THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
spots. The atmospheric humidity ranges widely. The prevailing winds are from the northwest, though the radiation of the land in summer often produces a sea breeze from the Mediterranean which lasts well through the night and brings much moisture. East winds blow in autumn, winter, and spring, rarely in summer. The sirocco blows from the southwest. The months in which sickness prevails are May to October. The preceding data are the result of observations taken during the second half of the nineteenth century, and the question has been raised whether the climate is the same as it was in early times (see Palestine). Here it need be said only that great changes are improbable; such changes as may have taken place are most likely in the direction of greater contrast of temperature and of reduced rainfall. But Jerusalem must always have been a city not abundantly supplied with water, as is proved by the many devices for conserving the rainfall.
V. History of the City: It is clear that the name
Jerusalem was not given by the Israelites, since it
appears c. 1400 B.C. in the Amarna
i. Pre- Tablets (q.v.) in the form Urusalim,
Israelitic which corresponds consonantally with Jerusalem, the Hebrew form of the name, though the vocalization of the last syllable is different in the Old Testament but not in the Aramaic or Septuagint. The form Yerushalayim is Massoretic. The legend of the founding of the city reported by Josephus (Apion, i. 14 sqq.) and Plutarch (Isis et Osiris, xxxi.) goes back to Manetho, who attributes the building of the city to the Hyksos when they left Egypt. But the legend unites the Hyksos and the Hebrews in a manner which prevents giving credit to the story. The earliest mention is that of the Amarna Tablets ut sup., in which Ebed-Hiba appears as tributary to the Pharaoh, while the correspondence suggests that the ruler of Jerusalem was charged with oversight of the princelings of southern Syria (cf. the representation in Judges i. 5-7 of Adoni-bezek with his seventy subject kings). The Israelitic accounts dealing with the time c. 1020 B.C. make the Jebusites masters of Jerusalem and the immediate surroundings, and Zion the stronghold (II Sam. v. 7). Until the second half of the nineteenth century Zion and the City of David were located between the valleys of Hinnom and the Tyropoeon at the southwest corner of the city. At present scholars agree that Zion was applied to the eastern part of the city and that the southeastern hill corresponds to the fortress of Jebus. The " city of David " is not to be confused with " Jerusalem," since it formed only a part of the greater whole (cf . II Kings xiv. 20) . The city of David was situated on lower ground than the temple and the palace of Solomon (II Sam. xxiv. 18; I Kings viii. 1-4), and Solomon's palace lay lower than the temple (II Kings xi. 19), from which it was separated only by a wall (Ezek. xliii. 8). The location of the temple, it is agreed, was on the site of the present Mosque of Omar, whence the directions implied in the foregoing data can lead one only to the southeastern hill between the Kidron and the Tyropoeon. This conclusion is fully corroborated by the indications in Neh. iii. 15-26, xii. 31 -39
compared with ii. 13-14. According to II Sam. v. 6 the fortress of Zion was difficult of access, which corresponds with the situation to the east and the south of the southeastern corner of Jerusalem, and it must have been protected to the west by the Tyropoeon before the latter was filled with debris. Similarly on the north a ravine extended, mentioned above as one of the tributary valleys of the Kidron. Consequently at that early time the fortress was entirely isolated by ravines, while the boundaries suggested probably marked out the city of the Jebusites, placed on the lowest of the eminences in the neighborhood. The Jerusalem of the Amarna Tablets has been placed westward of Jebus and on the southwest hill of the modern city.
With the capture of the Jebusite fortress Jerusalem fell into David's hands, and this may have been while he was still king of Hebron. He 2. Davidic was thus placed in contact with the and northern tribes and in command of the Solomonic roads, while the stronghold became Jerusalem, the capital of his kingdom, a place belonging neither to Judah nor to the northern tribes, and therefore neutral. But because of David's relationship to Judah, it is sometimes ascribed to Judah, while elsewhere it is called Benjamin's territory because of its situation. David did not exterminate the Jebusites, but left them life and property (II Sam. xxiv. 18); he forced them, however, to evacuate Zion, whence they went to the southwest elevation, while he and his following occupied " the city of David." The old fortress was completely transformed, being built up by David, and a palace erected there (II Sam. v. 9, 11; cf. Neh. xii. 37) upon one of the western levels of the hill, while the ' tombs were hewn out still lower; the fortification was completed by walls and towers, the remains of which have been traced. In this part of the city was the tabernacle-sanctuary (II Sam. vi. 17), and here were the residences for the people of the court, as well as a great number of cisterns for water supply. Solomon extended the building toward the north and built the Millo for protection, though as yet the exact location of this defensive work is not determined and the same is true as to its exact character — whether it was a wall or a tower. Solomon's palace and temple were to the north and on higher ground, the temple on Moriah and the palace on Ophel, the latter surrounded by defensive walls, probably pierced with great gates on the south, where were the principal approaches. The arrangement included three parts, a greater court with an inner court containing the temple, and a second or middle court (I Kings vii. 8, 12; II Kings xx. 4), the temple thus being the farthest north, while these separate parts were probably upon different levels. In the great court to the south were the house of Lebanon, the hall of pillars, and the throne hall. The middle court contained Solomon's palace and the palace of his Egyptian queen. To Solomon is ascribed the building of the wall which surrounded Jerusalem (I Kings iii. 1, ix. 15). The question of the extent of the city in those times and therefore of the extent and course of this wall is much debated. It must- be borne in mind that a distinction was made between