an inscription in the old Hebrew character which records the way in which the tunnel was hewn by two gangs of workmen, who quarried from either end and met in the middle. The inscription is, in the main, perfectly clear, and reads as follows, the words in brackets being supplied by conjecture:

1. [Behold] the piercing through! And this was the manner of the piercing through. Whilst yet [the miners were lifting up]

2. the pick each towards his fellow, and whilst yet there were three cubits to be [cut through, there was heard] the voice of each call

3. ing to his fellow; for there was a fissure (?) in the rock on the right hand. . . . And on the day of the

...

4. piercing through, the miners smote each so as to meet his fellow, pick against pick; and there flowed

5. the water from the source to the pool 1200 cubits; and one hun

6. dred cubits was the height of the rock over the head of the miners.

Col. Conder, who has explored the course of the tunnel, claims to have discovered the point at which the meeting was effected by the two parties of miners by means of a cross-cut about four feet long from east to west (p. 66).*

The pool of Shiloah has no source of supply except the water which flows down the tunnel from the Virgin's spring; but we know from a reference which occurs in Isa. viii, 6 to the waters of Shiloah which go softly,' that Shiloah must already have existed as a receptacle for water in the reign of Ahaz. There are traces of a surface-aqueduct leading from the Virgin's spring to Shiloah; probably this was the ancient source of supply before the tunnel was constructed by Hezekiah to ensure a better provision in case of siege. In Isa. xxii, 1-14, which seems to belong to the occasion of Sennacherib's invasion in B.C. 701, the prophet describes the hasty preparations made by the inhabitants of Jerusalem against the expected siege of the city; and we read: 'Ye gathered together the waters of the lower pool. . . . Ye made also a reservoir between the two walls for the water of the old pool' (vv. 9, 11). This may indicate that

* See also Mommert, pp. 54 ff.

the water originally flowed by the surface-conduit into the lower pool of Shiloah or Birket el-Ḥamrâ, now dry and unused; and that the reservoir between the two walls, i.e., the present Birket Silwân or upper pool, was specially constructed by Hezekiah to receive the water which flowed through his new tunnel.

6

Thus the case for the identification of Gihon with the Virgin's spring is remarkably strong. Before accepting it, however, we must briefly consider the rival claim which has been advanced in favour of En-Rogel. The attempted identification of En-Rogel with the Virgin's spring is based mainly on the fact that the stone of Zoḥeleth' is stated in 1 Kings, i, 9 to have been beside En-Rogel; and M. Clermont-Ganneau has proposed to identify Zoḥeleth with the modern Arabic Zaḥwele, which is the name given to a steep, rocky descent from the village of Silwân, on the east of the Kidron valley and opposite the Virgin's spring. The identification however, can scarcely be maintained. Zahwele is not 'beside the Virgin's spring, but opposite across the valley. Moreover, the resemblance in name seems to be merely accidental; the Hebrew Zoḥeleth probably meaning serpent,' while Zaḥwele in the modern Arabic vulgar dialect is used to denote a slippery descent such as that which comes down from Silwân.† In the narrative of 1 Kings, i, Adonijah and his supporters are at En-Rogel whilst Solomon is conducted down to Gihon for his anointing. Thus, if the identification of the Virgin's spring with Gihon is correct, it is impossible that the same spring should also correspond to En-Rogel.

There can be little doubt that En-Rogel is the modern Bir-Eiyûb, a deep well situated at the junction of the Wady Sitti Mariam with the Wady er-Rabâbi. The objection to this identification on the ground that BîrEiyûb is a well (as is denoted by the Arabic Bir), whilst the name En-Rogel implies a spring, appears to be groundless. Bîr-Eiyûb, though not a true spring, is replenished by percolation; and the ancient Judaeans

* The arguments by which Dr Mommert (op. cit.) seeks to assign the Siloam tunnel to Solomon, and to identify Gihon with the Mamilla pool, altogether fail to carry conviction.

=

observing the water to rise in the well from an underground source, may very well have described it as a spring. The distinction between well (Hebrew beēr = Arabic bir) and spring (Hebrew 'ayin Arabic 'ain) is not always observed in Hebrew, as may be seen by comparison of v. 11 with v. 13 in Gen. xxiv. The identification of Bîr-Eiyûb with En-Rogel suits all Biblical references to the letter; and especially is it appropriate to the mention of En-Rogel as one of the points upon the boundary-line between Judah and Benjamin, the position of Bîr-Eiyûb at the junction of the Kidron valley with the valley of Hinnom making it a natural point to notice in such a connexion. In Josh. xv, 7, 8, the northern boundary of Judah, described from east to west, goes up the valley of Hinnom after touching En-Rogel. In Josh. xviii, 16, the southern boundary of Benjamin, described from west to east, goes down the valley of Hinnom which lies to the south of the cliff of the Jebusite,' and so reaches En-Rogel.

