Inglés Gwilym H. Jones A&C Black 22,51 €
1 de enero de 1990
The three Nathan narratives in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings, are given detailed consideration in this fascinating study. A persuasive attempt is made to reconstruct the original form of the traditions and to trace the modifications made to them before they were finally accepted into the Succession Narrative. The original Nathan, a court official and chief spokesman for the Jebusite group, sought a working compromise between the original Jebusite inhabitants of Jerusalem and its new Israelite settlers. After accepting service under King David, Nathan tried to secure the best he could for the Jebusites in this new situation. When this tradition was expanded, modified and theologized, the consistent Nathan of early tradition became a complex character, and almost appears as a dual personality: the diplomatic court prophet of the original narrative became an outspoken prophet of Yahweh in the 'theological' accounts of his activities.
Publicado: 1 de enero de 1990
Editorial: A&C Black
Nº de páginas: 196
Table of Contents
1: A new paradigm for Big Data
Part 1: Batch layer
2: Data model for Big Data
3: Data model for Big Data: Illustration
4: Data storage on the batch layer
5: Data storage on the batch layer: Illustration
6: Batch layer
7: Batch layer: Illustration
8: An example batch layer: Architecture and algorithms
9: An example batch layer: Implementation
Part 2: Serving layer
10: Serving layer
11: Serving layer: Illustration
Part 3: Speed layer
12: Realtime views
13: Realtime views: Illustration
14: Queuing and stream processing
15: Queuing and stream processing: Illustration
16: Micro-batch stream processing
17: Micro-batch stream processing: Illustration
18: Lambda Architecture in depth
Black Jews in Africa and the Americas tells the fascinating story of how the Ashanti, Tutsi, Igbo, Zulu, Beta Israel, Maasai, and many other African peoples came to think of themselves as descendants of the ancient tribes of Israel. Pursuing medieval and modern European race narratives over a millennium in which not only were Jews cast as black but black Africans were cast as Jews, Tudor Parfitt reveals a complex history of the interaction between religious and racial labels and their political uses.
For centuries, colonialists, travelers, and missionaries, in an attempt to explain and understand the strange people they encountered on the colonial frontier, labeled an astonishing array of African tribes, languages, and cultures as Hebrew, Jewish, or Israelite. Africans themselves came to adopt these identities as their own, invoking their shared histories of oppression, imagined blood-lines, and common traditional practices as proof of a racial relationship to Jews.
Beginning in the post-slavery era, contacts between black Jews in America and their counterparts in Africa created powerful and ever-growing networks of black Jews who struggled against racism and colonialism. A community whose claims are denied by many, black Jews have developed a strong sense of who they are as a unique people. In Parfitt’s telling, forces of prejudice and the desire for new racial, redemptive identities converge, illuminating Jewish and black history alike in novel and unexplored ways.
Recent News Stay Posted
Now Available: The digital Loeb Classical Library (loebclassics.com ) extends the founding mission of James Loeb with an interconnected, fully searchable, perpetually growing virtual library of all that is important in Greek and Latin literature.
Booksellers and Librarians: Our recent titles are available via Edelweiss .
Off the Page: Visit our multimedia page for video about recent projects and interviews with HUP authors.
Join Our Mailing List: Subscribe to receive information about forthcoming books, seasonal catalogs, and more, in newsletters tailored to your interests.Blog
October 24: Tradition and Innovation in the Loeb Classical Library For the 2016 fall season, and at the start of its third year online, the Loeb Classical Library welcomes an edition extraordinary in size, scope, and ambition. Early Greek Philosophy by Glenn Most and André Laks—at nine volumes our largest anthology, our first multi-volume series to be published all together, and our only edition consisting entirely of fragments and testimonia—is not merely a translation and a reference collection but a bold and innovative work of scholarship that greatly enhances our understanding of the earliest stages of the Western intellectual tradition. EGP represents a wholesale advance on Diels-Kranz (unrevised since 1952) and all other edition…
Harvard University Press offices are located at 79 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA & Vernon House, 23 Sicilian Avenue, London WC1A 2QS UK
"To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly." - Thirteenth Century Zen Master Dogen in a passage from his Genjo-koan
Nathan Oliveira, Standing Man with Hands in Belt, 1960
Oil on canvas, 82 x 62 in
Collection of the Walker Art Center, Minneapolis
Nathan Oliveira, Spring Nude, 1962
Oil on canvas, 96 x 76 in
Collection of the Oakland Museum
The cover of the exhibition catalog Nathan Oliveira by Peter Selz displays what California art lovers would recognize instantly as a "classic" Oliveira canvas, Standing Man With Hands in Belt (1960). Like so many of the large oils that first brought Oliveira's work recognition it contains a single figure set in and against a field of painterly gestures, fields, drizzles and drips. Inside the catalog, a full page is reserved for the dusky Spring Nude (1962) in which a seemingly weightless female evanesces from a salmon pink ocean of glowing, calligraphic brushwork.
