Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Jerusalem
Subjects in this Topic:
(Heb. éְøåּùָׁìִí , Yerushala'im, fully [in 1Ch_3:5; 2Ch_25:1; Est_2:6; Jer_26:18] éְøåּùָׁìִéí , Yerushala'yim [with final ä directive, éְøåּùָׁìֵîָä , 1Ki_10:2; fully éְøåּùָׁìִéְîָä , 2Ch_32:9]; Chald. éְøåּùְׁìֵí or éְøåּùְׁìֶí , Yerushelem'; Syr. Urishlem; Gr. É᾿åñïõóáëήì ( ôὰ ) ῾Éåñïóüëõìá [Gen. ýìùí ]; Latin Hierosolymna), poetically also SALEM ( ùָׁìֵí , Shalenz'), and once ARIEL SEE ARIEL (q.v.); originally JEBUS SEE JEBUS (q.v.); in sacred themes the “City of God,” or the “Holy City” (Neh_11:1; Neh_11:16; Mat_4:5), as in the modern Arab. name el-Khuds, the Holy (comp. ἱåñüðïëéò , Philo, Opp. 2:524); once (2Ch_25:28) the “city of Judah.” The Hebrew name is a dual form (see Gesenius, Lehrg. p. 539 sq.; Ewald, Krit. Gramm. 332), and is of disputed etymology (see Gesenius, Thes. Heb. p. 628; Rosenmüller, Altflerth. 2, 2, 202; Ewald, Isr. Gesch. 2, 584), but probably signifies possession of peace (q.d. éֵøåּùׁàּùָׁìֵí [rather than éְøåּ ùָׁìֵí , i.e. foundation of peace, as preferred by Gesenius and Fürst]), the dual referring to the two chief mountains (Zion and Moriah) on which it was built, or the two main parts (the Upper and the Lower City, i.e. Zion and Acra). It has been known under the above titles in all ages as the Jewish capital of Palestine.
I. History. — This is so largely made up of the history of Palestine itself in different ages, and of its successive rulers, that for minute details we refer to these, SEE JUDEA; we here present only a general survey, but with references to sources of more detailed information.
1. This city is mentioned very early in Scripture, being usually supposed to be the Salem of which Melchizedek was king (Gen_14:18). B.C. cir. 2080. Such was the opinion of the Jews themselves; for Josephus, who calls Melchizedek king of Solyma ( Óüëõìá ), observes that this name was afterwards changed into Hierosolyma (Ant. 1, 10, 3). All the fathers of the Church, Jerome excepted, agree with Josephus, and understand Jerusalem and Salem to indicate the same place. The Psalmist also says (Psa_76:2), “In Salem is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.” SEE SALEM.
The mountain of the land of Moriah, which Abraham (Gen_22:2) reached on the third day from Beersheba, there to offer Isaac (B.C. cir. 2047), is, according to Josephus (Ant. 1, 13, 2), the mountain on which Solomon afterwards built the Temple (2Ch_3:1). SEE MORIAH.
The question of the identity of Jerusalem with “Cadytis, a large city of Syria,” “almost as large as Sardis,” which is mentioned by Herodotus (2, 159; 3, 5) as having been taken by Pharaoh-Necho, need not be investigated in this place. It is interesting, and, if decided in the affirmative, so far important as confirming the Scripture narrative, but does not in any way add to our knowledge of the history of the city. The reader will find it fully examined in Rawlinson's Herodotus, 2, 246; Blakesley's Herodotus Excursus on Bk. 3, ch. 5 (both against identification); and in Kenrick's Egypt, 2, 406, and Dict. of Gk. and Rom. Geogr. 2, 17 (both for it).
Nor need we do more than refer to the tradition — of traditions they are, and not mere individual speculation — of Tacitus (Hist. 5, 2) and Plutarch (Is. et Osir. ch. 31) of the foundation of the city by a certain Hierosolymus, a son of the Typhon (see Winer's note, 1, 545). All the certain information to be obtained as to the early history of Jerusalem must be gathered from the books of the Jewish historians alone.
2. The name Jerusalem first occurs in Jos_10:1, where Adonizedek (q.v.), king of Jerusalem, is mentioned as having entered into an alliance with other kings against Joshua, by whom they were all overcome (comp. Jos_12:10). B.C. 1618. SEE JOSHUA.
In drawing the northern border of Judah, we find Jerusalem again mentioned (Jos_15:8; compare Jos_18:16). This border ran through the valley of Ben-Hinnom; the country on the south of it, as Bethlehem, belonged to Judah; but the mountain of Zion, forming the northern wall of the valley, and occupied by the Jebusites, appertained to Benjamin. Among the cities of Benjamin, therefore, is also mentioned (Jos_18:28) “Jebus, which is Jerusalem” (comp. Jdg_19:10; 1Ch_11:4). At a later date, however, owing to the conquest of Jebus by David, the line ran on the northern side of Zion, leaving the city equally divided between the two tribes. SEE TRIBE. There is a rabbinical tradition that part of the Temple was in the lot of Judah, and part of it in that of Benjamin (Lightfoot, 1, 1050, Lond. 1684). SEE TEMPLE.
After the death of Joshua, when there remained for the children of Israel much to conquer in Canaan, the Lord directed Judah to fight against the Canaanites; and they took Jerusalem, smote it with the edge of the sword, and set it on fire (Jdg_1:1-8), B.C. cir. 1590. After that, the Judahites and the Benjamites dwelt with the Jebusites at Jerusalem; for it is recorded (Jos_15:63) that the children of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites inhabiting Jerusalem; and we are farther informed (Jdg_1:21) that the children of Benjamin did not expel them from Jerusalem (comp. Jdg_19:10-12). Probably the Jebusites were removed by Judah only from the lower city, but kept possession of the mountain of Zion, which David conquered at a later period. This is the explanation of Josephus (Ant. 5, 2, 2). SEE JEBUS. Jerusalem is not again mentioned till the time of Saul, when it is stated (1Sa_17:54) that David took the head of Goliath and brought it to Jerusalem, B.C. cir. 1063. When David, who had previously reigned over Judah alone in Hebron, was called to rule over all Israel, he led his forces against the Jebusites, and conquered the castle of Zion which Joab first scaled (1Sa_5:5-9; 1Ch_12:4-8). He then fixed his abode on this mountain, and called it “the city of David,” B.C. cir. 1044. He strengthened its fortifications, SEE MILLO, but does not appear to have enlarged it.
