The question of the identity of Jerusalem with " Ca- dytis, a large city of Syria," " almost as large as Sardis," which is mentioned by Herodotus (ii, 159 ; iii, 5) as hav- ing been taken by Pharaoh-Necho, need not be investi- gated in this place. It is interesting, and, if decided in the affirmative, so far important as confirming the Scrip- ture narrative, but does not in any way add to oiur knowledge of the history of the city. The reader will find it fully examined in Rawlinson's Herodotus, ii, 246 ; Blakesley's Herodotus — Excursus on Bk. iii, ch. v (both against identification) ; and in Kenrick's Egypt, ii, 406, and Diet, of Gk. and Rom. Geogr. ii, 17 (both for it).
Nor need we do more than refer to the traditions — if traditions they are, and not mere individual specula- tions— of Tacitus (flist.y, 2) and Plutarch (Is. et Osir. ch, xxxi) of the foundation of the city by a certain Hi- erosolymus, a son of the Tj'phon (see Winer's note, i, 545), All the certain information to be obtained as to the early history of Jerusalem must be gathered from the books of the Jewish historians alone,
2, The name Jerusalem first occurs in Josh, x, 1 , where Adonizedek (q. v.), king of Jerusalem, is mentioned as having entered into an alliance with other kings against Joshua, bv whom thev were all overcome (comp. Josh, xii, 10). "B.C. 1618. "See Joshua,
In drawing the northern border of Judah, we find Je- rusalem again mentioned (Josh, xv, 8; compare Josh, xviii, 16). This border ran through the valley of Ben- Hinnom; the country on the south of it, as Bethlehem, belonged to Judah ; but the mountain of Zion, forming the northern wall of the valley, and occupied by the Jebusites, appertained to Benjamin. Among the cities of Benjamin, therefore, is also mentioned (Josh, xviii, 28) "Jebus, which is Jerusalem" (comp. Judg. xix, 10; 1 Chron. xi, 4), At a later date, however, owing to the conquest of Jebus by David, the line ran on the north- ern side of Zion, leaving the city equally divided be- tween the two tribes. See Tribe. There is a ral)bini- cal tradition that part of the Temple was in the lot of Judah, and part of it in that of Benjamin (Lightfoot, i, 1050, Lond. 1684). See Temple.
After the death of Joshua, when there remained for 1 the children of Israel much to conquer in Canaan, the Lord directed Judah to fight against the Canaanites; and they took Jerusalem, smote it with the edge of the sword, and set it on fire (Judg. i, 1-8), B.C. cir. 1590. After that, the Judahites and the Benjamites dwelt with the Jebusites at Jerusalem ; for it is recorded (Josh, xv, 63) that the children of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites inhabiting Jerusalem ; and we are farther in- formed (Judg. i, 21) that the children of Benjamin did not expel them from Jerusalem (comp. Judg. xix, 10- 12). I'robably the Jebusites were removed by Judah only from the lower city, but kept possession of the mountain of Zion, which David conquered at a later pe- riod. This is the explanation of Josephus (.4 nt. v, 2, 2). See Jebus. Jerusalem is not again mentioned till the time of Saul, when it is stated (1 Sam. xvii, 54) that Da- vid took the head of (ioliath and brought it to Jerusa- lem, B.C. cir. 1063. When David, who had previously reigned over Judah alone in Hebron, was called to rule over all Israel, he led his forces against the Jebusites, and conquered the castle of Zion which Joab first scaled (1 Sam. V, 5-9; 1 Chron. xii, 4-8), He then fixed his abode on this mountain, and called it " the city of Da- vid," B,C, cir. 1044. He strengthened its fortifications [see Millo], but does not appear to have enlarged it.
JERUSALEM
837
JERFS.iLEM
1 ■-■;■■
JERUSALEM
838
JERUSALEM
Thither he carried the ark of the covenant; and there he built to the Lord an altar in the threshing-Hoor of Araunah the Jebusite, on the place where the angel stood who threatened Jerusalem with pestilence (2 Sam. xxiv, 15-25). But David could not build a house for the name of the Lord his God on account of the wars which were about him on every side (2 Sam. vii, 13 ; 1 Kings v,3-5). Still the Lord announced to him, through the prophet Nathan (2 Sam. vii, 10), " I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more," B.C. cir, 1043. From this it would seem that even David had, then at least, no assurance that Jerusa- lem in particular was to be the place which had so of- ten been spoken of as that which God would choose for the central seat of the theocratical monarchy, and which it became after Solomon's Temple had been biiilt. See Temple.
3. The reasons which led David to fix upon Jerusalem as the metropolis of his kingdom are noticed elsewhere [see David], being, chiefly, that it was in his own tribe of Judah, in which his influence was the strongest, while it was the nearest to the other tribes of any site he could have chosen in Judah. The peculiar strength also of the situation, inclosed on three sides bj' a natural trench of valleys, could not be without weight. Its great strength, according to the military notions of that age, is shown by the length of time the Jebusites were able to keep possession of it against the force of all Israel. David was doubtless the best judge of his own interests in this matter ; but if those interests had not come into play, and if he had onlj' considered the best situation ibr a metropolis of the whole kingdom, it is doubtful whether a more central situation with respect to all the tribes would not have been far preferable, especiallj' as the law required all the adidt males of Israel to re- pair three times in the year to the place of the divine presence. Indeed, the burdensome character of this ob- ligation to the more distant tribes seems to have been one of the excuses for the revolt of the ten tribes, as it certainly was for the establishment of schismatic altars in Dan and Beth-el (1 Kings xii, 28). jManj^ travellers have suggested that Samaria, whicli afterwards became the metropolis of the separated kingdom, was far prefer- able to Jerusalem for the site of a capital city; and its central situation would also have been in its favor as a metropolis ibr all the tribes. But as the choice of Da- vid was subsequently conlirmcd by the divine appoint- ment, which made Mount ^loriah the site of the Tem- ple, we are bound to consider the choice as having been providentially ordered with reference to the contingen- cies that afterwards arose, by which Jerusalem was made the capital of the separate kingdom of Judah, for which it was well adapted. . See Juu.vir.