Paintings like these, which Oliveira executed between 1957 and 1962, when he was in his late twenties and early thirties, brought him early recognition, but also created the public perception that Oliveira was only a "figurative" artist. He was seen as a late-joiner to the Bay Area Figurative School and it is true that he attended drawing sessions with its members including David Park, Elmer Bischoff and Richard Diebenkorn, who became a lifelong friend. The problem with this association, and with the early fame achieved by the artist as a young man, is that his approach to the figure was fundamentally different from that of the other San Francisco Bay Area artists.
As a traveling retrospective showcasing over fifty years of his efforts -- at the Orange County Museum of Art from April 5th through June of 2003 -- will show, Oliveira has used the figure as the starting point for his artistic process, but not as its true subject. Something similar could be said of his animal images, his sites and fetishes of the late seventies, and of the Windhover series of recent years: they hover in they appeal to the imagination but resist easy classification.
Jean Dubuffet, Triumph and Glory, 1950
Oil on canvas, 51 x 38 inches.
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. 71.1973.
Jean Dubuffet Ã‚Â© Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York/ADAGP, Paris.
The constant feature of Oliveira's creativity is that he has been trying to forget his subjects, not to paint them. It turns out that an artist famous for his figurative work has been working towards abstraction all his life. His work portrays the struggle of the artist's self and its consciousness to move towards a connection with the universal and the eternal. It is a struggle that begins with the perception of self and others, and which ultimately moves towards abstraction and destruction of those perceptions.
Oliveira's real subjects are human presence -- and absence.
- I always have wanted to be an abstract artist, but it had to be about something very particular. - Nathan Oliveira
When Oliveira's work gained national attention in the 1959 New Images of Man exhibition at New York's Museum of Modern Art, the world was still absorbing the horrors visited on the human body by the Holocaust in Europe and the use of nuclear weapons in Japan. In this exhibition, Oliveira's paintings were shown alongside those of leading Europeans including Alberto Giacometti and Jean Dubuffet who were creating images of the human figure that attempted to suggest the perilous condition of human beings in what seemed a bleak and Godless future.
As Peter Selz writes in the Oliveira catalog about Dubuffet's treatment of the female body in his paintings of the early 1950's:
His treatment violates all sacred and dearly held concepts of mother, wife, lover, daughter and sister, as well as the principles of beauty derived from cultural signals of the erotic.
The European philosophy of Existentialism had given its permission to artists who treated the body in such as radical way, since, in the words of Jean-Paul Sartre:
Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to.
During the same decade when Europeans painted the body to suggest the despair of this condition, the American phenomenon Jackson Pollock one-upped the Europeans by eliminating the body from his art altogether and using dripped skeins of paint to project anxieties that were deeply personal and abstract. Just as America emerged from World War Two as the world's leading power, New York surpassed Paris as the center of modernism and abstraction won the war of modernist styles.
To understand how Oliveira became an artist -- and to appreciate how quickly his ideas developed -- it is necessary to consider the influences which shaped Oliveira as he grew up 3000 miles from New York, and even further from Europe.
As a high school student first studying painting he had been thunderstruck by a Rembrandt portrait, Jooris de Caulcerii (1632) in a San Francisco museum. Although Oliveira had grown up in a Portuguese Catholic household, Rembrandt was one of the first of a long line of Northern European, Protestant artists who would speak to him through their artwork.
Rembrandt Harmensz Van Rijn, Joris de Caulerri, 1632
oil on canvas transferred to panel 40 1/2 x 33 3/16
Collection of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
Rembrandt was the first major European artist to plumb the self as artistic subject matter, and the artist's anxiety and self-doubt were his gateway to profound realizations about personality and spiritual doubt. Rembrandt, with his Protestant anxiety, offered a way of coping, through art, with a modern world that had just begun its slow divorce from the rituals and rites of Catholicism, still tinged with helpful Pagan magic and the promise that an appeased God could protect those who renounce sin.
