On the otlier hand, the term is used to denote jiassionate concern in man for GimI's honour, ns in the ca.se of I'hineha.s (Nu 2."i""). Elijah (I K IQ"), Jehu (2 K 1(1"; cf. I's 119""). So Jn 2i' ' The zeal (f^Xoj) of thine house' (I's 69°); 'a zral for tJod ' (Uo 10^); 'I am jealous . . . with a godly jealousy' (2 Co 11'). Cf. i «afo»aioi = 4 {>)\an-T)t, 1,^ 6".
The law of the jealousy ofleriiig is found in Nu 5""''. The rite wa.s in the nature of an appeal to (!od, who wa.s callcil upon to decide the question of the innocence or guilt of the stis
D54
JEARLM
JEEUS, JEBUSI, JElilTSITE
pected person. The subsequent practice of ordeals in t he « est was based on the OT institution.
Tlie words f7)\ow and fr/Xot are also used in a bad sense, esp in NT ; f^Xoj is coupled with d,eiyos ( 1 Mac
f^^-r'A^^') \C°f »• '""^ ^><"<' (2 Co 12-. Gal 6» Ja 3»- '•) ; of. Ac T, I Co 13\ Ja 4».
,.i!,^*?™'.^^°'^''''(°''*r^)— Mentioned onlyinjos 15'», where it u identified with Cuesalon (wli. see).
«t.,''r^?T"?.''*' (in?;).— An ancestor of Asaph, 1 Ch 6" [Heb. b»], called in t.« [Heb.*] Ethni.
JEBERECHIAH ((.tt;,; 'J* blesseth,' generally abbreviated xyj ori.rjna, Berechiah, which see).— Ihe father of Zechariah, a friend of Isaiah, Is S\
JEHUS, JEBUSI, JEBDSITE (d:t, U^ovt; -piT, 7\'!t. ^^1^°"'"^]'" -<". i'iiowcii Jos IS"*, USovativ Jg 19" ).— Jebus occurs only in Jg Vi'" ('Jebus, the same is Jerusalem'), v.", and in 1 Ch ll*-" a passage which the Chronicler has so e.xpanded from 2 S 5* as to introduce the name into it twice ,\ ^'■' "^''"^'"g' ' the same is Jebus,' and in v.» ' the inhabitants of Jebus'), eacli time, obviously as an intentional archaism. On tlie strength of these passages, it used commonly to be said that Jebus was the old name of Jerusalem; but the Tel el-Amarna tablets have shown this' view to be erroneous; the city is there called regularlj Urumlim.* It seems that, the inhabit- ants being known as * Jebusites,' it was inferred inconectly that 'Jebus' was the name of their city ; but more usually, even in early times, it is spoken of as ' Jerusalem ' ( Jg 1'- «', Jos 15^, 2 S 5") Jebusite t was the name of the local tribe which] in the first centuries of Israel's occupation of Canaan, held Jerui^alem, until its citadel, 'the stronghold of Zion,' was captured under David being called afterwards, from this circumstance, the city of David' (2 S 5»-»; cf. 1 K 2'« 11« etc.) Allusions to the Israelites' inability to expel the Jebusites from their stronghold are found in Jos lo^, Jg 1!" ; and in Jg 19'"-" it is described as a city of foreigners.' Zion was the S. part of the easternmost + of the two hills, on which Jerusalem was situated ; and this accordingly was the site of the old Jebusite fortress. From its position it admitted of being strongly fortified : on the E. it overhung the Kidron valley, the bottom of which was some 700-800 ft. below ; on the S. its sides sloped down more gradually to even a greater depth ; on the W. the Tyropoeon valley— not, as now, fa led up >vith dibris—\\a.3 some 300 ft. below it; only on the N. was the approach easier, though even here, according to Guthe's excavations, there was a natural barrier, consisting of a de- pression in the rock, some 30-50 yards wide, and 12 deep. The area thus indicated would include, moreover, the one natural spring in Jerusalem, Gihon.§ The situation of this stronghold thus readUy exnlains its long resistance to the Israel- ites In the end, however, in spite of the tauntin-' words in which its inhabitants defied their assaU°
»il ^.'^'J«'^' ^i'-.'.^' "5 '° Winckler-s edition (Nos. 254. ^L'rl iMie^l l^sosr' '"" ""^ ^^'^' ^"^ "^ '''" "■ JJ^"?- '" ,^?f ^*'°" (-^^ '' nothins but an anomalous E'S^roIr ul^a^iU'C-fi. '"^ °'''- ^'^""''^ ^■'^- ■■ '^ - ^"^'^ .«f .^"f' °t "»">;o»PB. following a tradition which does not „!.^,.!Tn^''^'°"5 '''° "'■ <=*'"•• *•»•• incorrectly exhiWt, the western hiU : see Zios ; and ct. W. B. Smith. Erw Brit » < b
RieWs'&lfi.ffv';?''!?.',?^^!:' '^iP 271fl.:Muhiauin
Klh lis n ;., ; ^^''!°"v '" *''"'">■ -O^" P- 1850 f. ; Bvie on J?,fiH ,V ''° "" top o' the hill (^.V. of the 'citv o( Dkrid') was ^^ V *"*™-'"^ ">o Temple, »^th the royal Palace immedi: ately contipioM to it on the S. : 'Ophel' waa the bulrine mountain side, 8. of the 'citv of David.' ""'Brig
I Cf. the plan in Stade's GetchicAU, i. p. 268. I
ants to enter it, it was taken by David (2 S 5'-') —if an addition found only in the text of 1 Ch 11' IS to be trusted, througli the prowess of Joab • and received the name which periictuated to aver- ages the memory of the monarch's success. The position of the Jebusite stronghold is further alluded to in Jos IS* 18'», where it is naid that the (>.ortli) border of Judah and the (Soutli) border of Uenjamin passed along the valley of the son of Hinnom (whether this be the valley on the S. or the S.E. of Zion) to the south shoulder— i.e. the pro- jecting mountain-side— of the Jebusite,— in exact agreement with the situation as delined above ; it lay thus, according to these passages (P), just within tlie territory of Benjamin. This position of Jerusalem, so close to the border-line separating the two tribes, explains the variation observable between Jos 15^ ('the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah in Jerusalem to this day') and ,Jg 1-' ('the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day ') ; see Jeuusa- LE.M. Of the earlier history of .Jerusalem, it will be sufficient here to say that its king, Adoni-zedek, IS de.scribcd as being defeated and slain by the Israelites (Jos 10=»- » ; cf. 12") ; but nothing is said here about the citu being taken : the statement in Jg 1" that the children of Judah took it and burnt It, can be reconcUed with v." (Jos IS**) only by very artificial suppositions ; and the verse is in all probability a gloss, due to a misunderstanding of v.'"' (see Moore, ad loc).