Bryant G. Wood
After the death of Saul, Israel’s first king, the people of Israel and Judah united under David at Hebron (II Samuel 5:1–5). David’s first act as leader of the newly formed federation was to establish a new capital. He chose a neutral city, Jerusalem, which lay on the border between the northern and southern tribes and was occupied by the Jebusites. David captured Jerusalem in about 996 B.C. as described in II Samuel 5:6–10:
“And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither. Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion: the same is the city of David. And David said on that day. Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house. So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David. And David built round about from Millo and inward. And David went on, and grew great, and the Lord God of hosts was with him.”
Archaeological excavations at Jerusalem between 1961 and 1967 have given us much new information about the city of Jerusalem — especially the Jerusalem of David’s time. The dig was under the direction of Dr. Kathleen Kenyon of the British School of Archaeology. The results of the excavations have been published in Dr. Kenyon’s latest book, ROYAL CITIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (Barrie and Jenkins, London, 1971).
Jerusalem’s Walls
The Jebusite city captured by David was situated on the Hill of Ophel, south of present-day Jerusalem. Kenyon’s team found that its walls formed an elongated triangle enclosing an area of approximately 11 acres (see figure on page 100). The city was divided into two areas: a narrow summit plateau, about 100 yards across at its widest point and, to the east, a steep slope going down to the Kedron Valley. This peculiar arrangement was necessitated by the location of the city water supply, Spring Gihon.
BSP 1:4 (Autumn 1972) p. 100
BSP 1:4 (Autumn 1972) p. 101
Spring Gihon is located in the Kedron Valley. Defensively, it was advantageous to build the city on top of the Hill of Ophel, but this would leave the spring inaccessible during time of war. On the other hand, the eastern wall could not be located in the valley, so as to include the spring inside the city, since the wall would then be vulnerable to attack from higher ground on the opposite side of the Kedron Valley.
The solution was to locate the eastern wall far enough down the slope to enable the inhabitants to defend the spring, now outside the city wall, and yet be out of range of enemy projectiles from across the valley. As Kathleen Kenyon said, “The wall is in fact sited with some skill” (page 32 of ROYAL CITIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT).
The Water Shaft
In order to assure an adequate water supply during time of war, the Jebusites constructed an ingenious tunnel system. A passage was hewn out of the solid rock of the Hill of Ophel so that they could obtain water from the Spring Gihon from inside the city walls. Earlier excavators cleared out the water shaft and traced its route through the hillside.
First, the Jebusites dug a horizontal tunnel, beginning at the spring and proceeding toward the center of the city. After digging for 90 feet they hit a natural cave. From the cave, they dug a vertical shaft 45 feet high. From the end of the shaft they fashioned a sloping tunnel 135 feet long which ended in a staircase. The staircase surfaced in the city, 110 feet above the water level of the spring. The Jebusites then concealed the spring from the outside so that the enemy could not detect it.
To obtain water during a siege, the Jebusite women would go down through the upper tunnel to the vertical shaft. There they would lower their water skins to draw water from the cave below. Water was brought to the cave by natural flow through the horizontal tunnel that connected the cave with the spring.
It remained for Kenyon’s excavations to answer one question raised by earlier excavators. They thought that a wall located on the eastern crest of the Hill of Ophel dated to the time of David. The entrance to the water tunnel, however, was located on the hillside, outside the wall. This seemed illogical.
BSP 1:4 (Autumn 1972) p. 102
Jebusite Water Channels and Shaft
BSP 1:4 (Autumn 1972) p. 103
Kenyon’s work established that the wall previously ascribed to David was in reality built in Maccabean times. The eastern wall of David’s city was located further down the hill, so that the entrance to the water tunnel was safely inside the city.
David’s Capture of Jerusalem
With a reliable water supply and stout city walls, the Jebusites were confident that they could hold out against David and his forces. Hadn’t they successfully held out against Joshua and his men several centuries before? (Joshua 15:63). The Jebusites taunted David that the city could be defended by the blind and the lame (II Samuel 5:6).
