c. A catalogue of unoccupied territory (1:27–36)
c. A catalogue of unoccupied territory (1:27–36)
27, 28. The cities mentioned in verse 27 controlled one of the most important trade-routes of Canaan, which passed through the valleys of Jezreel and Esdraelon and formed a wedge between the Israelites occupying the hill-country to the north and south. Whilst victories were recorded (Josh. 12:21, 23) against the kings of some of these cities it is clear that the Canaanites were able to dominate the low-lying areas, where they were able to deploy their chariots effectively (cf. Josh. 17:11–13). A glance at the map, however, will show that these cities were widely separated, so that, while the Canaanites were able to maintain control of the valley itself, there would still be a considerable freedom of movement between the Israelites in the adjacent highlands. Beth-shean was an important fortress commanding the junction between the Jordan valley and the valley of Jezreel. It is known that an Egyptian garrison was maintained here until the time of Rameses III (1175–1144 BC), whilst at a later date there are indications of a Philistine occupation (cf. 1 Sam. 31:10). The phrase and her towns (AV, RV; lit. ‘daughters’, RV mg) refers to the surrounding suburbs or villages (RSV) which would associate themselves with the mother-city for reasons of trade and security.
Ibleam controlled the southern exit of the Esdraelon valley to Shechem and Bethel. Taanach was 5 miles south-east of Megiddo, with which it was often associated (Josh. 12:21; 17:11; Judg. 5:19; 1 Kgs 4:12), and these two cities dominated the south-western pass from the Esdraelon valley to the Plain of Sharon and beyond. Megiddo was under Egyptian control until the middle of the twelfth century BC when it was suddenly destroyed, remaining unoccupied for a considerable period; hence the oblique reference in 5:19. Dor was situated on the Mediterranean coast just south of the Carmel promontory. Its position in the text interrupts the general westward movement of the description; possibly it came last originally, as in 1 Chronicles 7:29. The final reduction of these Canaanite enclaves was not achieved until the time of David, who used their non-Israelite population as a source of cheap labour, as did Solomon after him. The ultimate effect of this was that a considerable Canaanite element was eventually assimilated into the northern section of Israel, which must have accelerated the Canaanization of its worship.
29. Gezer was strategically situated on a low spur of the Shephelah, some 18 miles west of Jerusalem, in the extreme south-west of the tribal portion of Ephraim. It is mentioned several times in Egyptian inscriptions, including the recording of its capture by Merenptah on his ‘Israel’ stele, c. 1220 BC. Obviously a town of some consequence, it was not held by Israel until the time of Solomon, when Pharaoh captured it and annihilated its inhabitants and then presented it to his son-in-law as a wedding present (1 Kgs 9:15–17).3
30. Neither Kitron nor Nahalol has been positively identified. The territory of Zebulun is noted in Joshua 19:10–16.
31, 32. Whilst most of the tribes were able to occupy at least som0e part of their allotted territory, the tribe of Asher seems to have failed completely to dislodge the Canaanites, hence the significant change the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites (cf. verses 27, 29, 30). The same situation applied in measure in the tribal portions of Naphtali and Dan (verses 33–35). It should be realized that this makes for a certain idealization in the lists in Joshua which delineate the tribal boundaries. What was intended was never achieved and the consequent disorganization affected the tribal boundaries in areas which were completely occupied, as tribes which could not occupy their designated territory encroached on that of their neighbours. This means that there are sometimes difficulties in ascertaining the original boundaries as noted in Joshua, which is hardly surprising in the circumstances.
The first four cities listed in verse 31 were all situated on the coast north of Mount Carmel. In this area the Canaanite inhabitants of the land retained the virility which was lost elsewhere, and this region developed into the important maritime kingdom of Phoenicia, with which David and Solomon entered into alliance (2 Sam. 5:11; 1 Kgs 5:1–12). It was a Phoenician princess, Jezebel, who introduced the worship of Baal-melqart into Israel following her marriage to Ahab (1 Kgs 16:31), with disastrous results.
33. The sites of the two cities are unidentified, but the names are suggestive. Beth-shemesh (‘house of the sun’) was probably a sanctuary dedicated to the worship of the sun-god; Beth-anath (‘house of Anath’) was dedicated to Anath, the Canaanite goddess of fertility and the consort of Baal. Variants of these names are not uncommon in the land settled by the Israelites.
34, 35. The Danites, like the Asherites, failed to occupy their territory. Their position was precarious in the extreme, however, for, unlike the Asherites, they were not permitted to settle in the midst of the inhabitants of the land. Instead, they were under continual pressure and were forced up into the territory properly belonging to Judah. So acute was their predicament that a considerable number of them eventually migrated to the extreme north of the land (18:1ff.).
An evidence of design on the part of the writer may be observed at this stage. He notes the increasing deterioration of the situation; in verses 27–30 the Canaanites dwell amongst the Israelites and are eventually reduced to the status of slave-labourers; in the case of Asher and Naphtali (31–33) the Canaanites dominate but the Israelites remain; but in verse 34 the Danites are completely dispossessed. It is likely that the Amorites were themselves under pressure from the Philistines who, settling in the coastal strip in large numbers c. 1200 BC, drove its surviving inhabitants into the foot-hills, so that the Danites, denied a place in the lowlands, were eventually ousted from the hill-country. The Samson narratives show the effect of direct Philistine pressure in this movement. Aijalon, 11 miles north-west of Jerusalem, is the only city positively identified, although mount Heres (AV, RV; Har-heres, RSV, ‘hill of the sun’) has been suggested as equivalent to Beth-shemesh (‘house of the sun’, not to be confused with the city of the same name in verse 33) some 15 miles west of Jerusalem. The three cities probably dominated the main route from Jerusalem and the central highlands to the coastal plain, thus driving another lesser wedge into Israelite territory and increasing the isolation of Judah in the south.
36. The going up to (or ascent of) Akrabbim is the pass to Akrabbim (lit. ‘scorpions’) which is usually identified with the main pass to Beersheba from the region just south of the Dead Sea. The mention of the border of the Amorites in this area is perplexing and its connection with the preceding verses is obscure. The difficulty is probably caused by the fact that these verses are a selection from a fuller account, detailing the frontiers of the tribes, which may have ended with this verse. Some scholars favour the reading of several manuscripts of the LXX which read ‘Edomites’ for ‘Amorites’ (the change in Hebrew is very slight), in which case the reference would be to the border between Judah and Edom.