 - Yes, date unknown
-
| Name |
Jebus |
| Gender |
Male |
| Death |
Yes, date unknown |
| Notes |
- «b»http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Bible#cite_note-7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Noah
«/b»"the «u»Jebusite «/u»", offspring of Canaan, a tribe that lived around «u»Jerusalem «/u», that was formerly known as «i»Jebus«/i» according to the «u»Books of Kings «/u».
«b»http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebusite
«/b»According to the «u»Hebrew Bible «/u», the «b»Jebusites«/b» («u»Hebrew «/u»: , «u»Modern «/u»«i»Y«/i» «u»Tiberian «/u» «i»Y«/i») were a «u»Canaanite «/u» tribe who inhabited and built «u»Jerusalem «/u» prior to its conquest by «u»King David «/u»; the «u»Books of Kings «/u» state that Jerusalem was known as «u»«i»Jebus «/u»«/i» prior to this event. According to some «u»Biblical chronologies«/u», the city was reconquered by King David in 1003 BC,«u»[1]«/u» or according to other sources 869 BC.«u»[2]«/u»
«b»Ethnic origin
«/b»The «u»Tanakh «/u» portion of the Bible contains the only surviving ancient text known to use the term «i»Jebusite«/i» to describe the pre-«u»Israelite «/u» inhabitants of Jerusalem; according to the «u»Table of Nations «/u» at «u»Genesis «/u» 10, the Jebusites are identified as a «u»Canaanite «/u» tribe, which is listed in third place among the Canaanite groups, between the «u»Biblical Hittites «/u» and the «u»Amorites «/u». Prior to modern archaeological studies, most «u»Biblical scholars «/u» held the opinion that the Jebusites were identical to the Hittites, which continues to be the case, though less so.«u»[3]«/u» However, an increasingly popular view, first put forward by «u»Edward Lipinski «/u», professor of Oriental and Slavonic studies at the «u»Catholic University of Leuven «/u», is that the Jebusites were most likely an «u»Amorite «/u» tribe; Lipinski identified them with the group referred to as «i»Yabusi'um«/i» in a «u»cuneiform «/u» letter found in the archive of «u»Mari, Syria «/u».«u»[4]«/u»
As Lipinski noted, however, it is entirely possible that more than one clan or tribe bore similar names, and thus that the Jebusites and Yabusi'um may have been separate people altogether.«u»[5]«/u» In the «u»Amarna letters «/u», mention is made of the contemporaneous king of Jerusalem was named «u»«i»Abdi-Heba «/u»«/i», which is a «u»theophoric name «/u» invoking a «u»Hurrian «/u» goddess named «u»«i»Hebat «/u»«/i»; unless a different ethnic group occupied Jerusalem in this period, this implies that the Jebusites were Hurrians themselves, were heavily influenced by Hurrian culture, or were dominated by a Hurrian «u»«i»maryannu «/u»«/i» class.
«b»Jebusites named in the Bible
Melchizedek
«/b»According to «u»Genesis «/u», the ruler of Jerusalem in the time of Abraham was «u»«i»Melchizedek «/u»«/i» (also «i»Melchizedeq«/i»), and that as well as being a ruler, he was also a priest. Later, «u»Joshua «/u» is described as defeating a Jebusite king named «u»«i»Adonizedek «/u»«/i». The first parts of their names mean «i»king«/i» and «i»lord«/i», respectively, but though the «i»zedek«/i» part can be translated as «i»righteous«/i» (making the names «i»my king is righteous«/i» and «i»my lord is righteous«/i»), most Biblical scholars believe that it is a reference to a deity named «u»«i»Zedek «/u»«/i», who was the main deity worshipped by the Jebusites (making the names «i»my king is Zedek«/i» and «i»my lord is Zedek«/i»).«u»[6]«/u» Scholars are uncertain, however, whether Melchizedek was himself intended in the Genesis account to be understood as a «i»Jebusite«/i», rather than a member of another group in charge of Jerusalem prior to the Jebusites - Jerusalem is referred to as «i»Salem«/i» rather than «i»Jebus«/i» in the passages of Genesis describing Melchizedek.«u»[7]«/u»
«b»Araunah
«/b»Another Jebusite, «u»Araunah «/u» (referred to as «i»Ornan«/i» by the «u»Book of Chronicles «/u») is described by the «u»Books of Samuel «/u» as having sold his «u»threshing floor «/u» to King David, which David then constructed an altar on, the implication being that the altar became the core of the «u»Temple of Solomon «/u». «i»Araunah«/i» means «i»the lord«/i» in «u»Hittite «/u», and so most scholars, since they consider the Jebusites to have been Hittite, have argued that Araunah may have been another king of Jerusalem;«u»[8]«/u» some scholars additionally believe that «u»Adonijah «/u» is actually a disguised reference to Araunah, the («i»r«/i») having been corrupted to («i»d«/i»).«u»[9]«/u» The narrative itself is considered by scholars to be «u»aetiological «/u» and of dubious «u»historicity «/u»;«u»[10]«/u» Melchizedek, as a priest as well as king, was likely to have been associated with a sanctuary, probably dedicated to «i»Zedek«/i», and scholars suspect that the Temple of Solomon was simply a natural evolution of this sanctuary.«u»[11][12]«/u»
