Ziuran

A son of Abraham and Ketu- rah, Gn 25' (AE Ze^pdv, A Zcu;3pdv, D^ Zo/i^piv) = 1 Ch F^ (B Zen^pdv, A Ze^pdu). The ethnologi- cal signification of the word is doubtful. Pos- sibly Knobel is right in connecting it Avith the Za^pdfj. of Ptolemy (VI. vii. 5), W. of Mecca, on the Red Sea, We may perhaps compare also the ZiMRI of Jer 25^ The name is derived from TC!, ' mountain-sheep or -goat,' this animal having doubtless been the totem of the clan. ZIMRI (-III 'mountain-sheep' [see Gray, HPN p.

97, note 2] ; BX Zo/i/Spef, AF Zap.^pl ; in 1 Ch 8« A Za/ipl ; Vulg. Zambn, but in Chron. Zamri). — 1. A prince of the tribe of Simeon, son of Salu (Nu 25«-" [P], 1 Mac 2=«). While the congregation of Israel in general were expressing repentance for having joined in the impure worship of Baal-peor, Zimri sliamelessly and ostentatiously continued in it. This outrage fired the zeal of Phinehas, who followed him and his partner into the alcove (njp) and slew them both. 2.

Son of Zerah, and grand- father or ancestor of Achan (1 Ch 2, which also represents him as brother of the four sages who are mentioned in 1 K 4'). He is called Zabdi in Jos 7'. 3. A Benjamite, lineal descendant of Saul (1 Ch S! 9^'). 4. King of Israel (1 K IG'"'). He had been captain of half the chariots under Elah, and made use of his position to conspire against his master, whom he assassinated while the latter was drunk.

Even amongst the series of deeds of violence that ushered in the constant changes of dynasty in the Northern Kingdom this act of Zimri seemed peculiarly atrocious. ' Is it peace, thou Zimri, thy master's murderer ? ' was the bitter taunt Hun^ down by Jezebel at Jeliu as he entered the gate of Jezreel (2 K 9^). And in the formula which closes the narrative of tlie reign the his- torian specially notes ' the treason that he wrought' (vr").

Zimri's coup (THat apparently had no general support, the people following either Omri or Tibni, and his brief reign of seven days onlj- enabled him to accomplish tlie extirpation of the family of Baasha, which had been predicted by Jehu the son of Hanani (v.') The distance between Gibbethon and Tirzah leads us to infer that Omri must have marched at once on the capital, and that he met with scarcely any resistance.

Zimri perished in the ashes of the royal palace to which he had himself set lire. S. ' All the kings of Zimri ' are mentioned in the same verse, Jer 25" (Gr. 32") with those of Elam and the Medes as amongst those who were to drink the cup of the fury of the Lord. There is considerable doubt as to what place is meant, or even as to the genuine- ness of the phrase. It is omitted in LXX (BXA), but Aquila seems to have read it.

Delitzsch thinks that a place called Namri in the inscrip- tions of Shalmaneser U., and situated in north- west Babylonia, is referred to ; but Schrader {COT ii. 107) discredits this opinion, without suggesting any rival theory. N. J. D. Whitk ZIN (l^ ; Zilv, Zh ; Sin), Nu 13-' 20' 27" 33" 34»- \ Dt 32=', Jos 15'- ^ — A region passed through by the Israelites in their journeyings. The most exact indication of its position is given in Nu 34 and Jos 15.

These passages (in w liich the boundary of Judah is traced in almost identical terms) refer to 'the wilderness of Zin' in v.' of both, and further describe the boundary thus : ' . . and pass on to Zin ' (Nu v.* ...'[.. and passed along to Zin (Jos v.^) ...] to Kadesh-barnea'). The Hebrew is identical in botli passages njy ij;;), but the nun is without tlagesh in Numbers.

These are the only places where the word Zin occurs by itself, and it seems to denote a place or limited area from which the region round about was named ' the wilderness of Zin,' the expression which occurs in all the remaining passages cited above. In Nu 13^' 'the wilderness of Zin' is named as the southern limit from wliich the spies began to search the land. In Nu 33^ it is given as one of the stations in the journeyings.

The brief note, 'the same is Kadesh,' serves to explain the follow, ing verse ('And they journeyed from Kadesh'. .) Nu 20' records the arrival of the children of Israel 'in the wilderness of Zin' in the lirst month [the year is not stated], and the following vv.'-"* relate the events which took place at Meribah. The remaining two passages, Nu 27 and Dt 32, which are duplicates, refer to the punishment of Moses for his offence at ' the waters of Meribah of Kadesh in the wilderness of Ziu.'

