Talk:Gibeon (ancient city)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure that it is correct to say that they entered a mutual defense agreement; all we know is that they entered a covenant of peace. That they then went to the defense of gibeon may only indicate that the Israelites now regarded Gibeon as "one of us" now that they had made a peace treaty, rather than being forced to defend them in a military agreement. Note later in 2 Samuel 21 that the break in the covenant was not that Saul failed to defend Gibeon, but had attacked it.

suggestion by Jason Ward

The name[edit]

In the massoretic text of Joshua, the name is spelt גבעון . However the inscriptions found on pottery at the site (dating from the Iron Age) say גבען. Is the defective spelling ever used today? --Zerotalk 10:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would theoretically be incorrect in the modern "full" language, though I'm sure there are some purists who would adopt it. Not much help really. TewfikTalk 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua described in the article as "cursing" the Gibbeonites[edit]

The phrase is not supported by any source, further, according to the account in Joshua, the Gibbeonite delegation requested to become servants in exchange for peace. I changed it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.172.177.236 (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua 9:23 refers to the Gibeonites being "cursed", although it is not clear whether the curse is inflicted by Joshua. The curse appears to act as a limit on all attempts to seek economic diversity or employment opportunities outside forestry and water supply. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]