JERUSALEM
traditionally
named
Acra,
Bezetha,
Zion,
and
Ophel,
in
the
N.W.,
N.E.,
S.W.,
and
S.E.
respectively;
and
Ophel
is
further
subdivided
(but
without
any
natural
line
of
division)
into
Ophel
proper
and
Moriah,
the
latter
being
the
northern
and
higher
end.
But
it
must
be
noticed
carefully
at
the
outset
that
around
these
names
the
fiercest
discussions
have
raged,
many
of
which
are
as
yet
not
within
sight
of
settlement.
4.
The
site
of
Jerusalem
is
not
well
provided
with
water.
The
only
natural
source
is
an
intermittent
spring
in
the
Kidron
Valley,
which
is
insufficient
to
supply
the
city's
needs.
CSsterns
have
been
excavated
for
rain-storage
from
the
earliest
times,
and
water
has
been
led
to
the
city
by
conduits
from
external
sources,
some
of
them
far
distant.
Probably
the
oldest
known
conduit
is
a
channel
hewn
in
the
rock,
entering
Jerusalem
from
the
north.
Another
(the
'low-level
aqueduct')
is
traditionally
ascribed
to
Solomon:
it
brings
water
from
reservoirs
beyond
Bethlehem;
and
a
third
(the
'high-
level
aqueduct')
is
of
Roman
date.
Several
conduits
are
mentioned
in
the
OT:
the
'conduit
of
the
upper
pool,
in
the
highway
of
the
fuller's
field'
(Is
7'),
which
has
not
been
identified;
the
conduit
whereby
Hezekiah
'brought
the
waters
of
Gihon
straight
down
on
the
west
side
of
the
city
of
David,'
also
referred
to
as
the
'conduit'
whereby
he
'brought
water
into
the
city'
(2
K
20M,
2
Ch
323»),
is
probably
to
be
identified
with
the
Siloam
tunnel,
famous
for
its
(unfortunately
un-dated)
Old
Hebrew
inscription.
II.
HisTOBT.
—
1.
Primitive
period.
—
The
origin
of
the
city
of
Jerusalem
is
lost
in
obscurity,
and
probably,
owing
to
the
difficulties
in
the
way
of
excavation,
must
continue
to
be
matter
of
speculation.
The
first
reference
that
may
possibly
be
connected
with
the
city
is
the
incident
of
the
mysterious
'
Melchizedek,
king
of
Salem'
(Gn
14"),
who
has
been
the
centre
of
much
futile
speculation,
due
to
a
large
extent
to
misunder-standing
of
the
symboUc
use
of
his
name
by
the
authors
of
Ps
110
(v.<)
and
Hebrews
(chs.
5-7).
It
is
not
even
certain
that
the
'
Salem
'
over
which
this
contemporary
of
Hammurabi
ruled
is
to
be
identified
with
Jerusalem
(see
Salem)
;
there
is
no
other
aTidmt
authority
for
this
name
being
applied
to
the
city.
We
do
not
touch
solid
ground
till
some
eight
or
nine
hundred
years
later,
when,
about
1450,
we
find
'Abd-khiba,
king
of
Urusalim,
sending
letters
to
his
Egyptian
over-lord,
which
were
discovered
with
the
Tell
el-Amarna
correspondence.
The
contents
of
these
letters
are
the
usual
meagre
record
of
mutual
squabbles
between
the
different
village
com-munities
of
Palestine,
and
to
some
extent
they
raise
questions
rather
than
answer
them.
Some
theories
that
have
been
based
on
expressions
used
by
'
Abd-khiba,
and
supposed
to
illuminate
the
Melchizedek
problem,
are
now
regarded
as
of
no
value
for
that
desirable
end.
The
chief
importance
of
the
Tell
el-Amarna
correspondence,
so
far
as
Jerusalem
is
concerned,
is
the
demonstration
of
the
true
antiquity
of
the
name
'Jerusalem.'
Where
was
the
Jerusalem
of
'Abd-khiba
situated?
This
question,
which
is
bound
up
with
the
authenticity
or
otherwise
of
the
traditional
Zion,
and
affects
such
important
topographical
and
archaeological
questions
as
the
site
of
David's
tomb,
is
one
of
the
most
hotly
contested
of
all
the
many
problems
of
the
kind
which
have
to
be
considered
by
students
of
Jerusalem.
In
an
article
like
the
present
it
is
impossible
to
enter
into
the
details
of
the
controversy
and
to
discuss
at
length
the
arguments
on
both
sides.
But
the
majority
of
modern
scholars
are
now
coming
to
an
agreement
that
the
pre-Davidic
Jerusalem
was
situated
on
the
hill
known
as
Ophel,
the
south-eastern
of
the
four
hills
above
enumer-ated,
in
the
space
intercepted
between
the
Tyropoeon
and
Kidron
valleys.
This
is
the
hill
under
which
is
the
only
natural
source
of
water
in
the
whole
area
of
Jeru-salem
—
the
'
Virgins
Fountain,'
an
intermittent
spring
of
brackish
water
in
the
Kidron
Valley
—
and
upon
which
JERUSALEM
is
the
principal
accumulation
of
ancient
dSbris,
with
ancient
pottery
fragments
strewn
over
the
surface.
