How Did Israel First Occupy Jerusalem?

I am part of an email bible study group and the leader of the group presented this to us to be analyzed. I haven't the slightest idea as to the answer, perhaps there are those that would like to take a stab at it. Since I don't have an answer, anyone's answer could very well be that answer. Please read carefully before submitting.

Here it is:

For the past month I have tried to come to a settled opinion on the question of just how Israel first occupied the city of Jerusalem. The more I looked at the biblical references the more I became confused. Here is a sample of my inquiry.

ONE

In Joshua 10, Jerusalem's king, Adonizedek, the leader of five Amorite kings, was defeated by Joshua and his army in running battle. Yahweh killed more enemies than Joshua did by throwing huge stones down on them from heaven. The kings were captured hiding in a cave and executed by Joshua. to endorse this story, the author tells us that five of these large stones are laid at the entrance of the cave "to this day." The humor of this closing ought not be missed. The author is very aware of the audience's critical sensibilities. Just as Yahweh is hurling the large stones down from heaven, killing the enemy, the dead are described as having been killed by "hailstones." After all, everyone knows that God sends hailstones down from heaven. The memorial set up at the cave, five of Yahweh's stones, is an obvious argument for the story's historicity. Such an argument is common in ancient folktale motifs. I remember reading the closure of Hans Christian Andersen's story of "the princess and the pea" with its historicizing details that the pea is still in the museum... "that is, if someone hasn't stolen it." Another confirmation of the occupancy of Jerusalem is in Joshua 18 where Jerusalem is given as spoils of war to the tribe of Benjamin. This narrative obviously confirms the assumption of the story of chapter 10 that the city of Jerusalem was one of the cities of Joshua's conquest, part of what one might call Joshua's "view of the past."

TWO

Judges 1, on the other hand, sets its tale of Jerusalem's conquest to a time after Joshua had died. Jerusalem is not Amorite in this story, but Canaanite. Even more surprising, it is Jacob's sons, the founders and patriarchs of the tribes themselves, Judah and Simeon, who defeat the Canaanites in Jerusalem, kill the inhabitants and burn the city to the ground. Accordingly, in 1st Samuel 17:54, Jerusalem is already part of Israel, when the young David brings Goliath's head there as a trophy!

THREE

Now, here is the biblical third take on Jerusalem's conquest. It comes in two variations: one in 2nd Samuel 5:6-10, and the other in 1st Chronicles 11:4-9. Both offer etiologies of Jerusalem as "City of David" and "Fortress of Zion." The capture of Jerusalem in this tale is set during David's reign as king in Hebron. Jerusalem is neither Amorite nor Canaanite; it is a Jebusite city, as in the story of Judges 19:10-12. Drawing on motifs well-known from Homer's sack of Troy, Jerusalem's fortifications are presented as so strong that it could not be successfully stormed. What cannot be taken by storm needs to be taken by wit and courage. Joab enters the city by stealth, crawling up the water tunnel whose construction 2nd Kings 20:20 has described as one of the great deeds of Hezekiah. Ignoring both the story's tradition in epics of war and its anachronism, this most famous of Jerusalem conquest stories has become an essential part of biblical archaeology's view of the past. That three different books of the Bible have at least three different stories about how Israel came to possess Jerusalem is hardly to be wondered at. Jerusalem is a city at the very center of the tradition and would naturally attract many such stories.

What say you?

Hi Snuf,

Here's a vague idea of the areas being occupied by the indigenous people:

Numbers 13:29 The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.

This helps us make sense of Judges 1:8 Now the children of Judah HAD fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.

This was long before Judges. Joshua 15:8 And the border [of Judah's lot] went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same [is] Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that [lieth] before the valley of Hinnom westward, which [is] at the end of the valley of the giants northward:

Joshua 15:63 As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.

Another confirmation of the occupancy of Jerusalem is in Joshua 18 where Jerusalem is given as spoils of war to the tribe of Benjamin.

Judges 1, on the other hand, sets its tale of Jerusalem's conquest to a time after Joshua had died. Jerusalem is not Amorite in this story, but Canaanite. Even more surprising, it is Jacob's sons, the founders and patriarchs of the tribes themselves, Judah and Simeon, who defeat the Canaanites in Jerusalem, kill the inhabitants and burn the city to the ground.

Note: 'Judah', was not Judah himself (nor Simeon himself) but their children. Think about it! Only Caleb and Joshua had entered the promised land from Egypt, and Joseph's brothers had arrived in Egypt with their families over four hundred years before the Exodus.

Your Bible study leader is indeed confused.

The reference to the Canaanites, is: Judges 1:3 And Judah said unto Simeon his brother, Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into thy lot. So Simeon went with him. 4 And Judah went up; and the LORD delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand: and they slew of them in Bezek ten thousand men. vv 9 - 13 describe further conquests by Judah on 'his' own.

Regarding 'kill the inhabitants and burn the city to the ground', it seems somewhat of an exaggeration of v 8 Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire', but perhaps I'm being naive.

1 Chr 11:4 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. {chief: Heb. head} 7 And David dwelt in the castle; therefore they called it the city of David. {it: that is, Zion} 8 And he built the city round about, even from Millo round about: and Joab repaired the rest of the city.

Key sentence: 'Nevertheless David took THE CASTLE OF ZION, which [is][now - my interject] the city of David.'

That three different books of the Bible have at least three different stories about how Israel came to possess Jerusalem is hardly to be wondered at. Jerusalem is a city at the very center of the tradition and would naturally attract many such stories.

So ZION was a stronghold - like the keep of any castle compound. It was intended to be difficult to take, because that's where the inhabitants would hide.

