Chapter 55 of 379

Annotations for Joshua

After the death of Moses. In both ancient and modern times, the transition of leadership has been one of the most precarious times in the security of a state. More than any other time, this can become a period of potential revolts and civil wars. Of all such transitional periods, the most dangerous are those in which the transition is not dynastic, but involves the enthronement of a ruler unrelated to his or her predecessor. Among these, David’s acquisition of power after the deaths of Saul and Jonathan required that much of the text of 1 Samuel justify his kingship and explain how he was not disloyal to his predecessor. This was not unique to the Bible. From Sargon I in the third millennium BC to Cambyses and Darius in the first millennium BC, many rulers succeeded in place of the expected successor. In , a major concern of the author is to describe how Joshua is the legitimate successor of Moses as leader of God’s people. Although Joshua is not biologically related to Moses, God has already established Joshua as successor with public demonstrations of his approval. confirms Joshua as divinely appointed. The remainder of ch. illustrates the manner in which Joshua acted to establish authority, as well as the respect he received from the civil authorities (vv. ) and from the tribes least likely to follow him (vv. ). In common with other ancient Near Eastern rulers who rose to power outside of an established dynasty, Joshua recorded both the divine and human approval that he gained for his leadership. servant of. This title is a common form of many personal names found in the ancient West Semitic world of the fifteenth through twelfth centuries BC, and not as frequently earlier or later. At Ugarit, Alalakh, Emar and Ekalte, as well as the towns of Palestine and Syria represented by the Amarna letters, the personal name formation “servant of X,” where X represents the name of a god or goddess, is found in many examples. These are often leaders of population centers. The epithet “servant of the LORD” is first applied to Moses at the end of his life () and remains reserved for a few major leaders early in Israel’s history. Joshua is the second person to receive it, and he does so only at the end of his life ().

The most productive source for comparison with the book of Joshua is the genre of land grants. These differ from treaties and particularly from suzerain-vassal treaties, to which they have been compared (see the article “

” see also note on ). Treaties tend to follow a careful and recognized form; land grants are diverse in their organization and presentation. Treaties use diplomatic language that can be recognized; land grants do not necessarily use such language, but have phrases that occur in other types of literature. Treaties focus on the rights of the suzerain; land grants emphasize the rights of the vassal. The curses reflect these different emphases in the two types of documents.

Of the land grants in the Bible, the most famous is the divine grant of the promised land given to Abram. It first appears in and is then developed over the next ten chapters. In the West Semitic world, of which Abram and later Israel were a part, there are land grants from Late Bronze Age Ugarit and from Middle Bronze Age Alalakh. Those at Ugarit function as grants of usufruct by the king for his loyal servants. The land remains within the kingdom of Ugarit and under the control of the king. A text from Alalakh, the neighboring state to the north of Ugarit, describes the gift from one king to another of a city along with its villages and lands. The gift is thus a city-state or kingdom rather than a parcel of land. In fact, this text describes the legal deeding of the kingdom of Alalakh to the king who would begin a dynasty at the site. It is this text that provides the closest parallel to the overall structure to the book of Joshua. Unlike the divine grant to Abram, the text of Joshua does not focus on a promise; it only obliquely refers to this promise in its expression to Moses (). Rather, Joshua resembles the royal grant of Alalakh (and others), in that the text itself functions as the actual grant from God to the tribes of Israel. Unlike the grant to Abram, it is not in any sense unconditional. Instead, both the royal grants and that of Joshua are given on the basis of continuing loyalty or faithfulness to the suzerain. In the case of the book of Joshua, of course, God takes on the role of the suzerain (chs. ; ). The gift of the land, like that of the city of Alalakh, is conditional. Israel keeps the land as long as the nation remains faithful to its suzerain. ◆

This stone tablet is a copy of a deed recording the restoration of certain lands (land grant) by the Babylonian king Nabu-apla-iddina to a priest of the same name, 870 BC.

