This article re-examines the historical role of the Jebusites in the early monarchical period. The Jebusites, whose name is derived from the verb YBŚ («to be dry»), were a West Semitic pastoral clan that split into two segments, one settling in western Gilead and the other around Jerusalem. The two segments kept their tribal solidarity, as indicated by Saul’s campaign to rescue Jabesh-gilead. The Jebusite stronghold was one of Saul’s power bases, and David took it over. The biased description of David’s conquest influenced the way the Jebusites were presented in the late (Deuteronomistic) biblical historiography and in Israelite cultural memory.
001_naman_481-497 19/02/15 10:41 Pagina 482
482 NADAV NA’AMAN
Jebusite, that is, Jerusalem” 5. “Jebusite” in all three references is
probably an ellipsis of the longer form, “[the city of] the Jebusite”
(compare Judg 19,11b). Since the three sources refer to the pre-
David era, their author deliberately avoided the name “Jerusalem”
and instead used that of the group that according to biblical histo-
riography lived in Jerusalem until David conquered it.
In light of the gentilic nature of the name Jebusite, scholars
have considered it either a genuine name of a clan that settled in
Jerusalem and its vicinity, or a fictive ethnonym invented by bib-
lical scribes. The latter opinion rests on comparison with the other
six pre-Israelite “nations” and on the assumption that some or all
of them are fictive ethnonyms 6. Many scholars have suggested
that Canaanites, Amorites and Hittites are historical names of an-
cient Near Eastern peoples and do not represent defined ethnic
groups who lived in Late Bronze and early Iron Age Canaan 7.
However, there are many parallels between the Hittite world and
the Old Testament, in particular those pertaining to the spheres of
state cult, divination, rituals and magic 8. Hence, some scholars
Y. Elitzur suggested that katef is a term unique to the Benjaminite dialect;
see “Katef, a Topographical Term in the Benjaminite Dialect”, HUCA 70-71
(1999-2000) 27-38. However, Jerusalem was located within the territory of
Benjamin, and it is unlikely that the villages of Benjamin spoke a dialect that
differs from that of the nearby capital city.
5
The LXX renders it “Jebus”. For discussion, see D. BARTHÉLEMY, Critique
textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Tome 1: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chro-
niques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther (OBO 50/1; Fribourg – Göttingen 1982) 50.
6
UEHLINGER, “Die ‘Jebusiter’”, 256-263; U. HÜBNER, “Jerusalem und die
Jebusiter”, Kein Land für sich allein. Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan,
Israel/Palästina und Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag (eds.
U. HÜBNER – E.A. KNAUF) (OBO 186; Freiburg – Göttingen 2002) 34-42.
7
For the vast scientific literature written on this subject, see J. VAN
SETERS, “The Terms ‘Amorites’ and ‘Hittites’ in the Old Testament”, VT 22
(1972) 64-81; C. UEHLINGER, “The ‘Canaanites’ and Other
People in Story and History”, Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und The-
ologie 46 (1999) 546-578; 47 (2000) 174-198, with earlier literature; I.
SINGER, “The Hittites and the Bible Revisited”, “I will Speak the Riddles of
Ancient Times”. Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai
Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday (eds. A.M. MAEIR – P. de
MIROSCHEDJI) (Winona Lake, IN 2006) 723-756; M. GERHARDS, “Die bibli-
schen ‘Hethiter’”, WdO 39 (2009) 145-179, with earlier literature.
8
See recently Y. FEDER, Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual.
Origins, Context, and Meaning (Writings from the Ancient World Supplement
Series 2; Atlanta, GA 2011), with earlier literature.
FOLLOW US