Thither he carried the ark of the covenant; and there he built to the Lord an altar in the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, on the place where the angel stood who threatened Jerusalem with pestilence (2Sa_24:15-25). But David could not build a house for the name of the Lord his God on account of the wars which were about him on every side (2Sa_7:13; 1Ki_5:3-5). Still the Lord announced to him, through the prophet Nathan. (2Sa_7:10), “I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more,” B.C. cir, 1043. From this it would seem that even David had, then at least, no assurance that Jerusalem in particular was to be the place which had so often been spoken of as that which God would choose for the central seat of the theocratical monarchy, and which it became after Solomon's Temple had been built. SEE TEMPLE.3. The reasons which led David to fix upon Jerusalem as the metropolis of his kingdom are noticed elsewhere, SEE DAVID, being, chiefly, that it was in his own tribe of Judah, in which his influence was the strongest, while it was the nearest to the other tribes of any site he could have chosen in Judah. The peculiar strength also of the situation, enclosed on three sides by a natural trench of valleys, could not be without weight. Its great strength, according to the military notions of that age, is shown by the length of time the Jebusites were able to keep possession of it against the force of all Israel. David was doubtless the best judge of his own interests in this matter; but if those interests had not come into play, and if he had only considered the best situation for a metropolis of the whole kingdom, it is doubtful whether a more central situation with respect to all the tribes would not have been far preferable, especially as the law required all the adult males of Israel to repair three times in the year to the place of the divine presence. Indeed, the burdensome character of this obligation to the more distant tribes seems to heave been one of the excuses for the revolt of the ten tribes, as it certainly was for the establishment of schismatic altars in Dan and Beth-el (1Ki_12:28). Many travelers have suggested that Samaria, which afterwards became the metropolis of the separated kingdom, was far preferable to Jerusalem for the site of a capital city; and its central situation would also have been in its favor as a metropolis for all the tribes. But as the choice of David was subsequently confirmed by the divine appointment, which made Mount Moriah the site of the Temple, we are bound to consider the choice as having been providentially ordered with reference to the contingencies that afterwards arose, by which Jerusalem was made the capital of the separate kingdom of Judah, for which it was well adapted. SEE JUDAH.
The promise made to David received its accomplishment when Solomon built his Temple upon Mount Moriah, B.C. 1010. He also added towers to the walls, and otherwise greatly adorned the city. By him and his father Jerusalem had been made the imperial residence of the king of all Israel; and the Temple, often called “the house of Jehovah,” constituted at the same time the residence of the King of kings, the supreme head of the theocratical state, whose vice regents the human kings were taught to regard themselves. It now belonged, even less than a town of the Levites, to a particular tribe: it was the center of all civil and religious affairs, the very place of which Moses spoke, Deu_12:5 : “The place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come” (comp. 9:6; 13:14; 14:23; 16:11-16; Psalms 122). SEE SOLOMON.
Jerusalem was not, indeed, politically important: it was not the capital of a powerful empire directing the affairs of other states, but it stood high in the bright prospects foretold by David when declaring his faith in the coming of a Messiah (Psa_2:6; Psalms 1, 2; Psalms 37; Psa_102:16-22; Psa_110:2). In all these passages the name Zion is used, which, although properly applied to the southernmost part of the site of Jerusalem, is often in Scripture put poetically for Jerusalem generally, and sometimes for Mount Moriah and its Temple. SEE ZION.
The importance and splendor of Jerusalem were considerably lessened after the death of Solomon, under whose son Rehoboam ten of the tribes rebelled, Judah and Benjamin only remaining in their allegiance, B.C. 973. Jerusalem was then only the capital of the very small state of Judah. When Jeroboam instituted the worship of golden calves in Beth-el and Dan, the ten tribes went no longer up to Jerusalem to worship and sacrifice in the house of the Lord (1Ki_12:26-30). SEE ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF.
After this time the history of Jerusalem is continued in the history of Judah, for which the second book of the Kings and of the Chronicles are the principal sources of information. After the time of Solomon, the kingdom of Judah was almost alternately ruled by good kings, “who did that which was right in the sight of the Lord,” and by such as were idolatrous and evil disposed; and the reign of the same king often varied, and was by turns good or evil. The condition of the kingdom, and of Jerusalem in particular as its metropolis, was very much affected by these mutations. Under good kings the city flourished, and under bad kings it suffered greatly. Under Rehoboam (q.v.) it was conquered by Shishak (q.v.), king of Egypt, who pillaged the treasures of the Temple (2Ch_12:9), B.C. 970. Under Amaziah (q.v.) it was taken by Jehoash, king of Israel, who broke down four hundred cubits of the wall of the city, and took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the Temple (2Ki_14:13-14), B.C. cir. 830. Uzziah (q.v.), son of Amaziah, who at first reigned well, built towers in Jerusalem at the corner gate, at the valley gate, and at the turning of the wall, and fortified them (2Ch_26:9), B.C. cir. 807. His son, Jotham (q.v.), built the high gate of the Temple, and reared up many other structures (2Ch_27:3-4), B.C. cir. 755. Hezekiah (q.v.) added to the other honors of his reign that of an improver of Jerusalem (2Ch_29:3), B.C. 726. At a later date, however, he despoiled the Temple in some degree in order to pay the levy imposed by the king of Assyria (2Ki_18:15-16), B.C. 713. But in the latter part of the same year he performed his most eminent service for the city by stopping the upper course of Gihon, and bringing its waters by a subterraneous aqueduct to the west side of the city (2Ch_32:30). This work is inferred, from 2 Kings 20, to have been of great importance to Jerusalem, as it cut off a supply of water from any besieging enemy, and bestowed it upon the inhabitants of the city. The immediate occasion was the threatened invasion by the Assyrians. SEE SENNACHERIB.
Hezekiah's son, Manasseh (q.v.), was punished by a capture of the city in consequence of his idolatrous desecration of the Temple (2Ch_33:11), B.C. cir. 690; but in his later and best years he built a strong and very high wall on the west side of Jerusalem (2Ch_33:14). The works in the city connected with the names of the succeeding kings of Judah were, so far as recorded, confined to the defilement of the house of the Lord by bad kings, and its purgation by good kings, the most important of the latter being the repairing of the Temple by Josiah (2 Kings 20:23), B.C. 623, till for the abounding iniquities of the nation the city and Temple were abandoned to destruction, after several preliminary spoliations by the Egyptians (2Ki_23:33-35), B.C. 609, and Babylonians (2Ki_24:14), B. C. 606, and again (2Ki_24:13), B.C. 598. Finally, after a siege of three years, Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, who razed its walls, and destroyed its Temple and palaces with fire (2 Kings 25; 2 Chronicles 36; Jeremiah 39), B.C. 588. Thus was Jerusalem smitten with the calamity which Moses had prophesied would befall it if the people would not keep the commandments of the Lord, but broke his covenant (Lev_26:14; Deuteronomy 28). The finishing stroke to this desolation was put by the retreat of the principal Jews, on the massacre of Gedaliah, into Egypt, B.C. 587, where they were eventually involved in the conquest of that country by the Babylonians (Jeremiah 40-44). Meanwhile the feeble remnant of the lower classes, who had clung to their native soil amid all these reverses, were swept away by a final deportation to Babylon, which left the land literally without an inhabitant (Jer_52:30). B.C. 582. SEE NEBUCHADNEZZAR.