Go to

Your territory. The territory of the promised land is defined elsewhere in ; , ; . The name of Canaan and the territory it defines in these early Biblical texts is identical to the territory that the Egyptian New Kingdom Empire (c. 1550–1150 BC) referred to as Canaan. Only in this period do both the Bible and Egypt apply the term to this territory, and the extent of the territory for both is the same. This territory is defined in the south by an arc from the southeastern Mediterranean to the southern tip of the Dead Sea. The eastern border traveled north along the rift valley marked by the Dead Sea, the Jordan Valley, the Sea of Kinnereth (Galilee), the Huleh basin, the Beqa’ and northeast to the Euphrates. The western border to Canaan was the Mediterranean Sea. The northern border did not reach as far as Ugarit or Alalakh, but lay to the south of these kingdoms. all the Hittite country. Although the Hittites of the Late Bronze Age can be identified with the kingdom whose capital was at Hattusas in central Anatolia, these people did not actually refer to themselves as Hittites. Rather, the Hittite land here may be identified with northern Canaan, an area controlled by the Hittite Empire, whose vacillating border saw clashes with Egyptian penetration to the north. If the northern border of Canaan is as defined above, then this cannot be a reference to the Neo-Hittite states of the first millennium BC that extended farther north into Anatolia. Rather, “the Hittite country” is a term that would have been applied by the Egyptians to (the northern part of) the region of Canaan, as it was, e.g., in the Merneptah Stele of 1209 BC. Thus, “the Hittite country” was a part of Canaan that was given to the Israelites.

forsake. The Hebrew verb describes a divine abandonment, which would imply that Joshua and the Israelites would face certain defeat at the hands of their enemies. However, the expression involves more than a casual change of sides. Elsewhere in Joshua it can be used of Israel’s abandonment of its God to worship other deities (, ). In military usage, it describes how the warriors abandon Ai () and how the Transjordanian tribes did not abandon their other tribal brothers in the wars west of the Jordan River. In fact, the Akkadian cognate of this Hebrew term also describes the betrayal by someone who switches sides in a battle. It is often used in the fourteenth-century BC Amarna letters to describe the manner in which Canaanites showed disloyalty to the pharaoh by joining his enemies. God’s promise in v. shows his faithfulness toward Joshua and Israel, because it confirms that he will remain on their side and fight for them.

Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips. This expression describes the importance of the covenantal document that the Israelites have received and the need for the leader to know it as well and as completely as possible. Law. Lit. “Torah,” or “instruction.” The formal relationship between various legal documents in the Pentateuch and Joshua—the Decalogue (see and note), the book of Deuteronomy, —has been compared to the ancient Near Eastern treaty structure (see the article “

”). In particular, the treaties preserved by the Hittite Empire provide a close correspondence with the structure of these covenants. Of interest here is the value placed upon the writing and reading of the covenant. records how Moses wrote the words of the covenant () and the periodic public reading of the text (). In particular, the king must copy the words of the covenant and read them at intervals (). The same requirement appears on some Hittite treaties. There the king is responsible for regularly copying and reading the text. In both cases, the vassal ruler is required periodically to study the treaty/covenant so as to be familiar with its words and to obey it.

Egyptian New Kingdom scholars contend that (as with rulers at other times) when a new pharaoh came to power he required his vassals from Canaan to swear a new loyalty oath to him. The response of the two and a half tribes (v. ) in these verses represents such an oath. The pharaoh might come to Canaan, perhaps to a center such as Gaza or Gezer, and the Canaanite rulers would arrive and swear an oath to the pharaoh. This would assure the recognition of the pharaoh as the new ruler of the Egyptian Empire. It would guarantee the succession of the new leader and assist in the prevention of any revolt. The oath form of vv. could have been used by the other tribes as well. The two and a half tribes are mentioned here because they are the tribes that had the least incentive to cross over the Jordan and fight alongside the other tribes. They had already received their land from Moses east of the Jordan and therefore could occupy it with no need for additional land acquisition or warfare ().

Jericho. Tell es-Sultan is the location of ancient Jericho, a site occupied from as early as the ninth millennium BC. Its location, 10 miles (16 kilometers) north of the Dead Sea in the Jordan Valley, suggests its importance in terms of trade routes along the Jordan Valley and westward to Jerusalem, Bethel and Ophrah. This strategic location, combined with the ideal agricultural climate of the south Jordan Valley, made the region and this site, which boasts its own spring, valuable. house of a prostitute. In the second millennium BC, the West Semitic world and that of its Hittite neighbors to the north associated innkeepers, whom Rahab is assumed to be in this story, with prostitutes. In the first millennium BC, this seems to have changed, perhaps due to sociological changes brought about by developments in the brewing of alcohol. The role of the prostitute as innkeeper is attested in the eighteenth-century BC Code of Hammurapi.

