Talk:Gibeon (ancient city)
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.
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
suggestion by Jason Ward
The name
Joshua described in the article as "cursing" the Gibbeonites
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)
- 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)