If, then, as seems certain, Gihon corresponds to the Virgin's spring, we have here an important point in proof of the contention that the City of David stood on the southern spur of the eastern hill, to the south of the present Harâm area. As Dr Smith argues, the command of such a spring was an important consideration in the choice of a site for an ancient hill-fortress. And this inference, suggested by the physical features of the site, is confirmed by Biblical references which bring Gihon directly into close connexion with the City of David. Hezekiah, as we have seen, when he stopped the old issue of the Gihon spring, brought the waters down to the west of the City of David'; i.e., assuming, as the remains of ancient walls warrant us in doing, that the old city ran southward down the slope of the spur, the water was carried down to Shiloah, which lay to the west of the southern end of the city (2 Chron. xxxii, 30).

The interpretation of the expression which we render 'to the west of the City of David' has been disputed; and Dr Merrill, Colonel Conder, and even Dr Smith render westwards to the city of David,' Colonel Conder claiming the support of the late Prof. A. B. Davidson, who, he tells us (p. 41), wrote to him that 'this is the natural translation of the words.' This however cannot be admitted.

Literally rendered, the words mean westwards as regards the City of David'; and the same expression is used in 2 Chron. xxxiii, 14, which undoubtedly means that Manasseh 'built an outer wall to the City of David to the west of Gihon in the ravine,' and not westwards towards Gihon.' The construction may be further illustrated by 2 Chron. v, 12, where the Levites stand east as regards the altar,' i.e., to the east of the altar.' In 2 Chron. xxxiii, 14, Dr Smith renders the expression in accordance with this explanation, and thus is inconsistent with his rendering in 2 Chron. xxxii, 30.

If Manasseh built a wall to the City of David on the west side of Gihon in the ravine, this can only be explained as an eastern wall to the old city running along the slope of the south-eastern hill above the spring of Gihon, and so to its west. Dr Merrill, in order to escape the conclusion which must follow from these references to Gihon in close connexion with the City of David, maintains the impossible view that Gihon is to be identified with the reservoir to the west of Jerusalem which is known as the Birket Mamilla, and fails to show how this can be described as 'in the ravine' (naḥal)—a term which is regularly applied to the Kidron valley.

The same conclusion as to the site of the City of David follows from Nehemiah's descriptions of the course of the walls (Neh. iii, 15, 16, xii, 37), where the stairs of the City of David,' and the palace and sepulchres of David are placed between the pool of Shelah (i.e. Shiloah) and the Temple area. It is stated in 2 Sam. v, 7 and elsewhere that the City of David was identical with the stronghold of Zion. A number of passages in the Prophets (both pre- and post-exilic) and in the Psalms speak of Zion as the place of God's abode, or as His holy hilllanguage which can only be naturally interpreted as meaning that, in the view of the writers, Zion was the site of the Temple; i.e., the whole eastern hill, with the City of David at its southern end and the Temple to the north, was named Mount Zion. The advocates of the traditional site for Zion on the western hill explain these references by supposing that the use of the name Zion was extended by poetical licence to include the whole of Jerusalem. If it be granted that this explanation is possible, there still remain a number of passages in the

narrative of 1 Maccabees in which Zion is specified as the Temple hill in such a way as to exclude the possibility of the use of the name in a general sense. Thus we read in 1 Macc. iv, 37, 38, that all the army was gathered together, and they went up unto Mount Zion. And they saw the sanctuary laid desolate, and the altar profaned, and the gates burned up, and shrubs growing in the courts as in a forest, or as on one of the mountains, and the priests' chambers pulled down.' 1 Macc. v, 54 states that they went up to Mount Zion with gladness and joy, and offered whole burnt offerings.' We may compare also vii. 32, xiv, 27, 48.* We learn further from 1 Macc. i, 33 ff., that the forces of Antiochus Epiphanes, having sacked and burned Jerusalem, builded the City of David with a great and strong wall, with strong towers, and it became unto them an Akra (citadel).' Herein was stationed a garrison well equipped with arms and provisions, so that 'it became a place to lie in wait in against the sanctuary, and an evil adversary to Israel continually.' For many years after this the Akra held out against the Maccabean patriots, defying all their efforts to capture it.†

This allusion to the Syrian Akra as built upon the site of the City of David may lead us to a consideration of the evidence of Josephus as to the topography of Jerusalem. This is somewhat ambiguous, and is interpreted in different ways by Dr Paton and Dr Smith; the former claiming it unreservedly as evidence for the modern view of the site of Zion, while the latter considers that it is responsible for the traditional view which places Zion on the south-western hill. The most important passage is found in 'War,' v, 4: 1. Here Josephus' account is as follows: 'The city was built upon two hills, which are opposite to one another, and have a valley to divide them asunder, which valley forms a break in the continuous rows of houses on both hills. Of these hills, that which contained the Upper City is much higher, and straighter as regards its length. Accordingly,

* The name 'Mount Moriah,' as applied to the Temple hill, is derived from the late statement of the Chronicler (2 Chron. iii, 1), which seems to be based upon the mention of the land of Moriah' in Gen. xxii, 2, together with the (much later) play upon the name in verse 14 in connexion with 'the Mount of the Lord.' Apart from these two passages, the name Moriah does not occur throughout the Old Testament.

† Smith, i, pp. 157 ff.