Max Beckmann, teaching in 1950
Max Beckmann. Self-Portrait
Oliveira must have recognized a particular aliveness in the Rembrandt portrait, the aliveness of an individual man living with the anxiety and promise of a world where Calvinist thought suggested that the face of God could be glimpsed through contemplation. Rembrandt, Oliveira realized, was a kind of master magician who could conjure up this aliveness of the self through the inherently abstract medium of paint strokes on canvas. It was as if an artist who had been dead for over 300 years had reached out through the canvas and handed Nathan the brush, saying "Why don't you see what you can do with this?"
Although it was the representational art of Rembrandt which woke Oliveira up to the possibilities of painting, abstract art was a powerful force in the San Francisco Bay Area. When Oliveira enrolled in the California School of Fine Arts in 1947 Clyfford Still had been on the faculty for a year, and Mark Rothko was a summer instructor. The influence of abstraction was so powerful that by 1949 the San Francisco Annual was made up almost entirely of abstract art.
At this same time, a powerful countercurrent of Northern European art came to Bay Area in the form of exhibitions at the de Young Museum of Max Beckmann (1949), Oskar Kokoschka (1950), and Edvard Munch (1951). All three of these artists were Expressionists who relied on the story-telling possibilities of figurative art, and one of them, Max Beckmann, came to San Francisco in 1950 to teach a summer painting class which Oliveira enrolled in.
To study with Beckmann who disliked abstraction and called it "nail polish" was a challenging, stimulating experience for Oliveira. Some art historians have argued that the vogue of Postwar American abstraction was a kind of avoidance of historical content, and since the horrors of the holocaust and Hiroshima were honestly portrayed by photojournalism, Expressionist art seemed to have been outstripped.
Beckmann, who spoke little English, was nonetheless a compelling teacher whose very presence was a reminder of the vitality of European painting traditions. He was a fully committed artist who had endured the humiliation of Hitler's "Degenerate Art" exhibition, and a poignant exile from the vanished world of German Modernism.
As Oliveira later recounted:
"He seemed like a very fundamental man, whose only interest was in painting -- that's all he wanted to do. Still, I think from our encounters he communicated, indirectly, what artistic values were about."
By the time Oliveira graduated from art school in 1951 he had already been confronted by the powerful artistic traditions that he has spent his career integrating and resolving: figuration and abstraction. His exposure to the work of Beckmann had convinced him that painting needed to tell a story, but the pull of abstraction would take his narratives into new, difficult artistic territory.
American Abstract Expressionism, or "Action Painting" as critic Harold Rosenberg called it, was a style of painting which demanded that artists improvise as they worked. It was this style of painting which had taken New York by storm in the late 1940's and early 1950's and it was the style that any "advanced" artist on either coast had to adopt or risk being called academic.
One master of this Abstract Expressionism, Willem de Kooning, who Oliviera met and befriended in 1959, liked to call himself a "slipping glimpser". Originally trained as an academic artist in Rotterdam, de Kooning became famous for his series of "Women" which were everything but academic in their painterly execution. De Kooning's figures seems to melt into a casserole of drips, ribbon-like paint strokes, and ragged impasto. This violent use of paint impressed Oliveira, but he also understood some of the deep human and perceptual suggestions imbedded in de Kooning's vision.
Willem de Kooning
Woman V 1952-53
oil and charcoal on canvas
154.5 (h) x 114.5 (w) cm
Ã‚Â© Willem de Kooning, 1952-53/ARS. Licensed by VISCOPY, Sydney 2002
Oliveira remembers de Kooning telling him how he had once glimpsed an attractive woman at a party. Moments later, de Kooning recounted, he looked back and found her gone. This, he told Oliveira, was something he kept in mind when painting -- the visual memory of presence and absence. Oliveira's "Sitting Man with Dog" of 1957 has a strong kinship with de Kooning. The vivid black and grey swaths of paint which cris-cross this enigmatic figure seem to both give the figure its mass and simultaneously to obscure it. The image has a haunting figural presence, but the artist's process suggest that this presence is tenuous: perhaps it is just the shadow of a man who has vanished.