Moses had long before predicted that if, in the land of their captivity, his afflicted countrymen repented of their evil, they should be brought back again to the land out of which they had been cast (Deu_30:1-5; comp. 1Ki_8:46-53; Neh_1:8-9). The Lord also, through Isaiah, condescended to point out the agency through which the restoration of the holy city was to be accomplished, and even named, long before his birth, the very person, Cyrus, under whose orders this was to be effected (Isa_44:28; comp. Jer_3:2; Jer_3:7-8; Jer_23:3; Jer_31:10; Jer_32:36-37). Among the remarkably precise indications should be mentioned that in which Jer_25:9-12 limits the duration of Judah's captivity to seventy years. SEE CAPTIVITY. These encouragements were continued through the prophets, who themselves shared the captivity. Of this number was Daniel, to whom it was revealed, while yet praying for the restoration of his people (Dan_9:16; Dan_9:19), that the streets and the walls of Jerusalem should be built again, even in troublous times (Dan_9:25). SEE SEVENTY WEEKS.
4. Daniel lived to see the reign of Cyrus, king of Persia (Dan_10:1), and the fulfilment of his prayer. It was in the year B.C. 536, “in the first year of Cyrus,” that, in accomplishment of the prophecy of Jeremiah, the Lord stirred up the spirit of this prince, who made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, expressed in these remarkable words: “The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel” (Ezr_1:2-3). This important call was answered by a considerable number of persons, particularly priests and Levites; and the many who declined to quit their houses and possessions in Babylonia committed valuable gifts to the hands of their more zealous brethren. Cyrus also caused the sacred vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar had taken from the Temple to be restored to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah, who took them to Jerusalem, followed by 42,360 people, besides their servants, of whom there were 7337 (Ezr_1:5-11).
On their arrival at Jerusalem they contributed, according to their ability, to rebuild the Temple; Jeshua the priest, and Zerubbabel, reared up an altar to offer burnt offerings thereon; and when, in the following year, the foundation was laid of the new house of God, “the people shouted for joy, but many of the Levites who had seen the first Temple wept with a loud voice” (Ezr_3:2; Ezr_3:12). When the Samaritans expressed a wish to share in the pious labor, Zerubbabel declined the offer, and in revenge, the Samaritans sent a deputation to king Artaxerxes of Persia, carrying a presentment in which Jerusalem was described as a rebellious city of old time which, if rebuilt, and its walls set up again, would not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and would thus endamage the public revenue. The deputation succeeded, and Artaxerxes ordered that the building of the Temple should cease. The interruption thus caused lasted to the second year of the reign of Darius (Ezr_4:24), when Zerubbabel and Jeshua, supported by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, again resumed the work, and would not cease though cautioned by the Persian governor of Judaea, B.C. 520. On the matter coming before Darius Hystaspis, and the Jews reminding him of the permission given by Cyrus, he decided in their favor, and also ordered that the expenses of the work should be defrayed out of the public revenue (Ezr_6:8). In the sixth year of the reign of Darius the Temple was finished, when they kept the dedicatory festival with great joy, and next celebrated the Passover (Ezr_6:15-16; Ezr_6:19), B.C. 516. Afterwards, in the seventh year of the second Artaxerxes (Longimanus), Ezra, a descendant of Aaron, came up to Jerusalem, accompanied by a large number of Jews who had remained in Babylon, B.C. 459. He was highly patronized by the king, who not only made him a large present in gold and silver, but published a decree enjoining all treasurers of Judaea speedily to do whatever Ezra should require of them; allowing him to collect money throughout the whole province of Babylon for the wants of the Temple at Jerusalem, and also giving him full power to appoint magistrates in his country to judge the people (Ezra 7, 8). At a later period, in the twentieth year of king Artaxerxes, Nehemiah, who was his cupbearer, obtained permission to proceed to Jerusalem, and to complete the rebuilding of the city and its wall, which he happily accomplished, in spite of all the opposition which he received from the enemies of Israel (Neh_1:2; Neh_1:4; Neh_1:6), B.C. 446.
The city was then capacious and large, but the people in it were few, and many houses still lay in ruins (Neh_7:4). At Jerusalem dwelt the rulers of the people and “certain of the children of Judah and of the children of Benjamin;” but it was now determined that the rest of the people should cast lots to bring one of ten to the capital (Neh_11:1-4), B.C. cir. 440. On Nehemiah's return, after several years' absence to court, all strangers, Samaritans, Ammonites, Moabites, etc., were removed, to keep the chosen people, from pollution; ministers were appointed to the Temple, and the service was performed according to the law of Moses (Ezra 10; Nehemiah 8, 10, 12, 13), B.C. cir. 410. Of the Jerusalem thus by such great and long-continued exertions restored, very splendid prophecies were uttered by those prophets who flourished after the exile; the general purport of which was to describe the Temple and city as destined to be glorified far beyond the former, by the advent of the long and eagerly-expected Messiah, “the desire of all nations” (Zec_9:9; Zec_12:10; Zec_13:3; Hag_2:6-7; Mal_3:11). SEE EZRA; SEE Nehemiah 5. For the subsequent history of Jerusalem (which is closely connected with that of Palestine in general), down to its destruction by the Romans, we must draw chiefly upon Josephus and the books of the Maccabees, It is said by Josephus (Ant. 11, 8) that when the dominion of this part of the world passed from the Persians to the Greeks, Alexander the Great advanced against Jerusalem to punish it for the fidelity to the Persians which it had manifested while he was engaged in the siege of Tyre. His hostile purposes, however, were averted by the appearance of the high priest Jaddua at the head of a train of priests in their sacred vestments. Alexander recognized in him the figure which in a dream had encouraged him to undertake the conquest of Asia. He therefore treated him with respect and reverence, spared the city against which his wrath had been kindled, and granted to the Jews high and important privileges. The historian adds that the high priest failed not to apprise the conqueror of those prophecies in Daniel by which his successes had been predicted. The whole of this story is, however, liable to suspicion, from the absence of any notice of the circumstance in the histories of this campaign which we possess. SEE ALEXANDER THE GREAT.