«b»The Jebusite hypothesis
«/b»Some scholars have speculated that as «u»Zadok «/u» (also «i»Zadoq«/i») does not appear in the text of Samuel until after the conquest of Jerusalem, he was actually a Jebusite priest co-opted into the Israelite state religion. Harvard Divinity School Professor «u»Frank Moore Cross «/u» refers to this theory as the "Jebusite Hypothesis," criticizes it extensively, but terms it the dominant view among contemporary scholars,«u»[13]«/u» in «i»Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel«/i».«u»[14]«/u»
Elsewhere in the Bible,«u»[15]«/u» the Jebusites are described in a manner that suggests that they worshipped the same God («u»El Elyon «/u» -- 'Ely as the Israelites (see, e.g., «u»Melchizedek «/u»). Further support for this theory comes from the fact that other Jebusites resident in pre-Israelite Jerusalem bore names invoking the principle or god Zedek (Tzedek) (see, e.g., Melchizedek and Adonizedek). Under this theory the Aaronic lineage ascribed to «u»Zadok «/u» is a later, anachronistic interpolation.«u»[16]«/u»
«b»Jebusite activities in the Bible
«/b»The Hebrew Bible describes the Jebusites as dwelling in the mountains, besides Jerusalem. («u»Numbers 13:29 «/u», «u»Joshua 11:3 «/u») According to the «u»Book of Joshua «/u», «u»Adonizedek «/u» led a confederation of Jebusites, and the tribes from the neighbouring cities of «u»Jarmut «/u», «u»Lachish «/u», «u»Eglon «/u» and «u»Hebron «/u» against «u»Joshua «/u», («u»Joshua 10:1-3 «/u») but was soundly defeated, and killed. However, «u»Joshua 15:63 «/u» states that Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem ("to this day the Jebusites live there with the people of Judah").
«u»Judges 1:21 «/u» portrays the Jebusites as continuing to dwell at Jerusalem, within the territory otherwise occupied by the «u»Tribe of Judah «/u» and «u»Tribe of Benjamin «/u».
Certain modern archaeologists now believe that the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua simply didn't happen, and that the Israelites actually originated as a subculture in Canaanite society;«u»[17]«/u» some biblical scholars believe that the accounts in the Book of Joshua are cobbled together from «u»folk memory «/u» of disconnected battles, with numerous different aggressors, which occurred over a time period of over 200 years«u»[18]«/u».«u»[19][20]«/u» Nevertheless, this is no reason to conclude that the battle itself didn't happen; these scholars simply argue that if it did, then it had different protagonists, and for different reasons;«u»[21]«/u» though most of their peers in archaeology and biblical studies strongly reject those conclusions."«u»[22]«/u»
According to the «u»Books of Samuel «/u», the Jebusites still had control of Jerusalem at the time of «u»King David «/u», but David wished to take control of the city; understandably the Jebusites contested his attempt to do this, and since Jebus was the strongest fortress in Canaan they gloated that even the «i»blind and lame«/i» could defeat David's army; an alternative, equally valid, translation of the Jebusite's statement is that they said David would have to defeat the «i»blind and lame«/i» before anyone else.«u»[23]«/u» According to the version of the story in the «u»masoretic text «/u», David managed to conquer the city by a surprise attack, led by «u»Joab «/u», through the water supply tunnels (Jerusalem has no natural water supply except for the «u»Gihon spring «/u»). Upon its discovery in the 19th century, «u»Warren's shaft «/u», part of a system which connects the spring to the city, has been cited as evidence for the plausibility of such a line of attack; however, the discovery, at the turn of the 21st century, of a set of heavy fortifications, including towers, around the base of the Warren's shaft system and the spring, has made archaeologists now regard this line of attack as implausible, as it would be an attack against one of the most heavily fortified parts, and hardly a surprise.«u»[24]«/u» According to many textual scholars the claim in the masoretic text could simply be a scribal error; the «u»Septuagint «/u» version of the passage states that the Israelites had to attack the Jebusites «i»with their dagger[s]«/i» rather than «i»through the water shaft«/i».