Seated Man with Dog, 1957
oil on canvas
58 3/8 x 49 1/2 inches
The Hirschhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden
Just ten years later, Oliveira would again deal with the theme of disappearance, and the clear style of his "Stage Paintings" showed the artist gravitating back towards a world that a viewer's eyes could recognize, albeit an empty one.
In "Stage #2 with Bed" the themes of presence and absence are suggested by an open door and an empty bed. With the earnest intent of showing us that his evanescent world could be briefly focused, Oliveira manages to give us narration, but with only a few recognizable forms. Clearly, what has happened or will happen in this world is a human drama, but the painting demands imagination from the viewer and implies that the artist and his subject have "exited", thwarting easy interpretations.
Stage #2 with Bed, 1967
oil on canvas
66 x 67 inches
The Anderson Collection
To put it another way: Oliveira's audience is part of the meditation of presence and absence. As "Stage 2 with Bed" suggests, Oliveira is aware of the audience for his art, but asks them to exit the stage door and go beyond the constraints of what they can recognize.
Oliveira's friend Richard Diebenkorn was also eliminating figures around this same time, starting work on the "Ocean Park" series of abstractions which Oliveira would admire and borrow from. Diebenkorn had grown tired of the way that critics and viewers found Freudian and sexual connotations for the figures in his work, an annoyance that Oliveira shared. It seemed that putting a nude into any painting would be perceived as somehow erotic, and this was another connotation that Oliveira felt distracted from the deeper resonance he wished to insinuate.
The "sites" created by the artist during the 1970's and 80's continued to draw viewers into uncertain realms. While many of these images suggest a kind of archaeology, they appear to be made by living cultures whose inhabitants appear in separate paintings. The sites are redolent with hints of rite and ritual, and also with the suggestion of societies who built and created while remaining in concert with nature. The images thrive on suggestions of human presence, while refusing to admit details of time or place. The sites are another example of Oliveira's tendency to avoid specificity, and let the human, the abstract, and the irrational flood into perceptual empty spaces.
"Western Site XI," 1978
monotype, 26" x 22"
Collection Saint Louis Art Museum
Often, the absences in Oliveira's art provide enthralling moments. In his mid-career works, he willed the figure to disappear, and found himself -- and his viewers -- entering into spiritual territory.
By our use of them to keep ourselves alive, other persons begin to assume the place of fetishes and totems, becoming keepers of our lives. Through this worship of the personal, personal relationships have become the place where the divine is to be found, so the new theology asserts. Human persons are the contemporary shrines and statues where personifying is lodged.
Oliveira's approach to the human figure, from the beginning of his career onwards, has been one of personification. His imaginative approach has constantly suggested that art needs to take the figure out of the mundane context of the present into the world of the eternal -- the spirit world. Whether his figures are faceless and featureless, as in "Red Couple" or loaded with anthropological suggestion, as in "Shaman 5" they connect us to a world vibrant with human magic.
Shaman V, 1977
Color monotype with acrylic
78.7 x 57.2 cm inches
The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
Always a sensual artist, Oliveira's world demolishes literal boundaries and categories, and suggests that sensation transcends meaning. His images begin with sensual perceptions which he has taken into the eternal by demolishing their literal meanings. It is a world of immortals, always present and available to anyone with imagination.
According the Joseph Campbell, the difference between a Shaman and a Priest is that a Shaman is not connected to institutionalized religion. Oliveira, a non-practicing Catholic, uses images like "Shaman 5" to reclaim faith -- and magic -- from religion and restore it to individuals as a form of visionary consciousness.
The Red Couple, 2002
The artist's recent "Red Couple" suggests co-existence in world where figures are indeed personified as shrines or objects. It is as if the erasure of their human particulars is accomplished with a painterly process parallels a stripping away of differences: culture, gender and other categories are released and a new kind of relationship can be contemplated.
Human figures are not the only ones loaded with personifying magic in Oliveira's art. Animals forms co-exist in the same equilibrium, and many of them -- baboons and hawks among others -- seem to be incarnations of animal deities found in earlier societies. His figures and animals all belong to a Pre-Columbian world of coexistence. It is a kind of Mayan or Egyptian world where the biblical idea of Eden and its opposites has not been introduced.
Acoma Hawk III, 1975
Two color lithograph
The artist's engagement with the eternal has led him into conversations with many artists, writers and works of art. He has created series that came from artistic dialogues with Goya and Rembrandt, and has built themes on poems by Poe and Hopkins. In each of these cases he has treated works by past artists as living documents, seeing art history not as a series of periods and styles, but as a continuous dialogue. In that sense, it may be misleading to call Oliveira a Modernist, as he envisions himself as an artist in the same way that the carver of an Egyptian statue of the Pharaoh 4,000 years ago was an artist.
