Talk:Gibeon (ancient city)

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
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)
 * 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.  Tewfik Talk 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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)