The «u»Books of Kings «/u» state that once Jerusalem had become an Israelite city, the surviving Jebusites were forced by «u»Solomon «/u» to become «u»serfs «/u»;«u»[25]«/u» though since some archaeologists believe that the Israelites were simply an emergent subculture in Canaanite society, it is possible that this is an aetiological explanation for serfs than a historically accurate one.«u»[17]«/u» It is unknown what ultimately became of these «i»Jebusites«/i», but it seems logical that they were assimilated by the Israelites. According to the "Jebusite Hypothesis,"«u»[26]«/u» however, the Jebusites persisted as inhabitants of Jerusalem and comprised an important faction in the Kingdom of Judah, including such notables as «u»Zadok «/u» the priest, «u»Nathan «/u» the prophet, and «u»Bathsheba «/u», the queen and mother of the next monarch, «u»Solomon «/u». According to this hypothesis, after the disgrace of a rival faction in the struggle for succession to David,«u»[27]«/u» the family of Zadok became the sole authorized Jerusalem clergy, so that a Jebusite family monopolized the Jerusalem clergy for many centuries before becoming sufficiently attenuated to be indistinguishable from other Judeans or Judahites.
The «u»Book of Chronicles «/u» states that the inhabitants of Jebus forbade «u»King David «/u» from coming to Jerusalem shortly after he was made king. «u»Joab «/u» went up first and took the city and became chief and captain of David's armed forces «u»[28]«/u».
«b»Classical Rabbinical perspectives
«/b»
According to «u»classical rabbinical literature «/u», the Jebusites derived their name from the city of Jebus, the ancient Jerusalem, which they inhabited.«u»[7]«/u» These rabbinical sources also argued that as part of the price of «u»Abraham «/u»'s purchase of the «u»Cave of Machpelah «/u», which lay in the territory of the Jebusites, the Jebusites made Abraham grant them a «u»covenant «/u» that his descendants would not take control of Jebus against the will of the Jebusites, and then the Jebusites engraved the covenant into «u»bronze «/u»;«u»[29]«/u» the sources state that the presence of the bronze statues are why the Israelites were not able to conquer the city during «u»Joshua «/u»'s campaign.«u»[30]«/u»
The «u»classical era «/u» go on to state that King David was prevented from entering the city of Jebus for the same reason, and so he promised the reward of captaincy to anyone who destroyed the bronzes - «u»Joab «/u» performing the task and so gaining the prize.«u»[31]«/u» The covenant is dismissed by the rabbis as having been invalidated due to the (defensive) war the Jebusites fought against Joshua, but nevertheless David (according to the rabbis) paid the Jebusites the full value of the city, collecting the money from among all the «u»Israelite tribes «/u», so that the city became their «u»common property [32]«/u»
In reference to a passage«u»[33]«/u» in the «u»Books of Samuel «/u» which refers to a saying about «i»the blind and the lame«/i», «u»Rashi «/u» quotes a midrash which argues that the Jebusites had two statues in their city, with their mouths containing the words of the covenant between Abraham and the Jebusites; one figure, depicting a blind person, represented «u»Isaac «/u», and the other, depicting a lame person, representing «u»Jacob«/u».«u»[7]«/u»
«b»Modern usage
«/b»Many «u»Palestinian Arabs «/u», including such prominent figures as «u»Yasser Arafat [34]«/u» and «u»Faisal Husseini [35]«/u», have claimed that Palestinians descended from the Canaanites . This claim is supported by Jewish archaeologist Ilene Beatty .
