The evolution of Jerusalem cannot have differed greatly from that of other ancient cities. The earliest settlement would naturally have been on the eastern spur, and it probably consisted of a village on the slopes above the spring, with a small fort on higher ground to which the people could fly on the approach of an enemy.
By about B.C. 1400 .lerusalem had become, according to the Tel el-Amarna letters, the forti- fied cajiital of a small district ; and siich it appears to have been when the Hebrews entered Palestine. The natural disadvantages of its positiim for trade, and the scarcity of fertile land in its vicinity, were against rapid grow tli ; and there is no reason to suppose th.at, when taken by David, it was larger than other hill-towns in Palestine, or that it Tiiul spread beyond the limits of the eastern spur. The topographical argument in favour of placing the stronghold of Zion on this spur rather than on the western, is supported by the historical notices.
The temple area, which is now enclosed by the walls of the ^arani esh-Sherif, was ahave tlie city of David, and was not regarded as forming part of it(l IC8'-«,*2Ch5»-»; cf.2.S2-l'«). And the state- ments of Nehemiah {3'»- '• 12", cf. 2'*), which place the stairs of the city of David, the palace of David, and his tomb between the i)Ool of Slielah (SiLOAM) and the temple, absolntely exclude the western spur as a possible site for the city of David. With this, too, agree tlie iilentilication by Micah (4*) of the ' tower of the flock ' with ' the Opiiel of the daughter of Zion ' ; the references in Ezekiol {43'- ')
• Notice tier« * bring uj : 90 reifularly fn OT people so up from the nalare to the veinplo (Jer 2fl)0), ftnd dotpn In the •jpiwsite direction (2 K 111", Jcr 221 sou,, if, however, the palace had been on the western spur (2620-00 ft.), the temple {244l> ft.) would have been below it.
to the proximity of the royal palace and sepulchre! to the temple ; and the aiiparent connexion of Zion and the temple in Ps 78''- "' and Jer 50'*. Perhaps also there may lie an allusion to the relative posi- tions of Zion and the temple in Ps 48''' ' Mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.' Throughout the OT there are pas- sages which have no meaning, if Zion and the temple hill were two separ.ate to]K)graphical features. Zion is the holy hill or mountain (Ps 2\ Jl 2'), the chosen habitation of Jahweh (Ps 9" 74'^ 76' 84' 132", Is 8'8 60'^ Jer 8'», Jl 3"--', Zee 8»). There He manifests Himself (Ps 14' 20» 53« 128' 134^ Am 1'-) ; and there He must be wor- shipped and praised (Ps 65'-, Jer 31«, Jl 2'-"). Hence .Mount Zion, the intangible mount, the city of the living God, is employed in the XT as the type of heaven (He 12'«- -, Kev 14'). At the same time the name Zion is given, in some instances, to the whole city (Ps 120' 146'°, Is 1" 10*', La 1*; cf. the common expression 'daughters of Zion'); and in others it is mentioned as if it were a separate quarter of Jerusalem (2 K 19", Ps 51", Is 30'» 64'", Jer 26'«, Jl S'", Am P, Mic 3'^ Zee 1" ; cf. the distinction between Jerusalem and the quarter in which the kings were buried in 2 Ch 28-'').
In 1 Maccabees, written c. B.C. 100 by some one who was well acquainted with the localities, Zion is identified with the temple hill (4"-S8 5m 7» etc.), and so it is in 1 Es 8>", 2 Es 5=», Sir 24'", and Jth 9". Jose|ihus, who does not mention Zion, says {Ant. VII. lii. 1) that David took the lower city and the Akra (both of which he elsewhere places on the eastern spur), and (iii. 2) that, after driving the Jebusites out of the Akra, David rebuilt Jerusalem, called it the city of David, and dwelt in it.* The Kabbis, t without exception, place the temple on Zion, and Origen distinctly states (ui Joan. 4"- -") that the Jews did .so in his day. Eusebius (in /.«. 22') and Jerome apparently [in /.?. l'-" 22') take the same view ; but elsewhere they identify Zion with the western spur, and in this agree w itli the Bor- deaux Pil<;rim [Itin. Hiero-i.). From the 4th cent, onwards /ion is always identified with the south part of the western spur. This identification first apjicars after the othcial recovery of Golgotha, and it possibly owes it." origin to the feeling that, with- out a Zion, the ' New Jeru.salem ' of Constantine would be incomplete and inferior in sanctity to the 'Old Jerusalem' with its temple on the lower ground to the east.
The identification of Zion with the eastern spur satisfies the tojiographical conditions and the his- torical evidence until the 4th cent. A.D. But the spur is now so completely covereil with deep rubbish that its original form is unknown, and the exact position of tlie stronfjiiold can be determined only uy extensive excavations. The fort was jirobably small, for its builders could have had in view only the protection of the spring and the little town on the slopes above it. Lightfoot (Op. i. 553, ii. 187), Ferjjussou (Essau on the ancient tupog. of Jerus. p. 55 11'., 1847), ancf a few other writers, place Zion immediately north of the temple ; but, if^tho words of I K 8'- ■* (cf. 2 S 24"' '») are to be taken literally, it must have been to the south of the Holy Place of the Jews. In this direction, on a site so situated as to command the spring, it has been placed by Birch (I'KFSt. 1878, pi.. 12'.t, 178), Stade (GVI !.