In Nu 13^' 'the wilderness of Zin' is named as the southern limit from wliich the spies began to search the land. In Nu 33*^ it is given as one of the stations in the journeyings. The brief note, 'the same is Kadesh,' serves to explain the follow, ing verse ('And they journeyed from Kadesh'. . .). Nu 20' records the arrival of the children of Israel 'in the wilderness of Zin' in the lirst month [the year is not stated], and the following vv.'-"* relate the events which took place at Meribah. The remaining two passages, Nu 27 and Dt 32, which are duplicates, refer to the punishment of Moses for his offence at ' the waters of Meribah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Ziu.'
Hence it may be inferred (ci) that the Wilderness of Zin formed part of the southern boundary of Judah at its eastern end towards the Dead Sea ; (6) that ^Cadesh was included within its limits. A reference to art. Paran leads to the further con- clusion that the wilderness of Paran must have been adjacent to that of Zin, so that ^adesh was regarded as in either territory.
The LXX and Vulg. render both Sin and Zin by 2/'», Su't, Sin ; but in Nu 34*, Jos 153 the LXX B renders n:s by "E.f«j>; AP 1ii*vetx in Numbers, A ^f»a in Joshua. Vul^. has Senna in Numbers, Sina in Joshua. The close similarity between the events recortled in Ex 17 and Nu 20 (noticed in art. Mkribah), and other points of resemblance between occurrences before and after Sinai, su^'gest a further question whether Sin and Zin, the Sin of the pre-Sinai and the Zin of the post-Sinai narrative, may be variations developed in the course of tradition. Both names are found only in the Hexateuch, and there is no geoaraphical indication of later times to guide us. The hypo- thesis does not appear improbable, but the narrative in its present form indicates two regions bearing different names. On the supposition of a Sinai to the £. of the Arabah, these two ' wildernesses' would be much closer together than on the traditional hypothesis. A. T. CHAPMAN.
ZINA.-See ZlZA.
ZION (iV»; B S«ii>', but Si(ii' in Am 1' and in 28 places in the Psalms ; A Ziiir, but in Is 1' 2^, Jer 26", La 2', Jl 2'- ", and in 6 places in the Psalms i;«nj»', and in Ca 3", Is 31", Jer 8'" Sni ; in Ca 3" B omits. In Apoc. and NT Siuii-, Sion, where the AV, following the Greek, has Sion, the RV Zion). — The stronghold (■^^!>a) of Zion was the castle, or acropolis, of the ' city of tte Jebusites' (Jg 19") ; see art. Jebus. Its position must have been one of great natural strength, for it was regarded by its garrison and its inhabitants as impregnable, and when David laid siege to it he was received with taunts and jeers (2 S 5'*- ', 1 Ch 11» ; cf. Jos. Ant. VII. iii. 1). '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. And he built round about from MUlo and inward' (2 S S'', 1 Ch 11»«). In two other passages (I K 8', 2 Ch 5^) Zion is directly identified with the city of David by the expression ' the city of David which is Zion.' Within th« * For the meaning of ' wilderness ' see art. Jt.:>Ui^uX
ZION
ZION
983
city walls David built a palace (2 S 5", Neh 12"), round which were "atliereJ the houses of his warriors (2S 11-); and pitched a tent for tlie ark of Jahweh (2 S 6'»-", 1 Ch 15^ 16'). Before his death, iJaiud purchased the threshinj; - lloor of Arauiiah the tJebusite, upon which was erccied, afterwards, the altar of the temple (2 S 24"'-"', lCh21"'-*); and when he died he was buried in the city of David (1 K 2'", Neh 3'").
The exact position of the stronghold within the later Jerusalem is one of the must important of the disputed points connected with the topography of the Holy City. In the article Jerusalkm it is shown that the ancient city stood on two spurs, or hills, separated from each other by a deep ravine. The western and higher simr is identified by Chris- tian tradition with Zion ; on the eastern and lower the temple was built. The western spur is broad- backed, and, so far as its original form is known, there is no broken ground or conspicuous feature upon it that would naturally be selected as the site of a castle such as those usually erected for the protection of an ancient hill-town. Moreover, there is no spring; and when, at a later date, the spur was covered with houses, this deficiency had to be met by the construction of reservoirs and aqueducts. The earliest settlement at Jerusalem cannot therefore be placed on the western spur. The eastern spur, on the other hand, is, for the most part, a narrow ridge of rock, upon which there are good natural jiDsitions for the construction of a Sill-fort or '•-astle. One such position is that which was occi.pieil by the Macedonian Akra and the Herodian Antonia ; another is the point, south of the present IJaram esh-Shorif, at which the Tyro- pocon raWne most closely approaches the valley of the Kidron. In that valley, at the foot of the eastern slope of the spur, rises the only true spring at or near Jerusalem — GlHON, now tlie Fountain of the Virgin.