The word erii is also used for the ' vidlii/ gate' (•2Ch 2(3", Meh 2"-" 3"), which appears to Inive lieen on the west side of Jerusalem above the Tyropo'on valb'y near the pre.seut Jall'a gat ,\
The valley of'llinnom isiuentioned in connexion with the liJundary-line between Juilah and Hen- janiiu (Jos lo^ IS"'), but otherwise jirinciiially with reference to the nhouiinable rites and ceremonies of the Ammonites. The high jilaecs of Tophet and liaal. w hero children were Jiassed through the lire to Molech (Jer 7''' 3--'"), were built in this valley. Ahaz and Manasseh burnt imenso and passed their children through the lire to .Molecli (2 (.'h 2.S^ 33''). This praclho was j)erhaps toliT. ated in Jeriisalem by Solomon (I K 11"). Josiah delileil Tophet in oriler to prevent these horrible rites from being carrietl out there; ami from the allusion to the graves of the children of tho ]>eoplo (J K ■J3'-'"), it would appear that it was near the rommon biirial-phiee. It was to re<eivo the name of the 'Valley of JSlaughter' in timo to como (Jer 7^ 19").
Ai-cordinR to Buxtorf, Lightfoot, and others (folhiwing Kimihi>, them were perpi'tnal tiri'S kept up in this valley for touaumiiig dead bodio* of
386
HIXXOM, VALLEY OF
IIIXNO.M, VALLEY OF
criminals and carcases of animals, and the refuse of the city : ami this may bo accepted (hut see Robinson, liltP i. 274) as the most probable methoil of disposing of the immense masses of refuse which required to be destroyed for the sake of the health of the city (Kosenmiiller, Biblische Genqr. 11. i. pp. mO, 164).
The Talmudists place the mouth of hell in the valley of H. 'There are two palm trees in the valley of Hinnom between wliich a smoke ariscth — and this is the door of Gehenna' (see Barclay, Cit'jof the Great King, p. 90, and art. Gkiiknna). In this sense it was used by our Lord (Mt a-"-' 10^, etc ). Jerome (Comm. in Jcr. 7", and on .Mt 10^) describes Tophet as a pleasant spot in the valley of Hinnom, with trees and gardens watered from Silo.im, lying at the foot of Moriali (i.e. in the gardens below Siloani at the junction of the east and west valleys).
Stanley {Sin. and Pal. p. 172) suggests that the ravine (gai) was named Ge Ben Hinnom, or Ge- Hinnom, after some ancient hero who had encamped there, and that from this was formed the word Gehenna. In the Muhammedan traditions the name Gehenna is applied to the valley of the Kidron (Ibn Batuteh, 124 ; Le Strange, Pal. under the Moslein.1, p. 218). Stanley furtlier points out {Jicrov. of Jeru.1. xiv.) tliat the valley of H. in- cludes, if it is not identical with, the glen of the Kidron ea.it of the city. ' This appears to follow beyond question from Jer 19" ; and it agrees, not only with the M\issulman nomenclature, but with almost all the biblical indications on the subject, and especially with the word Ge-hinnom.'
Tlie point wliicli now requires clearing up is the identification of one of the three valleys which encompass Jerusalem as the valley of Hinnom. From Enrogel, ' the border went up by the valley i>* (he son of H. unto the side ot the Jebusite southward (the same is Jerusalem) ; and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of H. westward, whicli is at the uttermost part of tlie vale of Repliaiiu north- ward ' (Jos 15*). ' And the border went down to the uttermost part of the mountain that lieth before the valley of the son of H., which is in the vale of Rephaim nortliward, and it went down to the valley of H., to tlie side of the Jeliusite south- ward, and went down to En-rogel ' (Jos 18'"). In considering the direction of the valley of Hinnom south of the city of Jebus, it must be recollected that though we know the limits of ancient Jeru- salem, on east, west, and south, by the deep valleys that begirt it, we do not know for certain wliat portions of it comprised the city of Jebus, and there is considerable ditierence of opinion on the subject owing to the many very difficult points wliicli are not yet cleared up ; in fact, the only solution appears to be derived from considering the dual condition of the ancient city to which refer- ences appear constantly in OT and early writings.
The following points seem to be concurred in generally : —
(1) That the temple mount (Moriah) is the eastern hill on which the Dome of the Rock now slands.
(2) That the city of David as mentioned in the Book of Nehemiah is on the spur of Ophel south of the temple area and extending to SLloam.
(3) That the Akra of the Maccabees and Jose- plius is either north or north-west of the temple area.
(4) That the upper part of the city, the modern Zion, is the (ppovpioi> or upper market-place of Josephus, taken into the city by kinj? Ehvid, and not necessarily a part of the ancient city Jebus.
A very brief summary of the information con- cerning Jerusalem ia necessary to clear up this
qiiestion as to Hinnom. It appears to be con- t-lusively proved by the Tel el-Amarna tablets, that as far back as the vear n.c. 14U0, or prioi to the time of the Judges, Jerusalem or Jebus was known as Urusalim (tlie element Uru being indicated by the Sunicrian ideogram «ru = ' city ' (Hommel, AlfTyi. 201). 'Jebus, which is Jerusalem,' is first spoken of in OT in the account of the spies (Nu I'.i'-", Jos 11') as 'the Jebusite in the mountains,' and in the Book of Joshua (l.'»''') is allotted to .ludah, and (18^) also to Benjamin. It is stated that neitlier the chililrcn of .ludiili nor the children of Benjamin could drive out the Jcbusitcs. and tliat they dwelt with them there. It would appear, therefore, either that Jerusalem was common to both tribes, or that a portion was allotted to each, or that dillerent writers reckoned it ditl'erently. Lightfoot, quoting from the Talmud, states (Pro- sjieet of Jcriisalein), ' I'or most part of the courts were in the portion of Judali ; but the altar, (lorcli, temple, and most holy place were in Benjamin.' It was reserved for king David to capture the stronghold of Zion, and the Mlllo or citadel. It is stated (2 S 5' = 1 Ch 11»), 'Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion : the s,ame is the city of David.' Tlie going up of .loab bv the ' gutter ' or watercourse, related subsequent!}-, may have been a separate assault on anotlier part of tlie city. Josephus evidently favours this view, for he sajs that David began the siege, and tliat he took the lower city (ttji' koltoi iriXn') by force, but the citadel i&Kpa) held out, and that it was taken by Joali (Ant. V. ii. 2, vil. iii. 1). If the stronghold of Zion may be accepted as the lower city of Josephus, and Millo as the Akra or citadel which Joab took, all difticulties concerning the passages appear to vanish.