«u»[36]«/u»
Also modern genetic studies shows Palestinians are direct descendant of Canaanite people
«u»[37]«/u»
Summer 2007, pp. 49-56 So it has appeared in the «u»«i»Palestinian Encyclopedia «/u»«/i» and in «u»Palestinian Authority «/u» school textbooks. The claim serves to create a connection between Palestinians and Jerusalem that predates the Israelite and «u»Muslim conquests «/u».«u»[38]«/u»
«b»Notes and Citations
«u»1. ^«/u»«/b» p.262, Thompson, Jayyusi
«u»«b»2. ^«/u»«/b» p.47, Kantor
«u»«b»3. ^«/u»«/b» «i»Jewish Encyclopedia«/i»; «u»«i»Peake's commentary on the Bible «/u»«/i»
«u»«b»4. ^«/u»«/b» Lipinski, Edward. «i»Itineraria Phoenicia, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta«/i» 127 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004). p 502.
«u»«b»5. ^«/u»«/b» ibid
«u»«b»6. ^«/u»«/b» «i»Peake's commentary on the Bible«/i»
7. ^ «u»«sup»«b»«i»a«/u»«/sup»«/b»«/i» «u»«sup»«b»«i»b«/u»«/sup»«/b»«/i» «u»«sup»«b»«i»c«/u»«/sup»«/b»«/i» «i»Jewish Encyclopedia«/i»
«u»«b»8. ^«/u»«/b» «u»Biblical Archaeology Review «/u», «i»Reading David in Genesis«/i», Gary A. Rendsburg
«u»«b»9. ^«/u»«/b» the argument originated from Cheyne, who, prior to knowledge of the Hittite language, proposed the reverse
«u»«b»10^«/u»«/b» «i»Peake's commentary on the Bible«/i»
«u»«b»11 ^«/u»«/b» ibid
«u»«b»12 ^«/u»«/b» Biblical Archaeology Review, «i»Reading David in Genesis«/i», Gary A. Rendsburg
«u»«b»13 ^«/u»«/b» Scholars supporting the Jebusite Hypothesis include H. H. Rowley, «u»"Zadok and Nehushtan" <http://www.jstor.org/pss/3259856>«/u», Journal of Biblical Literature 58:113-41 (1939); H. H. Rowley, "Melchizedek and Zadok," «i»Festschrift Alfred Bertholet«/i», pp. 461-72 (1950); Rainer Albertz, «i»A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period«/i» 1:295 (1994); Jones, «i»The Nathan Narratives«/i» 20-25, 40-42, 131-35.
«u»«b»14 ^«/u»«/b» Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. «u»ISBN 0-674-09176-0 «/u».
«u»«b»15 ^«/u»«/b» «u»Genesis «/u» 14.18\endash 19 and 22.
«u»«b»16 ^«/u»«/b» «u»Julius Wellhausen «/u» first espoused the theory that 'Ely was an ancient god of Salem (i.e., Jerusalem), who after David's conquest circa 1000 was equated to Yahweh, and that the Zadokite priests of Jerusalem were or claimed to be descended from Melchizedek.
17 ^ «u»«sup»«b»«i»a«/u»«/sup»«/b»«/i» «u»«sup»«b»«i»b«/u»«/sup»«/b»«/i» «u»Israel Finkelstein «/u», «i»The Bible Unearthed«/i»
«u»«b»18 ^«/u»«/b» ibid
«u»«b»19 ^«/u»«/b» «i»Jewish Encyclopedia«/i», «i»Book of Joshua«/i»
«u»«b»20 ^«/u»«/b» «i»Peake's Commentary on the Bible«/i»
«u»«b»21 ^«/u»«/b» ibid
«u»«b»22 ^«/u»«/b» «u»Azure <http://www.azure.org.il/magazine/magazine.asp?id=352>«/u»
«u»«b»23 ^«/u»«/b» «i»Peake's commentary on the Bible«/i»
«u»«b»24 ^ «/u»«/b» Ronny Reich «i»Light at the End of the Tunnel: Warren's Shaft Theory of David's Conquests Shattered«/i» (in «u»«i»Biblical Archaeology Review «/u»«/i», vol. 25, no. 1)
«u»«b»25 ^«/u»«/b» «u»1 Kings 9:20-21 <http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=1%20Kings&verse=9:20-21&src=NIV>«/u». This is inconsistent with other Biblical passages, however, that suggest that a Jebusite faction at King David's court (possibly including Bathsheba, Nathan, and «u»Zadok «/u») helped highjack the monarchic succession from David's older son, Adonijah, to the younger Solomon.
