In 2 Samuel 5:7 and 1 Chronicles 11:5, the word "Nevertheless" in the KJV is not based on a word in the Hebrew text.
Young's Literal Translation of 2 Samuel 5:6-10.
6 And the king goeth, and his men, to Jerusalem, unto the Jebusite, the inhabitant of the land, and they speak to David, saying, `Thou dost not come in hither, except thou turn aside the blind and the lame;' saying, `David doth not come in hither.'
7 And David captureth the fortress of Zion, it [is] the city of David.
8 And David saith on that day, `Any one smiting the Jebusite, (let him go up by the watercourse), and the lame and the blind -- the hated of David's soul,' -- because the blind and lame say, `He doth not come into the house.'
9 And David dwelleth in the fortress, and calleth it -- City of David, and David buildeth round about, from Millo and inward,
10 and David goeth, going on and becoming great, and Jehovah, God of Hosts, [is] with him.
From Benton's Septuagint Translation of 2 Samuel 5:6-10.
6And David and his men, departed to Jerusalem, to the Jebusite that inhabited the land: and it was said to David, Thou shalt not come in hither: for the blind and the lame withstood him, saying, David shall not come in hither. 7And David took first the hold of Sion: this is the city of David. 8And David said on that day, Every one that smites the Jebusite, let him attack with the dagger both the lame and the blind, and those that hate the soul of David. Therefore they say, The lame and the blind shall not enter into the house of the Lord. 9And David dwelt in the hold, and it was called the city of David, and he built the city itself round about from the citadel, and he built his own house. 10And David advanced and became great, and the Lord Almighty was with him.
An argument can be made that the account of how Jerusalem came under David's control (2 Samuel 5:6-9 and 1 Chronicles 11:4-8) makes more sense if Jebus and "Zion which is the City of David" are separate cities. And this fits later references to the two locations in the time of Solomon also, The Ark was brought out of the City of David to The Temple, and likewise the Daughter of Pharaoh was brought out of the City of David to Solomon's house. It looks like after the Jebusites chose to resist, David simply chose the fortress of Zion to be the base of his campaign against Jebus.
It might be that Jerusalem is sometimes used broadly of an entire district, but when used specifically of a single City it's just Jebus. Some references to Jerusalem and Zion in the same verse often taken to verify their being synonymous, can also work as listing separate cities side by side. Like Isaiah 64:10 which says cities, plural, then lists Jerusalem and Zion. But since Zion also arguably has both a poetic broader application and a more specific one, perhaps it fits when paired with Jerusalem, two names that refer to different specific cities but basically the same area when applied broadly. Psalm 76:2 also makes sense as referring to Salem and Zion as separate cities.
It's possible sometimes Jerusalem and Zion are paired together to represent the two tribes of the Southern Kingdom, Benjamin and Judah, Psalm 78:68 says Zion is a mount of Judah, and we all know Jerusalem was in Benjamin. Which can in turn be taken back more broadly to represent both wives of Jacob, Benjamin from Rachel and Judah from Leah.
And perhaps David's plan for this area was similar in intent to the original plan for Washington DC, taking parts of both Maryland and Virginia to create a capital District. Isaiah 24:23 refers to YHWH ruling in Zion and in Jerusalem, as if they are separate.
One question that might pop into your mind from the idea of separating Jerusalem from the City of David is, which city then is Ariel in Isaiah 29? "Where David dwelt" could apply to both but arguably fits the City of David better, and Zion is mentioned explicitly. Also Ariel means "Lion of God", that fits it being a Judean rather then Benjamite city, as Judah is the Lion in Genesis 49. Other tribes (Gad and Dan) are associated with Lions elsewhere (Deuteronomy 33), but not Benjamin.
I think the house David built with materials provided by Hiram of Tyre was in Jebus/Jerusalem, where he lived and had children with his wives from Jerusalem, and that could be the same archeological site it's usually associated with. But the Fort of Zion was in the City of David.
Ophel is a word some use as a geographical indicator, it however is a term for a place many cities had. Samaria also had an Ophel mentioned in 2 Kings 5:24, which the KJV translated "tower". 2 Chronicles 33:14 says the City of David had an Ophel while reminding us the City of David was in Judah. And 2 Chronicles 27:3 connects one to the House of YHWH.
Only 2 Chronicles 1:4 says David pitched a Tent for the Ark in Jerusalem rather then Zion or the City of David. First off the books of Chronicles probably entered their final form later, so a broader definition of what qualifies as Jerusalem may make more sense there. But also it may just be skipping a step, II Samuel 15:24-29 is when The Ark first comes to Jerusalem.
I think Jerusalem is often what's called the Daughter of Zion or Daughter of Sion. But "daughter of ____" can sometimes refer to a separate City that is related in some way. Like Tyre being the Daughter of Sidon/Zidon in Isaiah 23:12. And the Daughter of Babylon I think is likely Hammurabi/Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon, the daughter of the original Babel. Likewise the "Daughter of Jerusalem" may refer to the post Captivity Jerusalem more so then the Old City/Jebus. But not always, sometimes the "Daughter of _____" just refers to the population of the city, which is why it can also refer to some of that place's population dwelling somewhere else, descendants of David living in Jerusalem made it a daughter of Zion.
