It was called the “Spring of the Monster,” or, according to the Greek
translators (who regarded the word as Aramaic), the “Spring of the
Figs.” It appears to have been unknown to Josephus, though he speaks of
the “Serpent’s Pool”--apparently the present Mâmilla reservoir, which
was called the “Upper Pool” in the time of Hezekiah. The “Spring of the
Monster” seems to have been buried under the rubbish which has partly
filled the Hinnom Valley, but in the Jebusite age it no doubt formed a
supply on the west side of the upper city. It is also possible that the
rock-cut tank within the city, immediately north of Zion (now called
the “Patriarch’s Bath,” or “Hezekiah’s Pool”), was already ancient in
Hezekiah’s time, when it was known as the “Lower Pool,”[93] and that
it also supplied the original Jebus. There is, in addition to these
supplies, another probably of great antiquity west of the Temple,
outside the north-east corner of the upper city. This is now known as
the _Ḥammâm esh Shefa_,[94] or “healing bath,” and it is connected
with an ancient rock aqueduct which has been partly cut across by the
Herodian wall of the Temple enclosure. This channel is now 60 feet
under ground and 20 feet under a pavement which is older than the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D.; it is apparently even older than
the time of Pompey’s siege in 63 B. C., since a voussoir of the bridge
then existing has fallen into the aqueduct. The shaft to the “healing
bath” itself is now 86 feet deep, and--at the bottom--a vaulted passage
of the Roman or Byzantine age leads to the original cave, which has
a conduit opening out on the south side. The shaft is comparatively
modern throughout, and the cave must have been on the surface in the
Jebusite age. It receives the drainage of the valley (now filled in by
some 40 to 80 feet of rubbish), which has its head outside the Damascus
Gate north of the city. This supply was carried down the Tyropœon
valley, on the east side of the upper city, apparently to Siloam.
The water-supply has been thus described in detail, because it is
often assumed that the Jebusite city must have depended entirely on
the En-rogel spring in the Kidron ravine, which was clearly not the
case; but, even if it were so, it would not follow that the Jebusite
town must have stood on Ophel, for cities in Palestine were built on
the highest and strongest sites available, even if these were not very
near the springs. Thus at Samaria the springs are a mile away from
the nearest point of the city wall on the east, and other instances
might be cited where cities, like Tyre and Cæsarea, depended on water
brought by an aqueduct from a distance of some miles. Jerusalem, before
the time of Pilate, depended entirely for water on the rainfall of
a comparatively small area east of the Judæan watershed; but, as we
have seen, the storage of this natural supply in caves and tanks gave
a sufficient amount of water on each side of the upper city, and the
various rock channels served to bring this supply close under, and
within, the city walls. There is therefore no difficulty in supposing
that Josephus is right in describing the upper city of his own times as
having been the “mountain top of Zion” captured by David.
[Sidenote: ZION]
The name Zion was older than David’s time. Since the fourth century
A. D. it has always been applied to the hill of the upper city, and
it may have been so placed in the earliest ages. But in the Bible it
is not restricted to this position, but appears as a poetical name
for Jerusalem at large. Josephus never uses this name, but speaks of
“Jerusalem” instead. Zion is mentioned 154 times in the Old Testament,
but only four passages[95]--all referring to early times--are in the
historical narratives, the large majority of the other notices being
in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Psalms. Zion was a city with gates, and a
“holy hill.” It is constantly used as a name equivalent to Jerusalem.
It had walls and towers and “dwelling-places”; it is “the city of
Jehovah, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel,” a high mountain, and a
“city of solemnities.” It has been thought that, in the Greek age,
the name applies specially to the Temple hill, but the passages cited
do not really necessitate this conclusion. Ancient names are commonly
preserved in the poetry of a nation, and Zion was a very ancient word,
which--as we have seen--may possibly have meant a “chief’s abode,”
or a “god’s abode,” even when the Hittites and Amorites still held
Jerusalem, and when it was the sacred city of Melchizedek, long before
the Temple of Jehovah was built on the ridge outside, at the threshing
floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Hence it is in the poetry of the
prophets and psalmists of Israel that the name Zion occurs; and, though
there is nothing really wrong in the Christian application of the word
to the south-western hill, yet the term is only vaguely equivalent to
the city generally. But there is one quarter to which it should not be
solely applied--namely, the small spur which is called Ophel in the
Bible.
FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER II
[46] Ps. cx. 4; Heb. v. 6, 10, vii. 1–4.
[47] Ps. lxxvi. 2.