I simply want to be a part of a continuous resonance. - Nathan Oliveira
"I had to go through a period of transition, from wings to abstract images that conveyed the idea of wings without getting all trapped up in feathers. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s really about the imagination and the inner spirit of flight."
The Windhover IV 1991-94
oil on canvas
90 1/2 x 212 1/2 inches
In his more recent works, Oliveira has continued to create figurative works -- often the figures are animals -- while also creating a cycle of large scale works which are meant to be installed as a cycle. The "Windhovers", inspired by a Gerard Manley Hopkins Poem, are abstracted from images of wings, rainbows and skies. Compared to most Post-Modern painting, which often has a rigorous theoretical basis, the Windhovers favor the experience of the senses over the power of the intellect. In a surprising way, an artist who began his career as a Modernist has reached backwards in feeling: the Windhovers have more in common with Catholic Baroque art than they do with Picasso.
John Seed and Nathan Oliveira, 1978
Nathan Oliviera and John Seed, 2003
- John Seed was a student of Nathan Oliveira's from 1975 to 1979
The windhovers do what Baroque art did: the use the sky as a metaphor and inspire sensation, awe and faith, qualities that Oliveira's peers in the "New Images of Man" exhibition had abandoned.
Oliveira hopes that funds can be found to place the Windhover cycle on the Stanford University campus, where he taught for over 30 years. His idea is to create a space for contemplation, along the lines of the Rothko Chapel in Houston.
After 55 years of leaving behind the "real" world and creating a new, better one in his paintings, Oliveira has found that forgetting details can be liberating. Dismissive of art world fashions, and of intellectual currents, he has had the luxury of losing himself in his work, and forgetting the problems of the world. The figures in his art have been simply a starting place for the artist's lifelong process of moving towards abstraction, in ideas and images.
In the process, he has found himself.
"I'm not chasing the art world and what it's supposed to be, I'm trying to find what I'm supposed to be. "
"That's what I've been doing for 50 years." - Nathan OliveiraArt of the Day EBSQ Art Exhibits Recent Featured Artists Search EBSQ EBSQ in a Nutshell Community Recommended Validate an EBSQ COA
No active download links here?
Please check the description for download links if any or do a search to find alternative books.
No comments for "Maths Meets Myths Quantitative Approaches to Ancient Narratives" .
Add Your Comments
According to the Hebrew Bible. the Jebusites ( / ˈ dʒ ɛ b j ə ˌ s aɪ t s / ; Hebrew. יְבוּסִי. Modern Yevusi. Tiberian YəḇûsîISO 259-3Ybusi ) were a Canaanite tribe who built and inhabited Jerusalem prior to its conquest by Joshua (josh 11v3 & 12v10). King David. The Books of Kings state that Jerusalem was known as Jebus prior to this event. According to some biblical chronologies. the city was conquered by King David in 1003 BCE,  or according to other sources 869 BCE. Contents Identification of Jebus [ edit ]
The identification of Jebus with Jerusalem  has been disputed, principally by Niels Peter Lemche. Supporting his case, every non-biblical mention of Jerusalem found in the ancient Near East refers to the city as 'Jerusalem'. An example of these records are the Amarna letters which are dated to the 14th century BCE, several of which were written by the chieftain of Jerusalem Abdi-Heba and call Jerusalem either Urusalim ( URU ú-ru-sa-lim ) or Urušalim ( URU ú-ru-ša10 -lim ) (1330s BCE).  Also in the Amarna letters. it is called Beth-Shalem, the house of Shalem. 
The Sumero-Akkadian name for Jerusalem, uru-salim.  is variously etymologised to mean "foundation of [or: by] the god Shalim ": from Hebrew/Semitic yry, ‘to found, to lay a cornerstone’, and Shalim, the Canaanite god of the setting sun and the nether world, as well as of health and perfection.    
There is no evidence of Jebus and the Jebusites outside of the Old Testament. Some scholars reckon Jebus to be a different place from Jerusalem; other scholars prefer to see the name of Jebus as a kind of pseudo-ethnic name without any historical background. 