This
hill
was
open
tor
excavation
till
three
or
four
years
ago,
though
cumbered
with
vegetable
gardens
which
would
make
digging
expensive;
but
lately
houses
have
commenced
to
be
built
on
its
surface.
At
the
upper
part
of
the
hill,
on
this
theory,
we
cannot
doubt
that
the
high
place
of
the
subjects
of
'
Abd-khiba
would
be
situated;
and
the
tradition
of
the
sanctity
of
this
section
of
the
city
has
lasted
unchanged
through
all
the
varying
occupations
of
the
city
—
Hebrew,
Jewish,
Byzantine,
Arab,
Crusader,
and
modern
Mohammedan.
Whether
'his
be
the
'land
of
Moriah'
of
Gn
22^
is
doubtful:
it
has
been
suggested
that
the
name
is
here
a
copyist's
error
for
'land
of
Midian,'
which
would
be
a
more
natural
place
f
or
Jahweh
worship
in
the
days
of
Abraham
than
would
the
high
place
of
the
guardian
numen
of
Jerusalem.
In
certain
Biblical
passages
(Jos
IS^'
[but
see
E,V],
Jg
19'°,
1
Ch
ll*)an
alternative
name,
Jebus,
is
givenforthe
city;
and
its
inhabitants
are
named
Jebusites,
mentioned
in
many
enumerations
with
the
rest
of
the
Amorites
(Gn
10",
Ex
23's,
Jos
3"
etc.),
and
specially
assigned
to
this
city
in
Jg
!».
Until
the
discovery
of
the
Tell
el-Amarna
correspondence
it
was
supposed
that
Jebus
was
the
primitive
name
of
the
city,
changed
on
the
Israelite
conquest
to
Jerusalem;
but
this
has
been
rendered
untenable,
and
it
now
seems
probable
that
the
name
of
Jebus
is
a
mere
derivative,
of
no
authority,
from
the
ethnic
Jebusites,
the
meaning
and
etymology
of
which
are
still
to
seek.
Of.
art.
Jebus.
At
the
Isra«Ute
immigration
the
king
of
Jerusalem
was
Adoni-zedek,
who
headed
a
coalition
against
Gibeon
for
having
made
terms
with
Joshua.
This
king
is
gener-ally
equated
with
the
otherwise
unknown
Adoni-bezek,
whose
capture
and
mutilation
are
narrated
in
Jg
is-'
(see
Moore's
Judges,
ad
loc).
The
statement
that
Judah
burnt
Jerusalem
(Jg
1»)
is
generally
rejected
as
an
interpolation;
it
remained
a
Jebusite
city
(Jg
l^'
19")
until
its
conquest
by
David.
According
to
the
cadastre
of
Joshua,
it
was
theoretically
just
within
the
south
border
of
the
tribe
of
Benjamin
(Jos
15*
IS''-
'«).
2.
David
and
Solomon.
—
The
city
remained
foreign
to
the
Israelites
(Jg
19")
until
the
end
of
the
period
of
7i
years
which
David
reigned
in
Hebron,
when
he
felt
himself
powerful
enough
to
attack
the
Jebusite
strong-hold.
The
passage
describing
his
capture
of
the
city
is
2
S
5*-'°,
and
few
passages
in
the
historical
books
of
the
Old
Testament
are
more
obscure,
owing
partly
to
textual
corruption
and
partly
to
topographical
allusions
clear
to
the
writer,
but
veiled
in
darkness
for
us.
It
appears
that
the
Jebusites,
trusting
in
the
strength
of
their
gates,
threw
taunts
to
the
Israelite
king
that
'
the
bund
and
the
lame
would
be
enough
to
keep
him
out';
and
that
David
retorted
by
applying
the
term
to
the
defenders
of
the
city:
'Go
up
the
drain,'
he
said
to
his
followers,
'and
smite
those
blind
and
lame
ones.'
He
evidently
recognized
the
impregnability
of
the
defences
themselves;
but
discovered
and
utilized
a
convenient
drain,
which
led
underground
into
the
middle
of
the
city.
A
similar
drain
was
found
in
the
excavation
at
Gezer,
with
a
device
in
the
middle
to
prevent
its
being
used
for
this
purpose.
During
the
revolt
of
the
feUahin
against
Ibrahim
Pasha
in
1834,
Jerusalem,
once
more
besieged,
was
entered
through
a
drain
in
the
same
way.
It
need
hardly
be
said
that
David's,'
gutter'
has
not
yet
been
identified
with
certainty.
It
the
identification
of
the
Jebusite
city
with
Ophel
be
admitted,
we
cannot
fail
to
identify
it
also
with
the
•city
of
David,'
in
which
he
dwelt
(2
S
5').
But
when
we
read
further
that
David
'
built
round
about
from
Millo
and
inward'
we
are
perplexed
by
our
total
ignorance
as
to
what
Millo
may
have
been,
and
where
it
may
have
been
situated.
The
word
is
by
the
LXX
rendered
Acra,
and
the
same
word
is
used
by
Josephus.
The
position
of
the
Acra
is
a
question
aa
much
disputed
as
the
position