[48] Gen. xiv. 17, 18; 2 Sam. xviii. 18; Josephus, “Ant.,” I. x. 2;
“Ant.,” VII. x. 3.
[49] Gen. xxxiii. 18 (A.V. marg.), called _Sâlim el Kebîra_ (“Great
Salem”) in Samaritan Chronicle (Neubauer, _Journal Asiatique_, Dec.
1869, p. 433). See “Mem. West Pal.,” ii. p. 230; Tal. Jer., _Abodah
Zara_, v. 4; John iii. 23; Onomasticon, s.v. _Jerusalem_ and _Salem_;
Chron. Paschale, quoted by Reland, “Pal. Illustr.,” ii. p. 977. Jerome
(“Ep. ad Evang.”), “Salem oppidum est juxta Scythopolim quod usque
hodie appellatur Salem et ostenditur ibi palatium Melchisedec,” etc.
[50] Gen. xiv. 1; Josephus, “Wars,” VI. x. 1. See my article in
“Murray’s Bible Dictionary,” 1908, “Chronology.” The date is now
ascertained from the Babylonian Chronicle’s through-reckoning, and
from a text of Nabu-nahid, while the same result was reached by Dr.
Felix Peiser (_Zeitschrift für Assyr._ vi. pp. 264–71) in 1891 from the
statements of Berosus.
[51] Ariel (Isa. xxix. 1, 2, 7) may stand for Babylonian _eri-ilu_,
“city of God,” as a name of Jerusalem.
[52] Ezek. xvi. 3, 45.
[53] See my volume “The Hittites and Their Language,” 1898. Dr. Sayce
(“The Hittites,” 1888) also (p. 14) calls them “Mongoloid.”
[54] Gen. xxii. 2 (LXX. _hupsēlē_); in 2 Chr. iii. 2 it is not
translated in the Greek. In Babylonian _mur-iahu_ would mean “seat of
Yahu.”
[55] Gen. xxii. 14 (see R.V.); possibly to be rendered “in the mount
Jehovah appears.” The LXX.: “In the mount the Lord was seen” (see 2
Sam. xxiv. 16).
[56] Akkadian _ab_ (or _ub_), “abode,” _us_, “strong”; Turkish _eb_
and _üs_. Isaiah refers to the meaning of the Semitic name as “a quiet
habitation” (xxxiii. 20).
[57] In Akkadian _Ṣi-an_ is “palace” (in the Behistān dialect), and
_Zi-una_, “chief’s building” or “God’s place.” Gesenius compares the
Arabic _ṣahweh_, “fortress,” and _ṣahyûn_.
[58] See Isa. xxx. 33, “deep and large.”
[59] _Araunah_ (2 Sam. xxiv. 16, 20); Heb. _Aranieh_ in ver. 18;
_Ornan_ (1 Chr. xxi. 15–28); no doubt originally written with the signs
_UR-AN-EN_, which would read either _Ur-ena_ or _Ur-nun_; in LXX.
always _Orna_.
[60] These synchronisms show that the approximate dates given by
Brugsch for Amenophis III. and IV. are correct. The recent discoveries
of Dr. H. Winckler in Cappadocia also prove that Rameses II. was ruling
about 1330 B. C., as Brugsch supposed. The later dates given by some
Egyptologists are based on a fallacious astronomical calculation, and
do not agree with the known Assyrian and Babylonian dates.
[61] Taylor cylinder text. See also my “Tell Amarna Tablets,” 2nd edit.
1898, pp. 117–20, 193.
[62] “Tell Amarna Tablets,” pp. 8, 14, 187, 193, 200, 202, 210;
_Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft_, No. 35, 1908, discoveries of Dr. H.
Winckler, pp. 33–6.
[63] “Amarna Tablets,” pp. 170, 188.
[64] The signs used are those for “man,” “good,” and “do,” variously
rendered _Arad-Khi-ba_ and _’Abd-Ṭobba_, but perhaps better
_’Abd-ṣadaḳ_, “servant of the just.” Cf. _Melchi-ṣedeḳ_ (“my king is
just”), _Adoni-ṣedeḳ_, “my lord is just.” See “Tell Amarna Tablets,”
pp. 139–51.
[65] Lepsius, “Letters from Egypt,” 1844, English trans. 1853, pp. 484
_seq._
[66] Gen. xlvii. 11; Exod. i. 11.
[67] Josh. x. 3. See “Tell Amarna Tablets,” p. 137, and Josh. x. 33.
[68] Ruth i. 2.