Hence it may be inferred (ci) that the Wilderness of Zin formed part of the southern boundary of Judah at its eastern end towards the Dead Sea ; (6) that ^Cadesh was included within its limits. A reference to art. Paran leads to the further con- clusion that the wilderness of Paran must have been adjacent to that of Zin, so that ^adesh was regarded as in either territory. The LXX and Vulg. render both Sin and Zin by 2/'», Su't, Sin ; but in Nu 34*, Jos 153 the LXX B renders n:s by "E.

f«j>; AP 1ii*vetx in Numbers, A ^f»a in Joshua. Vul^. has Senna in Numbers, Sina in Joshua. The close similarity between the events recortled in Ex 17 and Nu 20 (noticed in art. Mkribah), and other points of resemblance between occurrences before and after Sinai, su^'gest a further question whether Sin and Zin, the Sin of the pre-Sinai and the Zin of the post-Sinai narrative, may be variations developed in the course of tradition.

Both names are found only in the Hexateuch, and there is no geoaraphical indication of later times to guide us. The hypo- thesis does not appear improbable, but the narrative in its present form indicates two regions bearing different names. On the supposition of a Sinai to the £. of the Arabah, these two ' wildernesses' would be much closer together than on the traditional hypothesis. A. T. CHAPMAN. ZINA.-See ZlZA.

ZION (iV»; B S«ii>', but Si(ii' in Am 1' and in 28 places in the Psalms ; A Ziiir, but in Is 1' 2^, Jer 26", La 2', Jl 2'- ", and in 6 places in the Psalms i;«nj»', and in Ca 3", Is 31", Jer 8'" Sni ; in Ca 3" B omits. In Apoc. and NT Siuii-, Sion, where the AV, following the Greek, has Sion, the RV Zion). — The stronghold (■^^!>a) of Zion was the castle, or acropolis, of the ' city of tte Jebusites' (Jg 19") ; see art. Jebus.

Its position must have been one of great natural strength, for it was regarded by its garrison and its inhabitants as impregnable, and when David laid siege to it he was received with taunts and jeers (2 S 5'*- ', 1 Ch 11» ; cf. Jos. Ant. VII. iii. 1). 'Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, the same is the city of David . . and David dwelt in the stronghold and called it the city of David. And he built round about from MUlo and inward' (2 S S'', 1 Ch 11»«).

In two other passages (I K 8', 2 Ch 5^) Zion is directly identified with the city of David by the expression ' the city of David which is Zion.' Within th« * For the meaning of ' wilderness ' see art. Jt.:>Ui^uX ZION ZION 983 city walls David built a palace (2 S 5", Neh 12"), round which were "atliereJ the houses of his warriors (2S 11-); and pitched a tent for tlie ark of Jahweh (2 S 6'»-", 1 Ch 15^ 16').

Before his death, iJaiud purchased the threshinj;, lloor of Arauiiah the tJebusite, upon which was erccied, afterwards, the altar of the temple (2 S 24"'-"', lCh21"'-*); and when he died he was buried in the city of David (1 K 2'", Neh 3'"). The exact position of the stronghold within the later Jerusalem is one of the must important of the disputed points connected with the topography of the Holy City.

In the article Jerusalkm it is shown that the ancient city stood on two spurs, or hills, separated from each other by a deep ravine. The western and higher simr is identified by Chris- tian tradition with Zion ; on the eastern and lower the temple was built.

The western spur is broad- backed, and, so far as its original form is known, there is no broken ground or conspicuous feature upon it that would naturally be selected as the site of a castle such as those usually erected for the protection of an ancient hill-town. Moreover, there is no spring; and when, at a later date, the spur was covered with houses, this deficiency had to be met by the construction of reservoirs and aqueducts.

The earliest settlement at Jerusalem cannot therefore be placed on the western spur. The eastern spur, on the other hand, is, for the most part, a narrow ridge of rock, upon which there are good natural jiDsitions for the construction of a Sill-fort or '•-astle. One such position is that which was occi.

pieil by the Macedonian Akra and the Herodian Antonia ; another is the point, south of the present IJaram esh-Shorif, at which the Tyro- pocon raWne most closely approaches the valley of the Kidron. In that valley, at the foot of the eastern slope of the spur, rises the only true spring at or near Jerusalem — GlHON, now tlie Fountain of the Virgin. The evolution of Jerusalem cannot have differed greatly from that of other ancient cities.