But David outwitted his adversaries. He challenged his men: “Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain” (II Samuel 5:8).
The Hebrew word translated gutter is “sinnor”, which has the meaning of a pipe, spout, or conduit. Kenyon believes that “sinnor” is the Hebrew term for the Jebusite water shaft. A better translation of the phrase would be, “Whoever would smite the Jebusites, then let him approach by the water shaft.”
David apparently knew about this secret entrance to Jerusalem. By sending his men through the tunnel, David was able to take the town by surprise. “There is every reason to suppose that this water shaft is the method by which the Jebusites had access to the spring in time of war, and that it was the means whereby the capture of the town of David was achieved,” Kenyon said (page 26).
Several experienced climbers have ascended the shaft in modern times. It is a difficult feat, however, for the rock walls are smooth and slick and give little hold for hand or foot. The shaft is also a little too wide for a comfortable climb. Evidently, the shaft posed little problem for Joab, for “Joab the son of Zeruiah went first up, and was chief” (I Chronicles 11:6).
The “Millo”
After he captured Jerusalem, David proceeded to rebuild the city. “And David built round about from Millo and inward” (II Samuel
BSP 1:4 (Autumn 1972) p. 104
5:9b). I Chronicles 11:8 adds “… and Joab repaired the rest of the city.”
Bible translators have never been sure of the meaning of the Hebrew word “millo” in II Samuel 5:9 and other Scriptures. They simply converted it into English as a proper noun. It was not until Kathleen Kenyon’s excavations that the meaning of the term was fully understood.
Kenyon excavated a narrow strip of the eastern slope of David’s Jerusalem, identified as Trench 1 in the figure on page 100. She found that the Jebusites had built up the steep hillside into a system of terraces. Retaining walls were built along the hill, parallel with the eastern wall. Great masses of stones were piled against the retaining walls with thin stabilizing walls dividing the stones into compartments. The town residents then constructed their buildings on top of the terraces along the hillside. One such terrace in the excavated trench was found to be 20 feet high with evidence to suggest that it was originally higher.
It was these terraces that Kenyon identified as the “Millo”. The root meaning of the Hebrew word “millo” is “filling”. The name exactly fits the terrace area for it was, in a strict sense, a filling.
Trench 1 where Kathleen Kenyon excavated on the eastern slope of the Hill of Ophel. The eastern wall of David’s Jerusalem is at the lower end of the excavation with the Millo, or terraced filling, above.
BSP 1:4 (Autumn 1972) p. 105
The terrace area was very important to ancient Jerusalem, for it formed nearly half of the town. Any weakening of a retaining wall by earthquake, heavy rain, or enemy attack, would cause the houses behind it to collapse into the valley. The archaeological evidence indicated that this had occurred several times over the centuries. Later rulers, such as Solomon and Hezekiah, were also concerned with the rebuilding of the Millo as seen in I Kings 9:24, 11:27 and II Chronicles 32:5.
Dr. Kenyon summarized her identification in these words: “Such a preoccupation with Millo fits well with the archaeological and structural evidence that the terrace structure is to be interpreted as Millo and as a constant care of the rulers of Jerusalem” (page 35).
The Bible indicates that David did not expand Jerusalem, but merely repaired the existing Jebusite city. This is exactly what Dr. Kenyon found. The expansion of Jerusalem was left to Solomon, who enlarged the city to the north to include the present temple site. Dr. Kenyon writes, “The literary [i.e.. Biblical] evidence suggests that David repaired the city that he captured. There is no [Biblical] evidence that he developed it or expanded it. With this the archaeological evidence agrees.” (page 35)
Thanks to the work of Dr. Kenyon and her team, we now have an understanding of the “sinnor” and the “Millo.” Her work has enriched the Biblical account of David’s capture of Jerusalem, the Holy City of God.
BSP 1:4 (Autumn 1972) p. 106
Forts and Trade Routes in the Negev during the time of Solomon.
BSP 1:4 (Autumn 1972) p. 107