CHAPTER VI

JERUSALEM IN THE EARLIEST TIMES

Concerning the origin of the city of Jerusalem we have no information. Even the meaning of the name is unknown. Various Semitic etymologies have been proposed, but all are uncertain, and it is possible that the name goes back to the primitive non-Semitic inhabitants of Palestine. Ezek. 16:3 says of Jerusalem: "Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of the Canaanite; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite." This statement may point to a tradition that the city was originally founded by Amorite colonists, settling in Hittite territory.

In Gen. 14:18 we read that Melchizedek, king of Salem, blessed Abram, and Abram gave him tithes of the spoil taken from the kings of the East. Tradition identifies Salem with Jerusalem. This idea first appears in Ps. 76:2, and is followed by Josephus (Ant. i, 10:2; vii, 3:2), and by other Jewish writers. In favor of this identification are the facts that Melchizedek bears a name of similar formation with Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem in the time of Joshua, and that he holds a conspicuous position among the city-kings of Canaan analogous to that of the king of Jerusalem in the Tell elAmarna letters. The fact that Abram pays tithes to him and recognizes him as a priest of the Most High God seems also to indicate a desire on the part of the writer of Gen., chap. 14, to connect the sanctity of Jerusalem with the ancient priesthood of Melchizedek. This story, however, is of very uncertain origin. By most recent critics it is regarded as a midrash that was not inserted in the Book of Genesis until after the exile. Upon what basis of historical tradition it rests is unknown. This story, accordingly, can scarcely be utilized to throw light upon the early history of Jerusalem.

The first emergence of the the Tell el-Amarna letters.

city into the light of history is in These are dispatches sent to the

I

kings of Egypt by petty kings of the land of Canaan. They date from about 1400 B. C., and are written on clay tablets in the Babylonian language and cuneiform script. Seven of these letters were sent by Abdi-khiba, king of Jerusalem. From these letters it appears that the king of Jerusalem was one of the more important of the city-kings, and that he had a number of towns tributary to him. His city was probably walled, because in one of the letters2 he says: "We will open Jerusalem to the guards whom thou shalt send by the hand of Khaya." In all these letters he begs for the help of the king of Egypt against a people known as the Khabiri. The name is etymologically identical with "Hebrews," and these were apparently Bedawin clans of the same stock to which the later Israelites belonged. We are probably to think of the Jerusalem of Abdikhiba as presenting a similar appearance to Gezer of the same period as it has been excavated by Mr. Macalister. The houses were onestory structures of rough stone, plastered with mud and covered with thatched roofs, containing only two or three rooms. The city-wall was a rampart of earth faced on the inside and outside with rough stones gathered off of the fields. From the Tell el-Amarna letters we learn that there was considerable wealth accumulated in the cities of Canaan at the time of the Egyptian supremacy; that an active commerce was carried on; and that the country was as prosperous as at any later period of its history.

After the time of Abdi-khiba Jerusalem disappears from our view until the Hebrew conquest, about 1200 B. C. According

to Josh. 10:1, Adoni-zedek, its king, united the kings of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon in a confederacy against the Israelites. He was defeated by Joshua, but the city of Jerusalem was not captured. According to Josh. 15:63, "As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Judah at Jerusalem, unto this day." In Judg. 1:1-7 we have a duplicate account of the war against Adoni-zedek. Here the name appears as Adoni-bezek, but this is evidently a textual corruption induced by the name Bezek in vs. 5. In vs. 7 we are told that they (that is, his own people) brought 1 Winckler, Thontafeln von Tell-el-Amarna, Nos. 179-85.

2 Ibid., No. 185.

him to Jerusalem. This shows that he was the king of Jerusalem, and makes it evident that he was the same person as Adoni-zedek of the narrative in Josh., chap. 10. Judg. 1:21 also records that, although Israel defeated the king of Jerusalem, it was not able to take his capital: "And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem: but the Jebusites dwelt with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day." The truth of these statements is attested by the narrative of Judg. 19:12, where the Levite is unwilling to turn aside into Jerusalem because it is a city of aliens. In startling contrast with these statements, Judg. 1:8 records: "The children of Judah fought against Jerusalem and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword and set the city on fire." This statement comes from the hand of one of the late editors of the Book of Judges, and is clearly unhistorical. Jerusalem remained in the hands of the Canaanites until it was taken from them by David.

In regard to the location and size of Canaanitish Jerusalem we have little information. In II Sam. 5:6f. we are told that David took the stronghold of the Jebusites and renamed it after himself; consequently, the acropolis of ancient Jerusalem must have occupied the site of the later City of David. This, as we have seen, lay on the southern end of the eastern hill. This is the only natural location for the Jebusite fortress, since it is close to Gihon, the only spring that is near the city.

Whether the city was limited to the eastern hill or also spread to the western hill is uncertain. It seems to have been a place of considerable importance. Its king in the time of the Amarna letters had a number of smaller places tributary to him. Adoni-zedek in the time of Joshua was the head of a coalition. In Judg. 1:7 he boasts that he had cut off the thumbs and great toes of seventy kings, and had compelled them to gather their food under his table. If the story of Melchizedek in Gen., chap. 14, has a historical kernel, it also indicates the importance of the place. It seems hardly likely that a city of such prominence, which the Israelites were unable to capture during the entire period of the Judges, should have been limited to the small area of the southern end of the eastern hill. We are almost forced to believe that it extended to the western hill

even before its capture by David. In Judg., chap. 19, the Levite in going from Bethlehem to Gibeah passes by the city of the Jebusites. The natural road from Bethlehem to Gibeah leads past the western hill, and the mention of a Jebusite city in this connection seems, accordingly, to show that the western hill was occupied. The Priestly Code, Josh. 15:8, speaks of the Cliff of the Jebusites as lying north of the Valley of Hinnom. The only cliff that lies north of Hinnom is the western hill, and the name "Cliff of the Jebusites" may be a survival of an ancient designation. Josephus (Ant., vii, 3:2; War, v, 4:1) recognizes both the Upper and the Lower City as existing as early as the time of the Judges.

In II Sam. 5:6f.=I Chron. 11:4f. we read:

And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither. Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion; the same is the City of David. And David dwelt in the stronghold, and called it the City of David. David chose Jerusalem as his capital, partly because of the strength of its position, and partly because it was located on the border between Judah and Benjamin, and therefore was neutral ground. By making it his residence he did not give offense to either tribe, as he must have done if he had selected a site within the territory of the other. A number of building operations are ascribed to David after his capture of the city.

1. Millo.—In II Sam. 5:9 mention is made of the Millo as the starting-point of the wall that inclosed the City of David. The statement that he built "round about from Millo" suggests that Millo was already in existence, as a part of the earlier Canaanitish fortification. The name is derived from a root which means "to fill," and means a "filling" or "embankment." It is not in common use in Hebrew, but appears in Assyrian in the forms mulû or tamlû, which mean an embankment on which a palace or temple stands. When one considers the extent of Babylonian influence in Canaan during the third millennium B. C., it seems likely that Millo was a Canaanitish name formed under Babylonian influence. This view is favored by the fact that Beth-Millo occurs as a proper name in the Canaanitish city of Shechem in Judg. 9:6. We meet the Millo