The earliest settlement would naturally have been on the eastern spur, and it probably consisted of a village on the slopes above the spring, with a small fort on higher ground to which the people could fly on the approach of an enemy. By about B.C. 1400 .lerusalem had become, according to the Tel el-Amarna letters, the forti- fied cajiital of a small district ; and siich it appears to have been when the Hebrews entered Palestine.

The natural disadvantages of its positiim for trade, and the scarcity of fertile land in its vicinity, were against rapid grow tli ; and there is no reason to suppose th.at, when taken by David, it was larger than other hill-towns in Palestine, or that it Tiiul spread beyond the limits of the eastern spur. The topographical argument in favour of placing the stronghold of Zion on this spur rather than on the western, is supported by the historical notices.

The temple area, which is now enclosed by the walls of the ^arani esh-Sherif, was ahave tlie city of David, and was not regarded as forming part of it(l IC8'-«,2Ch5»-»; cf.2.S2-l'«). And the state- ments of Nehemiah {3'»- '• 12", cf. 2'), which place the stairs of the city of David, the palace of David, and his tomb between the i)Ool of Slielah (SiLOAM) and the temple, absolntely exclude the western spur as a possible site for the city of David.

With this, too, agree tlie iilentilication by Micah (4) of the ' tower of the flock ' with ' the Opiiel of the daughter of Zion ' ; the references in Ezekiol {43'- ') • Notice tier« bring uj : 90 reifularly fn OT people so up from the nalare to the veinplo (Jer 2fl)0), ftnd dotpn In the •jpiwsite direction (2 K 111", Jcr 221 sou,, if, however, the palace had been on the western spur (2620-00 ft.), the temple {244l> ft.) would have been below it.

to the proximity of the royal palace and sepulchre! to the temple ; and the aiiparent connexion of Zion and the temple in Ps 78''- "' and Jer 50'*. Perhaps also there may lie an allusion to the relative posi- tions of Zion and the temple in Ps 48''' ' Mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.' Throughout the OT there are pas- sages which have no meaning, if Zion and the temple hill were two separ.ate to]K)graphical features.

Zion is the holy hill or mountain (Ps 2\ Jl 2'), the chosen habitation of Jahweh (Ps 9" 74'^ 76' 84' 132", Is 8'8 60'^ Jer 8'», Jl 3", ', Zee 8»). There He manifests Himself (Ps 14' 20» 53« 128' 134^ Am 1'-) ; and there He must be wor- shipped and praised (Ps 65'-, Jer 31«, Jl 2'-"). Hence .Mount Zion, the intangible mount, the city of the living God, is employed in the XT as the type of heaven (He 12'«- -, Kev 14').

At the same time the name Zion is given, in some instances, to the whole city (Ps 120' 146'°, Is 1" 10', La 1; cf. the common expression 'daughters of Zion'); and in others it is mentioned as if it were a separate quarter of Jerusalem (2 K 19", Ps 51", Is 30'» 64'", Jer 26'«, Jl S'", Am P, Mic 3'^ Zee 1" ; cf. the distinction between Jerusalem and the quarter in which the kings were buried in 2 Ch 28-''). In 1 Maccabees, written c. B.C.

100 by some one who was well acquainted with the localities, Zion is identified with the temple hill (4"-S8 5m 7» etc.), and so it is in 1 Es 8>", 2 Es 5=», Sir 24'", and Jth 9". Jose|ihus, who does not mention Zion, says {Ant. VII. lii. 1) that David took the lower city and the Akra (both of which he elsewhere places on the eastern spur), and (iii. 2) that, after driving the Jebusites out of the Akra, David rebuilt Jerusalem, called it the city of David, and dwelt in it.

* The Kabbis, t without exception, place the temple on Zion, and Origen distinctly states (ui Joan. 4"- -") that the Jews did .so in his day. Eusebius (in /.«. 22') and Jerome apparently [in /.?. l'-" 22') take the same view ; but elsewhere they identify Zion with the western spur, and in this agree w itli the Bor- deaux Pil<;rim [Itin. Hiero-i.) From the 4th cent, onwards /ion is always identified with the south part of the western spur.

This identification first apjicars after the othcial recovery of Golgotha, and it possibly owes it." origin to the feeling that, with- out a Zion, the ' New Jeru.salem ' of Constantine would be incomplete and inferior in sanctity to the 'Old Jerusalem' with its temple on the lower ground to the east. The identification of Zion with the eastern spur satisfies the tojiographical conditions and the his- torical evidence until the 4th cent. A.D.