[69] Amarna Tablets, No. 102, Berlin Collection: “_tarayamu ... amili
’Abiri_.”
[70] _Sarru b’elu._
[71] _Pitati_, an Egyptian word, either from _pet_, “bow,” or _pet_,
“foot”--bowmen, or otherwise infantry, and not a chariot force such as
is often mentioned in the plains, in the Amarna letters.
[72] No. 106, Berlin Collection.
[73] Baalah = Kirjath-jearim (Josh. xv. 10), near which was Rabbah
(ver. 60). See Josh ix. 17.
[74] No. 104, Berlin Collection.
[75] _ina Bit-amilla-ma._
[76] No. 103, Berlin Collection, line 54 on back of the tablet.
[77] No. 199, Berlin Collection.
[78] _’Ati_, see Isa. x. 28, = Ai.
[79] Josh. xv. 8, xviii. 16; Judg. i. 8, 21, xix. 11, 12, xx. 28; 2
Sam. xxiv. 23 (“Araunah a king”); Josephus, “Ant.,” V. ii. 2, 5, 8.
[80] Josephus, “Ant.,” XV. xi. 5.
[81] The dome of the rotunda of the Holy Sepulchre Cathedral is fixed
in N. lat. 31° 46´ 45´´, E. long. 35° 13´ 25´´.
[82] Bliss, “Excavations at Jerusalem,” 1898, pp. 231–3; Warren,
“Recovery of Jerusalem,” 1871, pp. 306–8; G. A. Smith, “Jerusalem,”
1907, vol. i. p. 284.
[83] This is the usual explanation, but I have some doubts whether the
word is not really _malaḳeh_, meaning “smooth stone.”
[84] In 1878 I consulted the late Prof. A. B. Davidson as to this
translation of the sentence in 2 Chron. xxxii. 30, and I retain still
his letter of December 30, 1878, pronouncing that this is “the natural
translation of the words.”
[85] _Pal. Expl. Fund Quarterly_, Jan. 1902, p. 32.
[86] The channel starts at the level 2,087 feet above the sea. Bottom
of Pool of Siloam, 2,081 feet. The channel north of the old pool at
Siloam is about 2,120 feet.
[87] 2 Chron. xxxii. 4.
[88] “Fountain of the fuller,” or “of the spy,” with reference to
David’s spies. See Josh. xviii. 16, 2 Sam. xvii. 17. I suggested many
years ago a comparison with the Arabic _rujeileh_, “water-channel.” Dr.
G. A. Smith (“Jerusalem,” 1908, i. p. 109) takes the same view, and
compares the Syriac _rogûlo_, a “water-channel.”
[89] 2 Macc. i. 18–36; Brocardus, 1283 A. D.; Zuallardo, “Dev. Viag.,”
p. 142; Robinson, “Bib. Res.,” i. p. 332, note 5; Warren, “Recov. of
Jer.,” pp. 256–64; Wilson, “Ord. Survey Notes,” p. 84; “Mem. Survey
West Pal.,” Jerusalem vol., pp. 371–5.
[90] Ḳorân xxxviii. 40, 41; see 1 Kings i. 9.
[91] See my account, “Mem. Survey West Pal.,” ii. pp. 18–23.
[92] Neh. ii. 13; Josephus, “Wars,” V. iii. 2, xii. 2.
[93] Isa. xxii. 9. See 2 Kings xviii. 17; Isa. xxxvi. 2.
[94] Sir C. Wilson, “Ord. Survey Notes,” p. 85, and Pl. xxii. Explored
October 29, 1864.
[95] 2 Sam. v. 7; 1 Kings viii. 1; 1 Chron. xi. 5; 2 Chron. v. 2. The
word “Zion” occurs also in poetic passages in 2 Kings xix. 21, 31.
Outside the historic books it is found thirty-eight times in Psalms,
forty-seven times in Isaiah, thirty-nine times in Jeremiah, and in
twenty-four other poetic passages. See especially Ps. ii. 6, ix. 11,
14, xlviii. 12, lxxvi. 2, lxxxvii. 1, 5; Isa. iv. 5, x. 24, 32, xii. 6,
xxx. 19, xxxiii. 14, 20, lx. 14; Jer. xxvi. 18, xxxi. 12; Lam. v. 11,
18; 1 Macc. iv. 37, v. 54, vi. 48, 62, vii. 33, x. 11. In 1 Macc. the
word Zion means the Holy City, but is not specially restricted to the
Temple hill. It is mentioned six times only in this book, as cited.