Magen Broshi's refugee hypothesis aimed to explain how Iron Age Jerusalem expanded to include the Western Hill. It has been widely accepted and developed, but some scholars question its usefulness.
Imho, Isaiah 11 pictures the Gentile refugees living on the western hill, describing them as various dangerous animals **who weren't hurting anyone**, living right on God's "holy mountain" - Mount Zion. Josephus agrees that Mount Zion was on the western hill (Wars of the Jews Book V chapter 4). These would also have included Israelite refugees, of course, but the Gentile refugees would've been from the smaller nation-states surrounding Israel and Judah, which previously were their enemies.
Israel and Judah couldn't achieve lasting peace through military means, but God was able to create peace HIS way...a lesson that I think we should learn from today.
Hi Damon, thanks for reading and for your comment. To my knowledge, "Mount Zion" in the Hebrew Bible always refers to the Temple Mount, especially in Isaiah and in the Psalms. This usage is even reflected in some later books like in I Maccabees. Josephus would not be as relevant for understanding earlier realities, just as popular traditions in Jerusalem (e.g. the location of modern Mount Zion) are not.
According to Josephus, the Temple was situated on the upper hill. That wouldn't be the Temple Mount - which is the only place big enough to house a full Roman legion. And its dimensions match other Roman forts elsewhere.
As I recall, archaeologists were very surprised when they discovered the true location of the pool of Siloam. They thought it would be on the eastern side of the "city of David" - what Josephus refers to as the lower city. But the Temple was situated in the UPPER CITY, so the pool of Siloam would need to be close enough to aqueduct its waters into the Temple.
As far as Josephus not being a good witness for earlier realities, perhaps not...but the problem there is that Josephus tells us where David's citadel was, and it wasn't where the Temple Mount is today. If Josephus is wrong about that, then why is the Pool of Siloam not in a position to allow easy aqueducting to the Temple Mount?
All lines of evidence indicate overwhelmingly that the temple was located on the traditional Temple Mount, likely where the Dome of the Rock sits today or slightly north. The Pool of Siloam's general location, on the southern side of the Southeastern Hill, has always been known since antiquity. This is also where Josephus places it. The temple was not supplied directly with water from Siloam but used massive underground cisterns and later channeled spring water there via an aqueduct. Perhaps I'll write about these issues at some point.
Imho, Isaiah 11 pictures the Gentile refugees living on the western hill, describing them as various dangerous animals **who weren't hurting anyone**, living right on God's "holy mountain" - Mount Zion. Josephus agrees that Mount Zion was on the western hill (Wars of the Jews Book V chapter 4). These would also have included Israelite refugees, of course, but the Gentile refugees would've been from the smaller nation-states surrounding Israel and Judah, which previously were their enemies.
Israel and Judah couldn't achieve lasting peace through military means, but God was able to create peace HIS way...a lesson that I think we should learn from today.
Hi Damon, thanks for reading and for your comment. To my knowledge, "Mount Zion" in the Hebrew Bible always refers to the Temple Mount, especially in Isaiah and in the Psalms. This usage is even reflected in some later books like in I Maccabees. Josephus would not be as relevant for understanding earlier realities, just as popular traditions in Jerusalem (e.g. the location of modern Mount Zion) are not.
According to Josephus, the Temple was situated on the upper hill. That wouldn't be the Temple Mount - which is the only place big enough to house a full Roman legion. And its dimensions match other Roman forts elsewhere.
As I recall, archaeologists were very surprised when they discovered the true location of the pool of Siloam. They thought it would be on the eastern side of the "city of David" - what Josephus refers to as the lower city. But the Temple was situated in the UPPER CITY, so the pool of Siloam would need to be close enough to aqueduct its waters into the Temple.
As far as Josephus not being a good witness for earlier realities, perhaps not...but the problem there is that Josephus tells us where David's citadel was, and it wasn't where the Temple Mount is today. If Josephus is wrong about that, then why is the Pool of Siloam not in a position to allow easy aqueducting to the Temple Mount?
All lines of evidence indicate overwhelmingly that the temple was located on the traditional Temple Mount, likely where the Dome of the Rock sits today or slightly north. The Pool of Siloam's general location, on the southern side of the Southeastern Hill, has always been known since antiquity. This is also where Josephus places it. The temple was not supplied directly with water from Siloam but used massive underground cisterns and later channeled spring water there via an aqueduct. Perhaps I'll write about these issues at some point.