Theophilus G. Pinches has noted a reference to "Yabusu", which he interpreted as an old form of Jebus, on a contract tablet that dates from 2200 BCE. Ethnic origin [ edit ]
The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh ) contains the only surviving ancient text known to use the term Jebusite to describe the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Jerusalem; according to the Table of Nations at Genesis 10, the Jebusites are identified as a Canaanite tribe, which is listed in third place among the Canaanite groups, between the biblical Hittites and the Amorites. Prior to modern archaeological studies, most biblical scholars held the opinion that the Jebusites were identical to the Hittites, which continues to be the case, though less so.  However, an increasingly popular view, first put forward by Edward Lipinski. professor of Oriental and Slavonic studies at the Catholic University of Leuven. is that the Jebusites were most likely an Amorite tribe; Lipinski identified them with the group referred to as Yabusi'um in a cuneiform letter found in the archive of Mari, Syria.  As Lipinski noted, however, it is entirely possible that more than one clan or tribe bore similar names, and thus that the Jebusites and Yabusi'um may have been separate people altogether. 
In the Amarna letters, mention is made that the contemporaneous king of Jerusalem was named Abdi-Heba . which is a theophoric name invoking a Hurrian mother goddess named Hebat . This implies that the Jebusites were Hurrians themselves, were heavily influenced by Hurrian culture, or were dominated by a Hurrian maryannu class (i.e. a Hurrian warrior-class elite).  Moreover, the last Jebusite king of Jerusalem, Araunah/Awarna/Arawna (or Ornan),  bore a name generally understood as based on the Hurrian honorific ewir. 
Richard Hess  (1997:34–6) points to four Hurrian names in the Bible's Conquest narrative: Piram (king of Jarmuth) and Hoham (king of Hebron) (Jos 10:3), Sheshai and Talmai, sons of Anak (Jos 15:14) with Hurrian-based names.Jebusites named in the Bible [ edit ] Melchizedek [ edit ]
Jerusalem is referred to as Salem rather than Jebus in the passages of Genesis describing Melchizedek.  According to Genesis, the ruler of Salem in the time of Abraham was Melchizedek (also Melchizedeq ), and that as well as being a ruler, he was also a priest. The Mediæval French Rabbi Rashi believed that Melchizedek was another name for Shem. son of Noah. despite Abraham's supposed descent from the line of Shem's son Arphaxad. 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 [ citation needed ] that it is a reference to a deity named Zedek or Sydyk. 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.
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. Araunah [ edit ]
Another Jebusite, Araunah (referred to as Ornan by the Books 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 argument originated from Cheyne, who, prior to knowledge of the Hittite language, proposed the reverse. The narrative itself is considered by some scholars to be aetiological and of dubious historicity. The Jebusite hypothesis [ edit ]
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. Frank Moore Cross. professor at the Harvard Divinity School. 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. Jebusite activities in the Bible [ edit ]
The Hebrew Bible describes the Jebusites as dwelling in the mountains, besides Jerusalem.  In Exodus. the 'good and large land, flowing with milk and honey' which was promised to Moses as the future home of the oppressed Hebrew people included the land of the Jebusites.  According to the Book of Joshua. Adonizedek led a confederation of Jebusites, and the tribes from the neighbouring cities of Jarmut, Lachish. Eglon and Hebron against Joshua,  but was soundly defeated and killed.
However, Joshua 15:63 states that Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem ("to this day the Jebusites live there with the people of Judah").Judges 1:21 portrays the Jebusites as continuing to dwell at Jerusalem, within the territory otherwise occupied by the Tribe of Benjamin .
Certain modern archaeologists now believe that the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua simply didn't happen, and that the Israelites actually originated as a subculture in Canaanite society;  some biblical scholars believe that the accounts in the Book of Joshua are cobbled together from folk memory of disconnected battles, with numerous different aggressors, which occurred over a time period of over 200 years.   