After the death of Alexander at Babylon (B.C. 324), Ptolemy surprised Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, when the Jews would not fight, plundered the city, and carried away a great number of the inhabitants to Egypt, where, however, from the estimation in which the Jews of this period were held as citizens, important privileges were bestowed upon them (Joseph. Ant. 12, 1). In the contests which afterwards followed for the possession of Syria (including Palestine), Jerusalem does not appear to have been directly injured, and was even spared when Ptolemy gave up Samaria, Acco, Joppa, and Gaza to pillage. The contest was ended by the treaty in B.C. 302, which annexed the whole of Palestine, together with Arabia Petraea and Coele-Syria to Egypt. Under easy subjection to the Ptolemies, the Jews remained in much tranquillity for more than a hundred years, in which the principal incident, as regards Jerusalem itself, was the visit which was paid to it, in B.C. 245, by Ptolemy Euergetes, on his return from his victories in the East. He offered many sacrifices, and made magnificent presents to the Temple. In the wars between Antiochus the Great and the kings of Egypt, from B.C. 221 to 197, Judaea could not fail to suffer severely; but we are not acquainted with any incident in which Jerusalem was principally concerned till the alleged visit of Ptolemy Philopator in B.C. 211. He offered sacrifices, and gave rich, gifts to the Temple, but, venturing to enter the sanctuary in spite of the remonstrances of the high priest, he was seized with a supernatural dread, and fled in terror from the place. It is said that on his return to Egypt he vented his rage on the Jews of Alexandria in a very barbarous manner. SEE ALEXANDRIA. But the whole story of his visit and its results rests upon the sole authority of the third book of Maccabees (chaps. 1 and 3), and is therefore not entitled to implicit credit. Towards the end of this war the Jews seemed to favor the cause of Antiochus; and after he had subdued the neighboring country, they voluntarily tendered their submission, and rendered their assistance in expelling the Egyptian garrison from Mount Zion. For this conduct they were rewarded by many important privileges by Antiochus. He issued decrees directing, among other things, that the outworks of the Temple should be completed, and that all the materials for needful repairs should be exempted from taxes. The peculiar sanctity of the Temple was also to be respected. No foreigner was to pass the sacred walls, and the city itself was to be protected from pollution; it being strictly forbidden that the flesh or skins of any beasts which the Jews accounted unclean should be brought into it (Joseph. Ant. 12, 3, 3). These were very liberal concessions to what the king himself must have regarded as the prejudices of the Jewish people.
Under their new masters the Jews enjoyed for a time nearly as much tranquillity as under the generally benign and liberal government of the Ptolemies. But in B.C. 176, Seleucus Philopator, hearing that great treasures were hoarded up in the Temple, and being distressed for money to carry on his wars, sent his treasurer, Heliodorus, to bring away these treasures. But this personage is reported to have been so frightened and stricken by an apparition that he relinquished the attempt, and Seleucus left the Jews in the undisturbed enjoyment of their rights (2Ma_3:4-40; Joseph. Ant. 12, 3, 3). His brother and successor, Antiochus Epiphanes, however, was of another mind. He took up the design of reducing them to a conformity of manners and religion with other nations; or, in other words, of abolishing those distinctive features which made the Jews a peculiar people, socially separated from all others. This design was odious to the great body of the people, although there were many among the higher classes who regarded it with favor. Of this way of thinking was Menelaus, whom Antiochus had made high priest, and who was expelled by the orthodox Jews with ignominy, in B.C. 169, when they heard the joyful news that Antiochus had been slain in Egypt. The rumor proved untrue, and Antiochus, on his return, punished them by plundering and profaning the Temple. Worse evils befell them two years after; for Antiochus, out of humor at being compelled by the Romans to abandon his designs upon Egypt, sent his chief collector of tribute, Apollonius, with a detachment of 22,000 men, to vent his rage on Jerusalem. This person plundered the city and razed its walls, with the stones of which he built a citadel that commanded the Temple Mount. A statue of Jupiter was set up in the Temple; the peculiar observances of the Jewish law were abolished, and a persecution was commenced against all who adhered to these observances, and refused to sacrifice to idols. Jerusalem was deserted by priests and people, and the daily sacrifice at the altar was entirely discontinued (1 Macc. 1, 29-40; 2 Macc. 5, 24-26; Joseph. Ant. 12, 5, 4). SEE ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES.
This led to the celebrated revolt of the Maccabees who, after an arduous and sanguinary struggle, obtained possession of Jerusalem (B.C. 163), and repaired and purified the Temple, which was then dilapidated and deserted. New utensils were provided for the sacred services: the old altar, which had been polluted by heathen abominations, was taken away, and a new one erected. The sacrifices were then recommenced, exactly three years after the Temple had been dedicated to Jupiter Olympius. The castle, however, remained in the hands of the Syrians, and long proved a sore annoyance to the Jews, although Judas Maccabaeus surrounded the Temple with a high and strong wall, furnished with towers, in which soldiers were stationed to protect the worshippers from the Syrian garrison (1 Macc. 1, 36, 37; Joseph. Ant. 7, 7). Eventually the annoyance grew so intolerable that Judas laid siege to the castle. This attempt brought a powerful army into the country under the command of the regent Lysias, who, however, being constrained to turn his arms elsewhere, made peace with the Jews; but when he was admitted into the city, and observed the strength of the place, he threw down the walls in violation of the treaty (1Ma_6:48-63). In the ensuing war with Bacchides, the general of Demetrius Soter, in which Judas was slain, the Syrians strengthened their citadel, and placed in it the sons of the principal Jewish families as hostages (1Ma_9:52-53; Joseph. Ant. 13, 1, 3). The year after (B.C. 159) the temporizing high priest Alcimus directed the wall which separated the court of Israel from that of the Gentiles to be cast down, to afford the latter free access to the Temple; but he was seized with palsy as soon as the work commenced, and died in great agony (1Ma_9:51-57).
