The forthcoming celebration of the 3,000th anniversary of King
David's conquest of Jerusalem seems to be acquiring an
exaggeratedly nationalistic image, and that is a shame. In point of
fact, the latest ideas among Bible scholars and archaeologists
about the origin of the Israelite entity and the role of the early
Hebrew monarchy can bring little comfort to the strident
nationalists. I would even go so far as to suggest that, if David
himself had been able to participate in planning the 3,000th
anniversary, he would have come up with something quite different:
a celebration of the pluralistic nature of the city.
The idea that the anniversary symbolizes Jewish preeminence in
Jerusalem is an over-simplification. Though a thousand years before
Jesus and more than fifteen hundred years before Muhammad, King
David con¬quered Jerusalem and made it the capital of Israel,
I suggest the Palestinian inhabitants of Jerusalem - Muslims and
Christians - should not see the coming anniversary in a negative
light. It is my contention, supported by Biblical sources, that
there is indeed a primary Jewish claim to Jerusalem; but this claim
is not exclusive.
First of all, a word about the Bible, our only source on the
subject. While Orthodox Jews believe that the Bible - or at least
the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses - were dictated by God to
Moses on Mount Sinai, the modern historical consensus is somewhat
different. Today a majority of scholars have concluded that most of
the material that eventually consti¬tuted the Bible was
written down in the sixth and seventh centuries BCE, although the
writers-editors probably had earlier material before them. The
earliest written source material could date to some four hundred
years earlier, to the time of David and Solomon, or shortly
afterwards. There is, of course, no proof of this. The earliest
actual copies of Biblical books, part of the famous Dead Sea
Scrolls, date to the second century BCE at the ear¬liest;
there are, however, strong arguments for the aforementioned
theory.
Mythical Accounts
There is also a scholarly consensus regarding the nature of the
Bible. It is that the earliest books are works of theology rather
than history, and that the first historical material in the Bible
is to be found in the books of Samuel, which describe the reigns of
Saul and David. Thus the Biblical account of the Patriarchs,
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the flight to Egypt, the Exodus, Moses,
Joshua and the conquest, are largely mythical.
Joshua's conquest of Canaan, in particular, has been largely
disproved by the latest archaeological surveys in Menasseh,
Ephraim, Benjamin and Judah, today the West Bank. Cities
purportedly conquered by Joshua, such as Jericho, Ai and Arad, were
ruins for hundreds of years before the previ¬ously accepted
date of his campaign.
The latest archaeological evidence indicates that the Israelites
began to settle in the hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE.
Their origins were extremely varied. They included semi-nomadic
refugees from Canaan itself (possibly the majority) and migrants
from Anatolia (Turkey), the Aegean, Babylon, Sinai and Egypt. The
Israelite entity began to coalesce in the hill country under Saul,
and was consolidated, with the incorporation of the coastal areas,
by David, his successor.
It should be pointed out that a number of scholars have even
doubted the existence of Saul and David, suggesting that, like the
Patriarchs, they are mythical characters. The first kings of Israel
are important Biblical fig¬ures; but they do not appear in any
contemporaneous documents. There is no mention of them in Egyptian,
Syrian or Mesopotamian inscriptions of the time.
However on July 21, 1993, an Aramaic inscription on basalt stone
was discovered at Tel Dan in Galilee which mentions Beit David, the
House (or Dynasty) of David. It has been dated to the ninth century
BCE, about a hundred years after David is thought to have reigned.
Possibly not con¬clusive evidence but, taken together with the
Biblical account, a very strong indication of King David's
historicity.
Coexistence with the Jebusites
According to the Bible, David conquered Jerusalem, brought the Ark
of God there, and made it the center of the national cult. After
taking the city, David did not - uniquely for those times -
massacre, or even expel the Jebusite inhabitants of the city,
believed to ¬be of Anatolian origin. The Bible makes it
abundantly clear that the Jebusites contin¬ued to live there
after the Israelite con¬quest: "And the children of Benjamin
did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the
Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto
this day" Judges 1:21).
Accepting the scholarly consensus g regarding the date of the
composition of ::5 the Bible, "unto this day" means until the sixth
century. So the Jebusites were coexisting with the Israelites in
Jerusalem sev¬eral centuries after David conquered it. This
then is the first Davidic principle: Jerusalem is the capital of
Israel, but the Israelites share it with other peoples.
The Biblical account also makes it clear that Jerusalem was
expanded to accommodate the Israelites who came to live there: "So
David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David. And David
built round about from Millo inward" (II Samuel 5:9).
Respect for Rights of Others
The experts are divided as to the meaning of Millo. A majority
believe it refers to filling up terraces for further construction;
but there is no doubt about the fact of building operations. Nobody
was evicted. New accommo¬dation was constructed for the
members of David's court, his soldiers and officials. This is the
second Davidic principle: development of the city to
facil¬itate the entry of newcomers, but not at the expense of
the former inhabitants.
When David required a site for a sacrificial altar, he purchased a
thresh¬ing floor from its owner, Araunah the Jebusite,
believed by some scholars to be the former Jebusite ruler of
Jerusalem. Although the owner offered it free, David insisted on
handing over payment:
And Araunah said unto David, Let my lord the king take and offer up
what seemeth good to him: behold, here be oxen for burnt sacrifice,
and threshing instruments and other instruments of the oxen for
wood. All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king.
And Araunah said unto the king, The Lord thy God accept thee. And
the king said unto Araunah; Nay, but I will surely buy it of thee
at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my
God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the oxen
and the threshing floor for fifty shekels of silver (II Samuel: 24:
22-24).
No Exclusivity
The third Davidic principle, illustrated above, is respect for the
individual property rights of the former inhabitants of the
city.
It is generally believed that David incorporated Jebusite officials
into his religious and civil administration. There are scholars who
consider that Zadok, one of the two high priests, was a Jebusite,
and one school of thought places Bathsheba, David's wife and the
mother of Solomon his successor, in the Jebusite camp. There is no
specific evidence for this, but an examination of David's lists of
officials - possibly the oldest authentic documents from the actual
period - makes it clear that Canaanites were among his civil
servants, and there is no reason to doubt that a different policy
was pursued in Jerusalem.
The fourth Davidic principle is cooperation among Jerusalem's
different population groups in the administration of the
city.
It is neither possible nor desirable to emulate a 3,000 year-old
system today, but there is nothing wrong in applying principles
laid down then. If we adopt the four Davidic principles: sharing,
development, respect for property rights, and cooperation, it
should not be beyond modem human ingenuity to create a framework in
which Jerusalem is at once the eternal capital of Israel, a holy
center for Jews, Muslims and Christians, and the functional capital
of Palestine.
Historically, the Jewish title to Jerusalem predates the claims of
the Muslims and Christians, but, on the very basis of that title -
on the basis of the four Davidic principles cited above - the
latter should demand their full rights in the unified city. For our
part, we Jews should accept that, while we have a prior claim, we
do not have exclusive rights. Let Jerusalem be the eternal,
undivided, sacred, shared capital of Israel.