According to the Books of Samuel, the Jebusites still had control of Jerusalem at the time of King David, but David wished to take control of the city; understandably the Jebusites contested his attempt to do this, and since Jebus was the strongest fortress in Canaan they gloated that even the blind and lame could withstand David's siege; an alternative translation, equally valid, of the Jebusite's statement, is that they said David would have to defeat the blind and lame before anyone else.  According to the version of the story in the Masoretic Text. David managed to conquer the city by a surprise attack, led by Joab. through the water supply tunnels (Jerusalem has no natural water supply except for the Gihon Spring ). Ever since its discovery in the 19th century, Warren's Shaft. part of a system which connects the spring to the city, has been cited as evidence for the plausibility of such a line of attack; however, the discovery, at the turn of the 21st century, of a set of heavy fortifications, including towers, around the base of the Warren's Shaft system and the spring, has made archaeologists now regard this line of attack as implausible, as it would be an attack against one of the most heavily fortified parts, and hardly a surprise.  According to many textual scholars the claim in the masoretic text could simply be a scribal error; the Septuagint version of the passage states that the Israelites had to attack the Jebusites with their dagger[s] rather than through the water shaft .
The Books of Kings state that once Jerusalem had become an Israelite city, the surviving Jebusites were forced by Solomon to become serfs ;  though since some archaeologists believe that the Israelites were simply an emergent subculture in Canaanite society, it is possible that this is an aetiological explanation for serfs rather than a historically accurate one.  It is unknown what ultimately became of these Jebusites. but it seems logical that they were assimilated by the Israelites.
According to the "Jebusite Hypothesis,"  however, the Jebusites persisted as inhabitants of Jerusalem and comprised an important faction in the Kingdom of Judah. including such notables as Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Bathsheba. the queen and mother of the next monarch, Solomon. According to this hypothesis, after the disgrace of a rival Elide faction of priests in the struggle for succession to David,  the family of Zadok became the sole authorized Jerusalem clergy, so that a Jebusite family monopolized the Jerusalem clergy for many centuries before becoming sufficiently attenuated to be indistinguishable from other Judeans or Judahites .
The Book of Chronicles states that the inhabitants of Jebus forbade King David from coming to Jerusalem shortly after he was made king. Joab went up first and took the city and became chief and captain of David's armed forces. Classical rabbinical perspectives [ edit ]
According to classical rabbinical literature. the Jebusites derived their name from the city of Jebus, the ancient Jerusalem. which they inhabited.  These rabbinical sources also argued that as part of the price of Abraham's purchase of the Cave of Machpelah (Cave of the Patriarchs), which lay in the territory of the Jebusites, the Jebusites made Abraham grant them a covenant that his descendants would not take control of Jebus against the will of the Jebusites, and then the Jebusites engraved the covenant into bronze ;  the sources state that the presence of the bronze statues are why the Israelites were not able to conquer the city during Joshua's campaign. 
The rabbis of the classical era go on to state that King David was prevented from entering the city of Jebus for the same reason, and so he promised the reward of captaincy to anyone who destroyed the bronzes – Joab performing the task and so gaining the prize.  The covenant is dismissed by the rabbis as having been invalidated due to the war the Jebusites fought against Joshua, but nevertheless David (according to the rabbis) paid the Jebusites the full value of the city, collecting the money from among all the Israelite tribes, so that the city became their common property. 
In reference to a passage  in the Books of Samuel which refers to a saying about the blind and the lame, Rashi quotes a midrash which argues that the Jebusites had two statues in their city, with their mouths containing the words of the covenant between Abraham and the Jebusites; one figure, depicting a blind person, represented Isaac. and the other, depicting a lame person, representing Jacob. Modern usage [ edit ]
The politicians Yasser Arafat  and Faisal Husseini  among others have claimed that Palestinian Arabs are descended from the Jebusites, in an attempt to argue that Palestinians have a historic claim to Jerusalem that precedes the Jewish one, similar to the more common Palestinian Arab claim that they are descended from the Canaanites. Thus, the 1978 Al-Mawsu'at Al-Filastinniya (Palestinian encyclopedia) asserted, "The Palestinians [are] the descendants of the Jebusites, who are of Arab origin," and described Jerusalem as "an Arab city because its first builders were the Canaanite Jebusites, whose descendants are the Palestinians." 
There is no archaeological evidence to support the claim of Jebusite-Palestinian continuity.  Professor Eric H. Cline of the George Washington University Anthropology Department asserts that a general consensus exists among historians and archeologists that modern Palestinians are "more closely related to the Arabs of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and other countries" than to the Jebusites, and that they lack any significant connection to them.  The late Johns Hopkins University Professor William F. Albright questioned "the surprising tenacity" of "the myth of the unchanging East" and rejected any assertion of continuity between the "folk beliefs and practices of the modern peasants and nomads" and "pre-Arab times." See also [ edit ] Notes and citations [ edit ]
Tags: the ebook reader nathan