Or the Daughter of Jerusalem and Daughter of Zion can be the same daughter since ya know most daughters have two parents. I'm inclined to think of Jerusalem as her mother and Zion her father. 1 Chronicles 9:3 says that the population of Jerusalem included people of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh, so that's descendants of Judah and Rachel.
What about all those statements from the Prophets and Psalms that seem to place The Temple on Zion? Well the Prophets are being Prophetic and the Psalms are either also Prophetic and/or Davidic ones that are about David's Tabernacle which was in the City of David. Psalm 132 seems to tell us the place of David's Tabernacle was where he meant for The Temple to be built. Stephen in Acts 7:45-49 seems to be implying Solomon's Temple did not follow David's intent. Many Prophetic references are explicitly about restoring the Tabernacle of David not Solomon's Temple, like Acts 15:16. My post on
Ezekiel's Temple talked about how the eschatological Temple may really be a Tabernacle.
The New Testament only seems to use Sion and Jerusalem synonymously in Hebrews 12:22 where Paul is commonly viewed as speaking of a Heavenly Jerusalem not a terrestrial location. But even there they could make sense as different terrestrial locations that are linked Spiritually.
The City we usually call Jerusalem I feel is obviously the Jerusalem of The Gospels & Acts and thus the Jebus of the Hebrew Bible. Where Solomon and Zerubabel/Herod's Temples were built. So where then is the City of David and Mount Zion?
1 Samuel 20:6 when speaking of David refers to Bethlehem as "his city", that predates the exact phrase "City of David' ever occurring, it is the context that phrase is referencing back to. When you think about it this should always have been obvious, the hometown of David is the City of David. To go back to a previous point, Bethlehem was in Judah. Bethlehem is the city he was born and raised in, where his father owned land, where his forefather Boaz redeemed the land of his kinsman for their widows Naomi and Ruth.
If you object, "David had to capture his own home town?" remember what I said above, in my reading Zion didn't need to be captured, it was the base of operations for capturing Jebus. But David being born there also doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't politically under Jebusite control at first.
Of course if you support the revised chronology of David Rohl who identified the Hapiru with David and his followers, Abdi-Heba the Jebusite King of Jerusalem explicitly refers to the Hapiru who were bothering him taking Bethlehem.
Bethlehem is also in a mountainous region, in fact it's elevated higher then Jerusalem.
It's interesting to note that
the Crusaders also captured Bethlehem first, Godfrey sent Tancred to take it, then they used it as a base in their siege of Jerusalem. Lots of people overlook this detail of the First Crusade, Extra Credits treats it like a random distraction, but once you're aware of how Bethlehem is elevated higher then Jerusalem, you realize it is ideal to secure that area first if you want to siege Jerusalem. Another interesting Crusader era fact is that the first two Kings of Jerusalem were crowned in Bethlehem.
Now you may ask "If David was just gonna make his hometown in Judah a capital why not do that from the start? Why use Hebron for seven years?"
When he only ruled Judah he ruled from Hebron since using any city but what had always been the regional/tribal capital of Judah would have been an insult to Hebron. But once Ishbosheth and Abner were dead and he truly started claiming all of Israel, choosing capitals closer to the border between Benjamin and Judah was the logical choice while still allowing Hebron to be an important regional capital.
Isaiah 29 is a prophesy that Ariel/Zion would be completely destroyed. This happened during the Samaritan revolt of 529-31 AD where even the original Church of the Nativity was destroyed, Justinian rebuilt the Church of the Nativity later. More destruction came to Bethlehem in the Persian invasion of 614 AD.
Psalm 132 mentions Ephratah in a context that seems to place the Tabernacle and The Ark there. And it is a Davidic Psalm. The City of David housed the Tabernacle of David and The Ark during most of David's reign. And that Psalm also uses the name Zion. This is BTW the only Psalm to mention the Ark. Most people don't think the Tabernacle of David was ever called a Mishkan but that's because they overlook Psalm 132 which uses Mishkan. Bread is also mentioned in Psalm 132, Bethlehem means "house of bread".
Micah 5:2 is the key Prophecy that The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. But remember the Chapter divisions were not in the original text, and Micah 5 does sound like it's starting in the middle of something. Micah mentions Zion repeatedly, particularly in chapter 4.
The first time Bethlehem is mentioned it is home to the Tower of Edar in Genesis 35:20-21. Micah 4:8 refers to the
Tower of Edar (Tower of The Flock in the KJV) as the Stronghold of Zion. Then later refers to Jerusalem arguably as a separate city. Some traditions say it was from the Migdol Eder that the Angel announced the Birth of Jesus to the Shepherds. The word translated stronghold in this verse is Ophel.
The death of Rachel and birth of Benjamin is traditionally assumed to have been in Bethlehem. But many have read Genesis 35 more carefully as saying the birth of Benjamin, Death of Rachel and her Burial were on the way to Ephratah and the Migdal Eder from Bethel.