When, a few years after, Demetrius and Alexander Balas sought to outbid each other for the support of Jonathan, the hostages in the castle were released; and subsequently all the Syrian garrisons in Judaea were evacuated, excepting those of Jerusalem and Bethzur, which were chiefly occupied by apostate Jews, who were afraid to leave their places of refuge. Jonathan then rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, and repaired the buildings of the city, besides erecting a palace for his own residence (1 Maccabees 10, 2-4; Joseph. Ant. 13, 2, 1). The particular history of Jerusalem for several years following is little more than an account of the efforts of the Maccabaean princes to obtain possession of the castle, and of the Syrian kings to retain it in their hands. At length, in B.C. 142, the garrison was forced to surrender by Simon, who demolished it altogether, that it might not again be used against the Jews by their enemies. Simon then strengthened the fortifications of the mountain on which the Temple stood, and built there a palace for himself (1Ma_13:43-52; Joseph. Ant. 13, 6, 6). This building was afterwards turned into a regular fortress by John Hyrcanus (q.v.), and was ever after the residence of the Maccabean princes (Joseph. Ant. 15, 11, 4). It is called by Josephus “the castle of Baris,” in his history of the Jews; till it was strengthened and enlarged by Herod the Great, who called it the castle of Antonia, under which name it makes a conspicuous figure in the Jewish wars of the Romans. SEE MACCABEES.
6. Of Jerusalem itself we find no notice of consequence in the next period till it was taken by Pompey (q.v.) in the summer of B.C. 63, and on the very day observed by the Jews as one of lamentation and fasting, in commemoration of the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. Twelve thousand Jews were massacred in the Temple courts, including many priests, who died at the very altar rather than suspend the sacred rites (Joseph. Ant. 14, 1-4). On this occasion, Pompey, attended by his generals, went into the Temple and viewed the sanctuary; but he left untouched all its treasures and sacred things, while the walls of the city itself were demolished. From this time the Jews are to be considered as under the dominion of the Romans (Joseph. Ant. 14, 4, 5). The treasures which Pompey had spared were seized a few years after (B.C. 51) by Crassus. In the year B.C. 43, the walls of the city, which Pompey had demolished, were rebuilt by Antipater, the father of that Herod the Great under whom Jerusalem was destined to assume the new and more magnificent aspect which it bore in the time of Christ, and which constituted the Jerusalem which Josephus describes. SEE HEROD. Under the following reign the city was improved with magnificent taste and profuse expenditure; and even the Temple, which always formed the great architectural glory of Jerusalem, was taken down and rebuilt by Herod the Great, with a splendor exceeding that of Solomon's (Mar_13:1; Joh_2:20). SEE TEMPLE. It was in the courts of the Temple as thus rebuilt, and in the streets of the city as thus improved, that the Savior of men walked up and down. Here he taught, here he wrought miracles, here he suffered; and this was the Temple whose “goodly stones” the apostle admired (Mar_13:1), and of which he foretold that ere the existing generation had passed away not one stone should be left upon another. Nor was the city in this state admired by Jews only. Pliny calls it “longe clarissimam urbium orientis, non Judsee modo” (Hist. Nat. 5, 16).
Jerusalem seems to have been raised to this greatness as if to enhance the misery of its overthrow. As soon as the Jews had set the seal to their formal rejection of Christ by putting him to death, and invoking the responsibility of his blood upon the heads of themselves and of their children (Mat_27:25), its doom went forth. After having been the scene of horrors without example, during a memorable siege, the process of which is narrated by Josephus in full detail, it was, in A.D. 70, captured to the Romans, who razed the city and Temple to the ground, leaving only three of the towers and a part of the western wall to show how strong a place the Roman arms had overthrown (Joseph. War, 7, 1, 1). Since then the holy city has lain at the mercy of the Gentiles, and will so remain “until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”
The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans did not cause the site to be utterly forsaken. Titus (q.v.) left there in garrison the whole of the tenth legion, besides several squadrons of cavalry and cohorts of foot. For these troops, and for those who ministered to their wants, there must have been dwellings; and there is no reason to suppose that such Jews or Christians as appeared to have taken no part in the war were forbidden to make their abode among the ruins, and building them up so far as their necessities might require. But nothing like a restoration of the city could have arisen from this, as it was not likely that any but poor people, who found an interest in supplying the wants of the garrison, were likely to resort to the ruins under such circumstances. H0owever, we learn from Jerome that for fifty years after its destruction, until the time of Hadrian, there still existed remnants of the city. But during all this period there is no mention of it in history. Up to A.D. 131 the Jews remained tolerably quiet, although apparently awaiting any favorable opportunity of shaking off the Roman yoke. The then emperor, Hadrian (q.v.), seems to have been aware of this state of feeling, and, among other measures of precaution, ordered Jerusalem to be rebuilt as a fortified place wherewith to keep in check the whole Jewish population.
The work had made some progress when the Jews, unable in endure the idea that their holy city should be occupied by foreigners, and that strange gods should be set up within it, broke out into open rebellion under the notorious Barchochebas (q.v.), who claimed to be the Messiah. His success was at first very great, but he was crushed before the tremendous power of the Romans, so soon as it could be brought to bear upon him; and a war scarcely inferior in horror to that under Vespasian and Titus was, like it, brought to a close by the capture of Jerusalem, of which the Jews had obtained possession. This was in A.D. 135, from which period the final dispersion of the Jews has often been dated. The Romans then finished the city according to their first intention. It was made a Roman colony, inhabited wholly by foreigners, the Jews being forbidden to approach it on pain of death: a temple to Jupiter Calitolinus was erected on Mount Moriah, and the old name of Jerusalem was sought to be supplanted by that of Elia Capitolina, conferred upon it in honor of the emperor AElius Hadrianus and Jupiter Capitolinus. By this name was the city known till the time of Constantine, when that of Jerusalem again became current, although Elia was still its public designation, and remained such so late as A.D. 536, when it appears in the acts of a synod held there. This name even passed to the Mohammedans, by whom it was long retained; and it was not till after they recovered the city from the Crusaders that it became generally known among them by the name of El-Khud — “the holy” — which it still bears.
7. From the rebuilding by Hadrian the history of Jerusalem is almost a blank till the time of Constantine, when its history, as a place of extreme solicitude and interest to the Christian Church, properly begins. Pilgrimages to the Holy City now became common and popular. Such a pilgrimage was undertaken in A.D. 326 by the emperor's mother Helena, then in the eightieth year of her age, who built churches on the alleged site of the nativity at Bethlehem, and of the resurrection on the Mount of Olives. This example may probably have excited her son to the discovery of the site of the holy sepulchre, and to the erection of a church thereon. He removed the temple of Venus, with which, in studied insult, the site had been encumbered. The holy sepulchre was then purified, and a magnificent church was, by his order, built over and around the sacred spot. This temple was completed and dedicated with great solemnity in A.D. 335. There is no doubt that the spot thus singled out is the same that has ever since been regarded as the place in which Christ was entombed; but the correctness of the identification then made has of late years been much disputed, on grounds which have been examined in the article GOLGOTHA SEE GOLGOTHA. The very cross on which our Lord suffered was also, in the course of these explorations, believed to have been discovered, under the circumstances which have elsewhere been described. SEE CROSS.
