Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1870-03-15
The Site of Mount Zion.


in Jerusalem, have "dispelled an error now
almost inveterate," and proved that Mount
Zion instead Of being, as has so long been
supposed, the southwest mountain of Jeru-
salem, is really the northwest. DR.. Forbes
thinks that this theory of Lieut.. Warren
effects a happy reconciliation between all
statements, heretofore conflicting, in the
bible, the First Book Of the Maccabees,
and Josephus DR.. Forbes adds his con-
clusion as follows:
/. There can be no dispute which is the
higher and which the lower city; that on
the southwest hill being still about eighty
feet higher than the one north of it, accord
ing to the Ordnance Survey Plan.
2 There ought never to have been a
question whether the Tyropoeon valley,
after coming opposite to the Temple hill,
turns TO the west. To separate the two
hills, there must have been an intervening
valley. Wherever therefore its place may
be found, whether as Robinson thinks, in
the direction Of the Jaija gate, or further
to the north, Tyropoeon, which skirts the
pseudo Zion on the east must have turned
westward and joined the valley on the west
side Of Jerusalem
3. Thus alone can the Crescent shape"
be given to the hill on which the lofty city
stands.
4. Our next question is: Which u these
cities was the city Of David, and contained
the stronghold Of Zion connected with it?
From Joscphus, Notwithstanding he never
mentioned Zion, and even gives the name
OF the City of David to the whole Of Jeru-
salem, the legitimate conclusion, believe,
is that which Lieut.. Warren has drawn
that Zion, the citadel out of which David
cast the Jebusites," was in the lower city.
Still the conclusion may be evaded as has
so generally been done, by maintaining
that by the citadel is meant the higher
city, and that 1t was that which David
coined to the lower city, and made it one
body" The conclusion, however, at which
Lieut.. Warren aims, comes out with un
answerable clearness from a comparison o
Mace, 1924 with Josephus, Ant xii
81.
The account in Maccabees of the captur
of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphaues ant
his army is As follows: Gle fell suddenl,
upon the city, and smote it very sore. Ant
when he had taken the spoils of the city
he set il on fire, and pulled down the hou
scs and walls thereof on every side. The
buldcd they The City ofDdvid with grea
and strong wall and with mighty tower:
and it became a stronghold for them. An
they put therein wicked men, and it be
came a place to lie in wait against tn
sanctuary Compare also chap. ii 81
where the City of David is expressly di.
tiuguished from Jerusalem: "Tue hostths
was at Jerusalem, in the City of David
and again chap. xiv: SO.
This, in the corresponding passage
Josephus ANT. xii: "a, is, when /
(Antiochus) had pillaged the whole cit
he burned down the finest buildings; an
when he had overthrow the city walls l
built the stronghold in the lower city; Fl
the place was higher, and overlooked Il
Temple; on which account he fortified
with high walls and towers, and put into
garrison of Macedonians; and the imr
Gus and wicked part Of the (Jewish) mt
titude dwelt in it,"
The author of the Macca5ees places Il
Akra Of the Macedonians in the City
David; Josephus in the lower city, T
inference Is unavoidable, that the City
David and the lower city are synonymoI
and since Zion formed part of the City
David, that Zion is to be sought for,
Lieut.. Warren has placed it, in Akra,
the lower city.
>. The connection, however, betwe
the stronghold Of Zion and the City of
vid must be more clearly defined.
The southwest hill being unGoubtet
the higher of the two hills, and, if we co
pare it as whole with the other, {
stronger and more inaccessible from
deep valleys that surround it on all but
north side, it has been hastily concluC
that the stronghold of Zion must ha
stood there. Now, however, that we Fl
from 4 comparison of Maccabees and 10
plus that its site was in the lower city,
are forced to the conclusion, since it v
the most impregnable part of Jerusale
that within the lower district of the c
rose towering eminence somewhat SINH
to the Castle Rock in Edinburgh VIII
by its PERCEPTIONS sides had hidden defal
till the days of David, to every effort of
Israelites to dislodge the Jebusites fir
its stronghold, and even for sometime
David himself after he had taken the 10,
city, Just as the Castle of Edinburgh C
tinued to hold out against Prince Cha
Edward after he was in possession of
city. The expression, Nevertheless Da
took the stronghold of Zion; the sam
the City of David" q Sam. VT, must
misead us to suppose that the strongh
formed the whole of the City of David.
might very naturally by metonymy {
its name TO the whole of the lower C
Just as the Abbey of Westminster has
en- its name TO the district of London
which it stands. Even in scripture
have plain limitations that the mount
stronghold of Zion being distinct from
City of David. David, we read at
"dwelt in the fort" itself 2 Sam. v: 9, J
afterwards built a separate house for h
self ". II, which was still in the Cit
David . Chron. viii H. The distinc
between Zion and the City of David is
ther intimated by the notice in 2 Sam.
and Chron. XII 8, that David "built
city round about, even from Milo and
ward, in order to make the fortifcat
OF the city somewhat more worthy of
all impregnable fortress which he had
en-. The version, however, of these W
by Josephus, Ant. vii: 8. l. ., now tn
has been shown that his Jebusite cit
was not in the higher city, removes all
biguity: $50 David took the lower cit
force, but the citadel held out still.
When David had cast out the Jebu
out Of the citadel, he made buildings re
about the lower city; he also joined
citadel lAkra) to it, and made it one DO
We have now n simple solution of
main difficulties which have hitherto
picked all inquirers.
The first Of these is: How came NJ
Zion and the Temple mount to be so
titled as to be used anonymously in 5