If so that makes it likely these events happened in land later allotted to Benjamin. As the only of the 12 sons born in the Land, perhaps it makes sense he'd be allotted his birth place. 2 Samuel 10:2 refers to her Tomb as being in Benjamin. And there are traditions saying it is specifically in Ramah, which could be relevant to the "Voice Crieth from Ramah" Prophecy of Jeremiah 31:15 quoted in Matthew 2.
As far as my citing it as evidence of Bethlehem being Zion. I note that this argument observed that after these events Jacob traveled past the Migdal Eder and set up a Tent. Perhaps this Tent was where the Tabernacle of David was later sent up? Maybe that is the origin of the site popularly viewed as Rachel's Tomb today?
That makes it further notable then how Psalm 87 refers to Zion as a place notable for being where people are born, both David and Jesus. Isaiah 59:20 quoted in Romans 11:26 says the Messiah will come out of Zion, and Psalm 110:2 agrees. Jesus can't in any way be said to come from Jerusalem, Jerusalem is always a place He goes to, and only seems to be there for Festivals or other events where The Law required Him to be there.
Jesus came out of Bethlehem.
I've actually seen people attempt to argue the Migdal Eder/Edar was in Jerusalem not Bethlehem. So leaving aside that Micah 5 and 4 are clearly the same prophecy, and the Migdal Eder is clearly associated with the Birthplace of the Messiah as much as Bethlehem is. Joshua 15:21 refers to a location in Judah's allotment as Eder/Edar, this geography chapter doesn't mention the names of Bethlehem or Ephratah. Genesis mentions the names of Bethlehem and Ephratah prophetically or as an editorial note, Eder/Edar was clearly the most ancient name for this area. Eder/Edar means flock and no doubt refers to this being an area where shepherds tended their flocks.
2 Samuel 2:32 says David's nephew Asahel was buried in Bethlehem in the sepulcher of his father. Kings of the House of David are repeatedly refereed to as being buried in the City of David, and resting with their fathers. Starting with David himself in 1 Kings 2:10 being buried with his father in the City of David (Acts 13:36 also says David was buried with his fathers). And it turns out
Bethlehem does have a site with a tradition of being
where David was buried, the Church of St David adjacent to King David's Wells. Or the Kings might have been among those buried in the Bronze Age caves built
where modern Efrat is.
The "Mount Zion" refereed to in the quoted materiel below refers to the Western Hill of modern Jerusalem, not Biblical Zion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David's_Tomb " In the 4th century CE, he and his father Jesse were believed to be buried in Bethlehem. The idea he was entombed on what was later called Mt Zion dates to the 9th century CE." Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky, 'Where is King David Really Buried?,' The Jewish Press, May 15th 2014. "By the mid-fourth century, the tombs of King David and his father, Jesse, are described as being in Beit Lechem.[See Limor, “King David’s Tomb.”] The first mention of Mount Zion as King David’s final resting place was in the ninth century". Back to Wikipedia "4th century Pilgrim of Bordeaux reports that he discovered David to be buried in Bethlehem, in a vault that also contained the tombs of Ezekiel, Jesse, Solomon, Job, and Asaph, with those names carved into the tomb walls."...[Ora Limor, "The Origins of a Tradition: King David's Tomb on Mount Zion," Traditio 44 (1988): 459.] "Having initially revered David's tomb in Bethlehem, Muslims began to venerate it on Mount Zion instead but no earlier than the 10th century following the Christian (and possibly Jewish) lead. In the twelfth century, Jewish pilgrim Benjamin of Tudela recounted a somewhat fanciful tale of workmen accidentally discovering the tomb of David on Mount Zion."
Asahel was a maternal Nephew which makes the above argument not quite a slam dunk exactly. But his father is never identified. And all three of Zeruiah's children are called sons of Zeruiah rather then by their father. That makes it possible they may have been born out of wedlock and so mostly treated as part of Jesse's family, and that the person called Asahel's father here was really his maternal grandfather. Either way being buried in Bethlehem means, if it was his direct father he was buried with, he was one from the same city and so probably at least the same Tribe. That David's nephews were so important to him means he may have insisted they be buried as part of the royal family.
Today the Church of St David associated with King David's Wells claims to be where David was buried. But it's also said the
Mosque of Omar was built over where David and Solomon were buried.
In 2013 a burial ground near Bethlehem was discovered.
Luke Chapter 2 in verse 4 calls Bethlehem the City of David, and endless Christian commentaries try to explain why this doesn't contradict the Hebrew Bible's City of David being Jerusalem by saying both could be described that way. Yet we're supposed to use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and Luke used the definite article, it's "The City" not "a city", there can be only one. And Christians view the New Testament as revealing and clarifying the "Old Testament".
In Luke 2:11 the Angel tells the Shepherds that a Child was just born in The City of David, no other identifying indicator is given, the Angel expected that to be enough. Later in verse 15 they concluded from what the Angel said that the Baby is in Bethlehem with Jerusalem not even considered. Clearly to them "The City of David" unambiguously meant Bethlehem with no alternative meaning worth discussing.