By Constantine the edict excluding the Jews from the city of their fathers' sepulchres was so far repealed that they were allowed to enter it once a year to wail over the desolation of “the holy and beautiful house” in which their fathers worshipped God. When the nephew of Constantine, the emperor Julian (q.v.), abandoned Christianity for the old Paganism, he endeavored, as a matter of policy, to conciliate the Jews. He allowed them free access to the city, and permitted them to rebuild their Temple. They accordingly began to lay the foundations in A.D. 362; but the speedy death of the emperor probably occasioned that abandonment of the attempt which contemporary writers ascribe to supernatural hindrances. The edicts seem then to have been renewed which excluded the Jews from the city, except on the anniversary of its capture, when they were allowed to enter the city and weep over it. Their appointed wailing place remains, and their practice of wailing there continues to the present day. From St. James, the first bishop, to Jude II, who died A.D. 136, there had been a series of fifteen bishops of Jewish descent; and from Marcus, who succeeded Simeon, to Macarius, who presided over the Church of Jerusalem under Constantine, there was a series of twenty-three bishops of Gentile descent, but, beyond a bare list of their names, little is known of the Church or of the city of Jerusalem during the whole of this latter period.
In the centuries ensuing the conversion of Constantine, the roads to Zion were thronged with pilgrims from all parts of Christendom, and the land abounded in monasteries, occupied by persons who wished to lead a religious life amid the scenes which had been sanctified by the Savior's presence. After much struggle of conflicting dignities, Jerusalem was, in A.D. 451, declared a patriarchate by the Council of Chalcedon. SEE PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM.
In the theological controversies which followed the decision of that council with regard to the two natures of Christ, Jerusalem bore its share with other Oriental churches, and two of its bishops were, deposed by Monophysite fanatics. The Synod of Jerusalem in A.D. 536 confirmed the decree of the Synod of Constantinople against the Monophysites. SEE JERUSALEM, COUNCILS OF.
In the same century it found a second Constantine in Justinian, who ascended the throne A.D. 527. He repaired and enriched the former structures, and built upon Mount Moriah a magnificent church to the Virgin, as a memorial of the persecution of Jesus in the Temple. He also founded ten or eleven convents in and about Jerusalem and Jericho, and established a hospital for pilgrims in each of those cities.
In the following century, the Persians, who had long harassed the empire of the East, penetrated into Syria, and in A.D. 614, under Chosroes II, after defeating the forces of the emperor Heraclius, took Jerusalem by storm. Many thousands of the inhabitants were slain, and much of the city, including the finest churches that of the Holy Sepulchre among them was destroyed. When the conquerors withdrew they took away the principal inhabitants, the patriarch, and the true cross; but when, the year after, peace was concluded, these were restored, and the emperor Heraclius entered Jerusalem in solemn state, bearing the cross upon his shoulders.
The damage occasioned by the Persians was speedily repaired. But Arabia soon furnished a more formidable enemy in the khalif Omar, whose troops appeared before the city in A.D. 636, Arabia, Syria, and Egypt having already been brought under the Moslem yoke. After a long siege the austere khalif himself came to the camp, and the city was at length surrendered to him in A.D. 637. The conqueror of mighty kings entered the holy city in his garment of camel's hair, and conducted himself with much discretion and generous forbearance. By his orders the magnificent mosque which still bears his name was built upon Mount Moriah, upon the site of the Jewish Temple.
8. Jerusalem remained in possession of the Arabians, and was occasionally visited by Christian pilgrims from Europe till towards the year 1000, when a general belief that the second coming of the Savior was near at hand drew pilgrims in unwonted crowds to the Holy Land, and created an impulse for pilgrimages thither which ceased not to act after the first exciting cause had been I forgotten. The Moslem government, in order to derive some profit from this enthusiasm, imposed the tribute of a piece of gold as the price of entrance into the holy city. The sight, by such large numbers, of the holy place in the hands of infidels, the exaction of tribute, and the insults to which the pilgrims, often of the highest rank, were exposed from the Moslem rabble, excited an extraordinary ferment in Europe, and led to those remarkable expeditions for recovering the Holy Sepulchre from the Mohammedans which, under the name of the Crusades, will always fill a most important and curious chapter in the history of the world. (See Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) SEE CRUSADES.
The dominion over Palestine had passed in A.D. 960 from the khalifs of Baghdad to the Fatimite khalifs of Egypt, and these in their turn were dispossessed in A.D. 1073 by the Turkomans, who had usurped the powers of the Eastern khalifat. The severities exercised by these more fierce and uncivilized Moslems upon both the native Christians and the European pilgrims supplied the immediate impulse to the first Eastern expedition. But by the time the Crusaders, under Godfrey of Bouillon, appeared before Jerusalem, on the 17th of June, 1099, the Egyptian khalifs had recovered possession of Palestine, and driven the Turkomans beyond the Euphrates.
After a siege of forty days, the holy city was taken by storm on the 15th day of July, and a dreadful massacre of the Moslem inhabitants followed, without distinction of age or sex. As soon as order was restored, and the city cleared of the dead, a regular government was established by the election of Godfrey as king of Jerusalem. One of the first cares of the new monarch was to dedicate anew to the Lord the place where his presence had once abode, and the Mosque of Omar be came a Christian cathedral, which the historians of the time distinguish as “the Temple of the Lord” (Templum Domini). The Christians kept possession of Jerusalem eighty- eight years. SEE JERUSALEM, KNIGHTS OF.
During this long period they appear to have erected several churches and many convents. Of the latter, few, if any, traces remain; and of the former, save one or two ruins, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which they rebuilt, is the only memorial that attests the existence of the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem. In A.D. 1187 the holy city was wrested from the hands of the Christians by the sultan Saladin, and the order of things was then reversed. The cross was removed with ignominy from the sacred dome, the holy places were purified from Christian stain with rose water brought from Damascus, and the call to prayer by the muezzin once more sounded over the city. From that time to the present day the holy city has remained, with slight interruption, in the hands of the Moslems. On the threatened siege by Richard of England in 1192, Saladin took great pains in strengthening its defenses. New walls and bulwarks were erected, and deep trenches cut, and in six months the town was stronger than it ever had been, and the works had the firmness and solidity of a rock. But in A.D. 1219, the sultan Melek el-Moaddin of Damascus, who then had possession of Jerusalem, ordered all the walls and towers to be demolished, except the citadel and the inclosure of the mosque, lest the Franks should again become masters of the city and find it a place of strength. In this defenseless state Jerusalem continued till it was delivered over to the Christians in consequence of a treaty with the emperor Frederick II, in A.D. 1229, with the understanding that the walls should not be rebuilt. Yet ten years later (A.D. 1239) the barons and knights of Jerusalem began to build the walls anew, and to erect a strong fortress on the west of the city. But the works were interrupted by the emir David of Kerek, who seized the city, strangled the Christian inhabitants, and cast down the newly erected walls and fortress. Four years after, however (A.D. 1243), Jerusalem was again made over to the Christians without any restriction, and the works appear to have been restored and completed; for they are mentioned as existing when the city was stormed by the wild Kharismian hordes in the following year, shortly after which the city reverted for the last time into the hands of its Mohammedan masters, who have substantially kept it to the present day, although in 1277 Jerusalem was nominally annexed to the kingdom of Sicily.