«u»«b»26 ^«/u»«/b» See H. H. Rowley, «u»"Zadok and Nehushtan" <http://www.jstor.org/pss/3259856>«/u», Journal of Biblical Literature 58:113-41 (1939); H. H. Rowley, "Melchizedek and Zadok," «i»Festschrift Alfred Bertholet«/i», pp. 461-72 (1950); Rainer Albertz, «i»A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period«/i» 1:295 (1994); Jones, «i»The Nathan Narratives«/i» 20-25, 40-42, 131-35. See also Frank Moore Cross, «i»Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel«/i». Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
«u»«b»27 ^«/u»«/b» See Wikipedia article on «u»Abiathar «/u». See also 1 Kings i. 7, 19, 25; ii. 22, 26.
«u»«b»28 ^«/u»«/b» «u»1 Chronicles 11:3-8 <http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=1%20Chronicles&verse=11:3-8&src=NIV>«/u»
«u»«b»29 ^«/u»«/b» ibid
«u»«b»30 ^«/u»«/b» ibid
«u»«b»31 ^«/u»«/b» ibid
«u»«b»32 ^«/u»«/b» ibid
«u»«b»33 ^«/u»«/b» 2 Samuel 5:6
«u»«b»34 ^«/u»«/b» Stefan Lovgren, «u»Jerusalem Strife Echoes Ancient History <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1028_041028_jerusalem_conflict_2.html>«/u», National Geographic News 29-10-2004
«u»«b»35 ^«/u»«/b» Jeffrey Goldberg, «u»Israel's Y2K Problem <http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/03/magazine/israel-s-y2k-problem.html?pagewanted=10>«/u», «u»«i»New York Times «/u»«/i» 03-10-1999
«u»«b»36 ^«/u»«/b» , [«u»<http://www.amazon.com/Arab-land-Canaan-Ilene-Beatty/dp/B0006D7284>«/u» "But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite... [The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] Made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."
«u»«b»37 ^«/u»«/b» , The Origin of Palestinians and Their Genetic Relatedness With Other Mediterranean Populations Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, Nagah Elaiwa, Carlos Silvera, Ahmed Rostom, Juan Moscoso, Eduardo Gómez-Casado, Luis Allende, Pilar Varela, and Jorge Martínez-Laso ABSTRACT: The genetic profile of Palestinians has, for the first time, been studied by using human leukocyte antigen (HLA) gene variability and haplotypes.......... Archaeologic and genetic data support that Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian and Anatolian peoples in ancient times. «u»[1] <http://kinoko.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~duraid/stolen_science/The_Origin_of_Palestinians_and_Their_Genetic_Relatedness_With_Other_Mediterranean_Populations.pdf>«/u»
«u»«b»38^«/u»«/b» David Wenkel, «u»Palestinians, Jebusites, and Evangelicals <http://www.meforum.org/1713/palestinians-jebusites-and-evangelicals>«/u», «u»«i»Middle East Quarterly «/u»«/i» Summer 2007, pp. 49-56
«b»References
«tab»«/b»Thompson, Thomas L., & Jayyusi, Salma Khadra, «i»Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition«/i», Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003
«tab»Kantor, Matis, «i»The Jewish time line encyclopedia: A year-by-year history from Creation to present«/i», Jason Aronson, New Jersey, 1992
«i»«tab»This article incorporates text from the 1901\endash 1906 «u»Jewish Encyclopedia «/u», a publication now in the «u»public domain «/u».«/i»
|
| Person ID |
I61578 |
Glenn Cook Family |
| Last Modified |
8 Dec 2009 |
|
|