But the spur is now so completely covereil with deep rubbish that its original form is unknown, and the exact position of tlie stronfjiiold can be determined only uy extensive excavations. The fort was jirobably small, for its builders could have had in view only the protection of the spring and the little town on the slopes above it. Lightfoot (Op. i. 553, ii. 187), Ferjjussou (Essau on the ancient tupog. of Jerus. p. 55 11'.

, 1847), ancf a few other writers, place Zion immediately north of the temple ; but, if^tho words of I K 8'- ■ (cf. 2 S 24"' '») are to be taken literally, it must have been to the south of the Holy Place of the Jews. In this direction, on a site so situated as to command the spring, it has been placed by Birch (I'KFSt. 1878, pi.. 12'.t, 178), Stade (GVI !. Joseitluiti odds (iii. 2) that David took poHSession of the* Upper City, which he called (/i./ v. iv. I) the fortreBa (^^^^«»).

and Joined the Akra to it. This postiibly refers to the first eiiduHuro of the wentcm spur, which liavid may well have undertaken tuwarde the clone of his reijin, when the develop, uient of tnide had greatly enriched the kin{;dom. f Some of the copper coina etnick during the war of Vespanian anil the rebellion in llulrian's reign bear ttio legonda Liff'uUath /loa, ' Dolivomnce of Zion.' and Chfrut\ Z., ' EmondpatiOD of Zioo.* See art. MoxSY, vol. iU. p. iSl. 315 f.), Robertson Smith (art.

'Jerusalem' in Enajc. Brit.' 1881), Sayce {PEFSt, 1883), von Alien (ZZ>Prii. IStf., iii. 116tt.), Klaiber (Z/>PK iii. 189 ti"., iv. ISIl.), Guthe {ZDPVv. 271 K., 1883), G. A. Smith (in Enci/c. Bibl. 2418), and the ma- jority of recent authorities. Guthe (I.e.) believed that his excavations proved the existence of a wide, deep ditch or hollow, cut through the hill, in a N. W. direction, from tlic Virgin's Fount to the TyropcEon Valley.

But his excavations Avere not complete, and tlie view tliat he found the ditch of the strong- hold must be accepted with reserve. The identification of Zion with the western spur is accepted by Keland, liobinson, Ritter, Williams, de VogU6, Stanley, Conder, and others ; but, as will have been seen, it is exceedingly difficult to recon- cile with the statements of the OT. The following view may be suggested.

When David took Jerusalem it was a hill-town on the south part of the eastern spur, with a small castle or acropolis, called Zion, situated at a convenient spot to the south of the present JJaram esh-Sherif. After David's capture of the city he at once com- menced to rebuild and strengtlien its fortifications, especially those of the stronghold and Millo.

Towards the end of his reign, when a period of great prosperity had set in, he commenced the enclosure of the western spur ; and his work on both spurs was continued by Solomon (1 K 9"'''t 11"), tlezekiah (2Ch 32^ cf. Is 22'), and Manasseh, who ' built an outer wall to the city of David, on the west side of Gihon in the valley 'J (2 Ch 33"). The stronghold of Zion became the city of David, and tliis name was soon extended to the town at the south end of the spur.

When the town spread northward, Zion was connected with the central IJart of the spur, on which lay the royal buildings and, adjoining them on the north, at the top of the hill, the temide area ; and so it became a sacred name for tlie spot upon which the temple, the dwelling-place of Jahweh, stood. Afterwards, the name was frequently applied by prophets and poets to the temple enclosure, to the eastern spur, and to the holy city of Jerusalem.

In the time of Hadrian there was, according to Epiphanius (de Mens, et Pond, xv.), a small church on the western spur, which marked the site of the house — that of tlie mother of Mark — at which the apostles met after the Ascension. This church, apparently tlie same as that called by Cyril of Jerusalem the ' Church of the Apostles,' became in later years the basilica of holy Zion, or the 'Mother Church' on Zion.

This tradition now attaches to the church of the Sjiian monastery, which claims to be the oldest ecclesiastical estab- lishment at Jerusalem. There was also a Church of St. Peter, or 'House of Caiaphas,' which is mentioned in the 5th cent, as being distinct from that of Zion (Brev. ; Theodosius, De loc. wnct. ; see discussion in Antoninus Martyr, App. ii. P. P. Text Series, vol. ii.) C. W. Wilson.