9. From this time Jerusalem appears to have sunk very much in political and military importance, and it is scarcely named in the history of the Mameluke sultans who reigned over Egypt and the greater part of Syria in the 14th and 15th centuries. At length, with the rest of Syria and Egypt, it passed under the sway of the Turkish sultan Selim I in 1517, who paid a hasty visit to the holy city from Damascus after his return from Egypt. From that time Jerusalem has formed a part of the Ottoman Empire, and during this period has been subject to few vicissitudes; its history is accordingly barren of incident. The present walls of the city were erected by Suleiman the Magnificent, the successor of Selim, in A.D. 1542, as is attested by an inscription over the Jaffa gate. As lately as A.D. 1808, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was partially consumed by fire; but the damage was repaired with great labor and expense by September, 1810, and the traveler now finds in this imposing fabric no traces of that calamity.
In A.D. 1832 Jerusalem became subject to Mohammed Ali, the pasha of Egypt, the holy city opening its gates to him without a siege. During the great insurrection in the districts of Jerusalem and Nabllis in 1834, the insurgents seized upon Jerusalem, and held possession of it for a time; but by the vigorous operations of the government order was soon restored, and the. city reverted quietly to its allegiance on the approach of Ibrahim Pasha with his troops. In 1841 Mohammed Ali was deprived of all his Syrian possessions by European interference, and Jerusalem was again subjected to the Turkish government, under which it now remains.
In the same year took place the establishment of a Protestant bishopric at Jerusalem by the English and Prussian governments, and the erection upon Mount Zion of a church calculated to hold 500 persons, for the celebration of divine worship according to the ritual of the English Church. SEE JERUSALEM, SEE OF (below).
In 1850 a dispute about the guardianship of the holy places between the monks of the Greek and Latin churches, in which Nicholas, emperor of Russia, sided with the Greeks, and Louis Napoleon, emperor of the French, with the Latins, led to a decision of the question by the Porte, which was unsatisfactory to Russia, and which resulted in a war of considerable magnitude, known as “the Crimean War,” between that country on the one side, and the allied forces of England and France on the other. This war has led to greater liberties of all classes of citizens in the enjoyment of their religious faith, and to a partial adjustment of the rival claims of the Greek and Latin monks to certain portions of the holy places; it has also resulted in much more freedom towards Frank travelers in visiting the city, so that even ladies have been allowed to enter the mosque inclosure; but it has caused no material alteration in the city or in its political relations.
For details, see Witsius, Hist. Hierosolymoe, in his Miscell. Sacr. 2, 187 sq.; Spalding, Gesch. d. Christl. Konigsreichs Jerusalem (Berlin, 1803); Devling, AElioe Capitolinoe Origg. et Historia (Lips. 1743); Wagnitz, Ueb. d. Phanomane vor d. Zerstörung Jeremiah (Halle, 1780); R. Bessoie, Storia della Basilica di P. Croce in Gerus. (Rome, 1750); C. Cellarius, De AElia Capitolina, etc., in his Programmata, p. 441 sq.; Poujoulat, Histoire de Jerusalem (Brux. 1842); F. Minter's treatise on the Jewish War under Hadrian, transl. in the Biblioth. Sacra for 1843 p. 393 sq.; Raumer's Palastina; Robinson's Bib. Res. in Palestine; and especially Williams, Holy City, vol. 1.
II. Ancient Topography. — This has been a subject of no little dispute among antiquarian geographers. We prefer here briefly to state our own independent conclusions, with the authority on which each point rests, and we shall therefore but incidentally notice the controversies, which will be found discussed under the several heads elsewhere in this Cyclopaedia.
1. Natural Features. — These, of course, are mostly the same in all ages, as the surface of the region where Jerusalem is situated is generally limestone rock. Yet the wear of the elements has no doubt caused some minor changes, and the demolition of large buildings successively has effected very considerable differences of level by the accumulation of rubbish in the hollows, and even on some of the hills; while in some cases high spots were anciently cut away, valleys partially filled, and artificial platforms and terraces formed, and in others deep trenches or massive structures have left their traces to this day.
(A.) Hills. —
(1.) Mount Zion, frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, only once in the New (Rev_14:1), called by Josephus “the Upper City” (War, 5, 4, 1), was divided by a valley (Tyropoeon) from another hill opposite (Acra), than which it was “higher, and in length more direct (ibid.). It is almost universally assigned, in modern times, as the southwestern hill of the city. SEE ZION.
(2.) Mount Moriah, mentioned in 2Ch_3:1, as the site of the Temple, is unmistakable in all ages. Originally, according to Josephus (War, 5, 5, 1), the summit was small, and then platform was enlarged by Solomon, who built up a high stone terrace wall on three sides (east, south, and west), leaving a tremendous precipice at the (southeastern) corner (Ant. 15:11, 3 and 5). Some of the lower courses of these stones are still standing. SEE MORIAH.(3.) The hill Acra is so called by Josephus, who says it “sustained the Lower City, and was of the shape of a moon when she is horned,” or a crescent (War, 5, 4, 1). It was separated from another hill (Bezetha) by a broad valley, which the Asmonleans partly filled up with earth taken from the top of Acra, so that it might be made lower than the Temple. (ibid.). Concerning the position of this hill there is much dispute, which can only be settled by the location of the valleys on either side of it (see Caspari, in the Stud. und Krit. 2, 1864). SEE ACRA.
(4.) The hill Bezetha, interpreted by Josephus as meaning “New City,” placed by him opposite Acra, and stated to be originally lower than it, is said by him also to lie over against the tower Antonia, from which it was separated by a deep fosse (War, 5, 4, 1 and 2). SEE BEZETHA.
