Fred Clark of Slacktivist posted recently about the political situation in Jerusalem, comparing it to his own experiences there in 1990. It’s a terrifically interested post, as his posts tend to be, but I wanted to make note of an anecdote he tells at the beginning.

According to his tour guide at the time, Hebron was once the holiest Hebrew site (believed to have been the burial site of Abraham and Isaac).

However, Hebron “was indefensible and a lousy place for a king and general to build his capital city.” Jerusalem, on the other hand, was a much more strategic location, so the political leaders had to either fabricate new religious traditions or grow existing ones to move the centre of worship over to a better spot.

I have no idea how much merit the theory has – I mean, this is all something I’m reading about from a guy who heard it from another guy 25 years ago – but it’s very interesting.

In our accounts, David ruled from Hebron for several years before moving his capitol to Jerusalem (1 Kgs 2:11; 1 Chron. 29:27). I wonder how that fits into the theory?