Talk:Jebusites

sources

Is anyone aware of any extrabiblical ancient sources which refer to Jebusites or to a people having a similar name? --Briangotts (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that the Wiki article neglects to mention 1 Chronicles, which says (KJV),

1Chr.11 [1] Then all Israel gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. [2] And moreover in time past, even when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel, and thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel. [3] Therefore came all the elders of Israel to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the LORD; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the LORD by Samuel. [4] And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, which is Jebus; where the Jebusites were, the inhabitants of the land. [5] And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither. Nevertheless David took the castle of Zion, which is the city of David. [6] And David said, Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain. So Joab the son of Zeruiah went first up, and was chief. [7] And David dwelt in the castle; therefore they called it the city of David.

Source: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=1662819

Conquest vs. Occupation Controversy

Jebusite

Using the term "conquest" makes a judgment that King David actually "conquered" Jerusalem, rather than co-opting its management, as the Jebusite Hypothesis (in this Article) suggests. For that reason, "occupation" is a more neutral word and seems preferable, although perhaps still other words might be better (and if so, please suggest).

The lack of any information (even Biblical) asserting massacre of the inhabitants suggests peaceful occupation (or even making an offer that the management couldn't refuse--such as steak dinners forever for Zadoq/Araunah and his descendants in exchange for nominal substitution of "Yahweh" for "El Elyon" as alternative to massacre). Therefore, I propose to change "conquest" to "occupation" in a week or so if no contrary consensus emerges.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

based on the research that I read, it seems to me that David and the Jebusite have a good relationship. Why else would the Jebusites hand over mount Moriah? --Michal 04:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahav511 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:NOR - our analysis is immaterial, we go by what reliable sources say. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The bible often present contradicting accounts. I think that Wiki should present all 'the theories' rather than the popular version. Please read 1 Chronicles 21 vs:22-23. David asked the governor of the Jebusites for his land to build the Temple and the Jebusite governor gives it to him without any hesitation. This completely contradicts what is written here. I won't go into detail here but there are many reasons to doubt the popular version of conquest.--Michal 16:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources beyond the biblical

There are many, and they should be added to this article, which currently only discusses the biblical vision of the Jebusites. Archaeology has provided much information, some of which upholds and others which contradict the biblical narrative. I'll work on adding some of these to the article. Tiamut^talk 18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

First rate. I will look forward to seeing your additions soon. Please include the wall and also the two towers near Gihon. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ethnic origin

Tanakh: this term, which represents a complete unit of its own in Judaism, cannot possibly be used to refer to a part of the "Bible", which is essentially a Christian term, so it's better to stick to "Old Testament". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamour (talk • contribs) 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Genetic Studies

I turned up this: http://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/public/mgsa-l/2006-March/006774.html which claims that the article, "The Origin of Palestinians and Their Genetic Relatedness With Other Mediterranean Populations" was retracted by the journal that originally published it. This article is used as the sole reference for a claim about genetic studies in the "Modern Usage" section.

I don't have access to this journal, so I can't verify either that it was the original publisher, or that it issued a retraction. And perhaps there are other genetic studies that have reached similar conclusions. But if this is really the only source, and it was retracted, then I'm thinking that, "Also modern genetic studies shows Palestinians are direct descendants of Canaanite people" should be removed from the article.

Can anyone help? Grease Bandit (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Here; Gibbons, Ann (October 30, 2000). "Jews and Arabs Share Recent Ancestry". ScienceNOW. American Academy for the Advancement of Science. Surprise, surprise, both palestinians and jews come from the same core prehistorical population... I think that statement has all the right to stay. 212.163.172.180 (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Leirus212.163.172.180 (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If it should stay, it should take a more neutral approach, by including what you just stated, that both come from the same core prehistorical population. Augustun84 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Biased opinions stated as facts

The lines at the end of this subsection are politically loaded and cite highly controversial references:

First of all, it is not in Wikipedias place to state a subjective analysis of the motivation of the Palestinian Authorities for teaching what they teach; for all we know, they actually do believe it's their history. The references given to back this claim are known ideological sources, and they do not provide evidence for any of the claims, only opinions. They ridicule Arafat for first claiming to be a Canaanite, and then claiming to be a Jebusite which is supposed to be a contradiction. It is not, Jebusites are considered a subgroup of Canaanites. Furthermore, how exactly would one use archeological evidence to link Palestinians to the Jebusites? There's cultural, linguistic, genetic and historical evidence in the Wikipedia article on Palestinian people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people) linking them to ancient inhabitants (without naming Jebusites in particular). Simply stating that there is no archaeological evidence, adds nothing but a biased point of view.

Because of this, the following lines should be removed from the Modern Use section. Or at the very least, they should be balanced with some actual evidence.

"The claim is used as an attempt to prove a connection between Palestinians and Jerusalem that predates the Muslim conquest. There is, however, no archaeological evidence linking the Arab-Palestinians of today with the Jebusites of the Canaanite period.ref name=MEQ-PJE>David Wenkel,". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.39.125.35 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a reliable source to me as Wenkel is writing in a peer reviewed journal. If you want to balance it, go ahead, but note that Wenkel also cites Eric Cline, another reliable source. Maybe attribute it, but it shouldn't be removed. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

David Wenkel, with his "Masters degree in Christian thought" is of course not a reliable source. And MEQ did not even claim peer-review back when Wenkel's article was published, so that argument doesn't apply. Just to be clear, since there isn't any evidence that Jebusites actually existed, there isn't any evidence that any group today is descended from them either. (There is much stronger evidence that Palestinians and Jews share lots of their ancestry.) It is just a shame to see this material presented with such weak sources in such a biased fashion. Zero^talk 12:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Original research

See WP:NORN#Edit says that source doesn't directly mention subject of article. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 08:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)