(5.) Ophel is referred to by Neh_3:26-27, as well as by Josephus. (War, 5, 4, 2), in such connection with the walls as to show that none other can be intended than the ridge of ground sloping to a point southward from the Temple area. SEE OPHEL.
(6.) Calvary, or more properly Golgotha, was a small eminence, mentioned by the evangelists as the place of the crucifixion. Modern tradition assigns it to the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but this is greatly contested; the question turns chiefly upon the course of the second wall, outside of which the crucifixion undoubtedly took place (Joh_19:17). SEE CALVARY.
(7.) The Mount of Olives is so often referred to by Josephus, as well as in the Bible, that it can be taken for no other than that which now passes under the same name. SEE OLIVET.
(8.) Scopus is the name assigned by Josephus to an elevated plain about seven furlongs distant from the city wall in a northerly direction (War, 2, 19, 4; 5, 2, 3), an interval that was leveled by Titus on his approach from Samaria (ibid. 3, 2). By this can therefore be meant neither the rocky prominences on the southern, nor those on the northern edge of that part of the valley of Jehoshaphat which sweeps around the city on the north, for the former are too near, and the latter intercepted by the valley; but rather the gentle slope on the northwest of the city.
Besides these, there is mentioned in Jer_31:39, “the hill Gareb,” apparently somewhere on the northwest of the city, and Goath, possibly an eminence on the west. “Mount Gihon,” so confidently laid down on certain maps of the ancient city, is a modern invention.
(B.) Valleys. —
(1.) The principal of these was the one termed by Josephus that of the Tyropoeon, or Cheese makers, running between Zion and Acra, down as far as Siloam (War, 5, 4, 1). The southern part of this is still clearly to be traced, although much choked up by the accumulated rubbish of ages; but as to the northern part there is considerable discrepancy. Some (as Dr. Robinson) make it bend around the northern brow of Zion, and so end in the shallow depression between that hill and the eminence of the Holy Sepulchre; while others (Williams, with whose views in this particular we coincide) carry it directly north, through the depression along the western side of the mosque area, and eastward of the church, in the direction of the Damascus Gate. SEE TYROPEON.
(2.) The only other considerable valley within, the city was that above referred to as lying between Acra and Bezetha. The language of Josephus, in the passage where he mentions this valley (War, 5, 4, 1), has been understood by some as only applicable to the upper portion of that which is above regarded as the Tyropoeon, because he calls it “a broad valley,” and this is the broadest in that vicinity. But the Jewish historian only says that the hills Acra and Bezetha “were formerly divided by a broad valley; but in those times when the Asmonaeans reigned, they filled up that valley with earth, and had a mind to join the city to the Temple: they then took off a part of the height of Acra, and reduced it to a less elevation than it was before, that the Temple might be superior to it.” From this it is clear that in the times of Josephus this valley was not so distinct as formerly, so that we must not look for it in the plain and apparently unchanged depression west of the Temple, but rather in the choked and obscure one running northward from the middle of the northern side of the present mosque inclosure. The union of the city and Temple across this valley is also more explicable on this ground, because it not only implies a nearly level passage effected between the Temple area and that part of the city there intended — which is true only on the northern side, but it also intimates that there had previously been no special passageway there — whereas on the west the Temple was connected with Zion by a bridge or causeway, besides at least two other easy avenues to the parts of the city in that direction.
(3.) The longest and deepest of the valleys outside the walls was the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which ran along the entire eastern and northeastern side, forming the bed of the brook Kedron. Respecting the identity of this, the modern name leaves no room for dispute. SEE JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF.
(4.) On the south side ran the Valley ben-Hinnom (i.e. “son of Hinnom”), corrupted in our Savior's time into Gehenna, and anciently styled Tophet. Of this also the modern name is still the same. SEE GEHENNA.
(5.) On the west, forming the northern continuation of the last, was what has acquired the appellation of the Valley of Gihon, from the pools of that name situated in it. SEE GIHON.(C.) Streams. — Of these none were perennial, but only brooks formed by the winter rains that collected in the valleys and ran off at the southeastern corner towards the Dead Sea. The brook Kedron was the principal of these, and is mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments (2Sa_15:23; Joh_18:1), and by Josephus (War, 5, 2, 3), as lying between the city and the Mount of Olives. SEE KERON.
(D.) Fountains. —
(1.) En-roegel, first mentioned in Jos_15:7-8, as a point in the boundary line of Judah, on the south side of the hill Zion. It is generally identified with the deep well still found at the junction of the valleys of Hinnom and Jehoshaphat, and currently known as the well of Joab or Nehemiah. It is evidently the same as that called by Josephus “the fountain in the king's garden” (Ant. 7, 14, 4). Its water is peculiar, but no underground connection has been traced with any other of the fountains. SEE EN-ROGEL.
(2.) Siloamn or Shiloah is mentioned in the Old and New Testaments; as well as by Josephus, and the last indicates its site at the mouth of the Valley of Tyropoeon (War, 5, 4, 1). It is identical with the modem fount of Selwan. SEE SILOAM.
(3.) The only remaining one of the three natural springs about Jerusalem is that now known as the Fountain of the Virgin (Um ed-Deraj, “the mother of steps”), above the Pool of Siloam. It is intermittent, the overflow apparently of the Temple supply; and it is connected by a passage through the rock with the Pool of Siloam (Robinson, Researches, 1, 502 sq.). It is apparently the same with the “king's pool” (Neh_2:14; comp. 3:16) and “‘Solomon's Pool” (Josephus, War, 5, 4, 2). This we are inclined (with Lightfoot and Robinson) to identify with the “Pool of Bethesda” in Joh_5:2. SEE BETHESDA.
There are several other wells adjoining the Temple area which have the peculiar taste of Siloam, but whether they proceed from a living spring under Moriah, or are conducted thither by the aqueduct from Bethlehem, or come from some distant source, future explorations can alone determine. Some such well has, however, lately been discovered, but how far it supplies these various fountains has not yet been fully determined (Jour. Sac. Lit. April, 1864). SEE SOLOMONS POOL.
(E.) Reservoirs, Tanks, etc. —
(1.) The Upper Pool of Gihon, mentioned in Isa_7:3; 2Ch_32:30, etc., can be no other than that now found in the northern part of the valley at the west of the city. This is probably what is called the “Dragon Well” by Neh_2:11, lying in that direction. Josephus also incidentally mentions a “Serpent's Pool” as lying on the northwestern side of the city (I, War, 5, 3, 2), which the similarity of name and position seems to identify with this. SEE GIHON.
(2.) The Lower Pool (of Gihon), referred to in Isa_22:9, is also probably that situated in the southern part of the same valley. SEE POOL.
(3.)