There are many many parallels between Zion as the heart of the city which David conquered, and spiritual analogies which come to life in the New Testament, from Jesus describing the heart as the source of all pollution, and, standing on Mount Moriah where the Temple had been built crying, 'If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink', to Paul picking up Ezekiel's 'stony heart'; for 'Zion', means 'parched', because there is no water there naturally (which is why an artifical water supply was the Jebusites' downfall).

Travis,

Many believe Melchizedek to be Shem. Some believe him to be a pre-incarnation of Christ. I think the first is most likely since Christ is called a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. It would not make sense to be a priest after the order of yourself as no comparison would need to be made. If Melchizedek was Shem, who was alive during part of Abraham's life. If my numbers are right Shem died at 600 years but Abraham was born between his 390th and 400th year. This means that Abraham could very well have met Shem after the battle to liberate the women and stuff of Sodom. So the original Semitic individual from which came all of Israel eventually was the king of Salem or Jerusalem (Most would say it is the same location).

Btw, by my calculations, Noah was still alive when Abraham was born. I've never thought of looking at Shem's life in relation to Abraham, but it seems clear that Noah did not marry until after God had given him to build the ark. That would make all his sons less than 100 years old when God first shut them in. Noah lived for 350 years after the flood.

Alive to God and others I purposed to omit certain parts of that email so that it wouldn't appear so long and end up dulling the senses for reading, however, since the advent of your information I feel that it's time to add what the group leader had put down in regards to some history of peoples of that day.

These added pieces were at the bottom of each of the ONE, TWO, and THREE.

ONE

Amorite (Sumerian 𒈥𒌅 MAR.TU, Akkadian Tidnum or Amurrūm, Egyptian Amar, Hebrew ʼĔmōrī אמורי) refers to an ancient Semitic-speaking people who occupied large parts of Mesopotamia from at least the second half of the third millennium BC. The term Amurru in Akkadian and Sumerian texts refers to them, as well as to their principal deity.

TWO

Canaan (Phoenician: or Kanaʻn; Hebrew: כְּנָעַן Kənáʻan; Arabic: كنعان Kanʻān) is an ancient term for a region encompassing modern-day Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and adjoining coastal lands, including parts of Jordan, Syria and northeastern Egypt. In the Hebrew Bible, the "Land of Canaan" extends from Lebanon southward across Gaza to the "Brook of Egypt" and eastward to the Jordan River Valley. In far ancient times, the southern area included various ethnic groups. The Amarna Letters found in Ancient Egypt mention Canaan (Akkadian: Kinaḫḫu) in connection with Gaza and other cities along the Phoenician coast and into Upper Galilee. Many earlier Egyptian sources also mention numerous military campaigns conducted in Ka-na-na, just inside Asia.

Various Canaanite sites have been excavated by archaeologists. Canaanites spoke Canaanite languages, closely related to other Northwest Semitic languages. Canaanites are mentioned in the Bible, Mesopotamian and Ancient Egyptian texts. Although the residents of ancient Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra in Syria) do not seem to have considered themselves Canaanite, and did not speak a Canaanite language (but one that was closely related, the Ugaritic language), archaeologists have considered the site, which was rediscovered in 1928, as quintessentially Canaanite. Much of the modern knowledge about the Canaanites stems from excavation in this area. Canaanite culture apparently developed in situ from the Circum-Arabian Nomadic Pastoral Complex, which in turn developed from a fusion of Harifian hunter gatherers with Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) farming cultures, practicing animal domestication, during the 6,200 BC climatic crisis.

THREE

Melchizedek

According to Genesis, the ruler of Jerusalem in the time of Abraham was Melchizedek (also Melchizedeq), and that as well as being a ruler, he was also a priest. Later, Joshua is described as defeating a Jebusite king named Adonizedek. The first parts of their names mean king and lord, respectively, but though the zedek part can be translated as righteous (making the names my king is righteous and my lord is righteous), most Biblical scholars believe that it is a reference to a deity named Zedek, who was the main deity worshipped by the Jebusites (making the names my king is Zedek and my lord is Zedek). Scholars are uncertain, however, whether Melchizedek was himself intended in the Genesis account to be understood as a Jebusite, rather than a member of another group in charge of Jerusalem prior to the Jebusites - Jerusalem is referred to as Salem rather than Jebus in the passages of Genesis describing Melchizedek.

Araunah

Another Jebusite, Araunah (referred to as Ornan by the Book of Chronicles) is described by the Books of Samuel as having sold his threshing floor to King David, which David then constructed an altar on, the implication being that the altar became the core of the Temple of Solomon. Araunah means the lord in Hittite, and so most scholars, since they consider the Jebusites to have been Hittite, have argued that Araunah may have been another king of Jerusalem; some scholars additionally believe that Adonijah is actually a disguised reference to Araunah, the ר (r) having been corrupted to ד (d). The narrative itself is considered by scholars to be aetiological and of dubious historicity; Melchizedek, as a priest as well as king, was likely to have been associated with a sanctuary, probably dedicated to Zedek, and scholars suspect that the Temple of Solomon was simply a natural evolution of this sanctuary.

The Jebusite hypothesis

Some scholars have speculated that as Zadok (also Zadoq) 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 Frank Moore Cross refers to this theory as the "Jebusite Hypothesis," criticizes it extensively, but terms it the dominant view among contemporary scholars, in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel.

Elsewhere in the Bible, the Jebusites are described in a manner that suggests that they worshipped the same God (El Elyon -- Ēl ‘Elyōn) as the Israelites (see, e.g., Melchizedek). 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 Zadok is a later, anachronistic interpolation.