At dusk, when it was time to close the city gate. It was not unusual for a walled town to close its gates at night, especially when there was an enemy nearby. City gates were massive structures with several sequential chambers and entrances (see note on ).

For the reputation Yahweh gained in the light of the exodus, see the article “

”

the LORD your God is God. Rahab acknowledges Yahweh as “God in heaven above and on the earth below,” which classifies him as a cosmic deity and powerful national patron god. It is not an expression of monotheism, or a conversion to Israelite religion; she has not renounced her gods, and we have no reason to think she has any knowledge of the Mosaic Law. Hittite, Assyrian and Babylonian texts all speak of divine warriors who terrify their enemies.

my family. Lit. “the house of my father,” which refers to Rahab’s extended family, including the relations described in v. . The house of the father forms the basic sociological unit of West Semitic society (including Canaan and Israel) in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Traditionally, this family unit is led by the eldest male. Here, in a unique manner, Rahab negotiates on behalf of her extended family.

part of the city wall. Excavations in the 1930s revealed an important fortified center at ancient Jericho with mud brick walls. However, work two decades later confirmed that these walls dated centuries earlier than any time that the Israelites could have entered Palestine. Although some have challenged this change in dating, most ceramicists who study the evidence from Tell es-Sultan affirm the absence of preserved walls in the Late Bronze Age. In itself this is not surprising; sites such as Lachish and Megiddo have preserved no Late Bronze Age walls, yet it is clear from Egyptian accounts of the site during this period that Megiddo was fortified by a wall. Perhaps the same was the case at Jericho. Perhaps the walls eroded after their destruction in ch. and before Jericho was rebuilt hundreds of years later in the ninth century BC (). If these walls were mud brick and more easily subject to erosion, a more likely possibility could be that a small circle of mud brick houses was built so as to form a continuous wall around the site of Jericho. The descent from Rahab’s window to the ground outside Jericho could have been as small as a single story (from the second-story window to the ground), or the fort could have been built beside a precipice formed by the tell, and thus the descent could have been much longer.

Hide . . . three days. Cf. v. . The use of “three days” as a measure of time may indicate a general period of time lasting more than one or two days but not specific beyond that. However, the Late Bronze Age Hittite “Instructions to the Commander of the Border Fortress” specifies this length of time for the pursuit of the enemy, followed by the demand that any officer who does not kill this enemy must be turned over to the king for punishment. This provides a precedent for Rahab’s advice to Jericho’s enemies and a measure of her personal risk in not surrendering the spies to Jericho’s leadership.

, scarlet cord. The Hebrew word here for “cord” is distinct from the rope used to lower the spies (v. ). It normally describes a simple “thread,” something of low value (). The Hebrew term for “scarlet” appears elsewhere in the Bible to describe textiles used to decorate the tabernacle (e.g., ), for cleansing rituals (e.g., ), to denote a bright color (e.g., ) and to identify the wealthy or special (e.g., ).

The crossing of the Jordan River, unlike the crossing of the Red (Reed) Sea of the previous generation (), was accomplished in an orderly fashion. Most of this chapter is taken up with the detailed procedure by which Israel was to cross the river. The God of Israel moves in the midst of his people in a procession that leads them into enemy territory. This forms a military procession and resembles the military marches of Egypt and the other powers of the ancient Near East. Although few descriptions remain of the procedure of such marches, there is a detailed description found in the second-millennium BC Hittite “Instruction for the Royal Bodyguard.” This tablet describes the responsibilities of the palace guard for the protection of the king. Most of it concerns the movement of the king in a cart from his palace to the place where he gives judgment and the return at the end of the day. Although there are many differences, of special interest is the manner in which the location of the guard is specified. They surround the king and protect him on all sides. This reminds us of the Israelite camp’s order of march through the wilderness (). However, the Hittite instructions also require that the guards keep a specific distance from the king when they march. As the guards are required to stay at a certain distance from the cart carrying the king, so the Israelites are commanded to stay 3,000 feet (900 meters) from the ark representing God in its movement across the Jordan River (see v. and ). The specific directions and the whole ceremony of suggest a movement comparable to that of a king surrounded by his army as they march to battle.

Consecrate yourselves. At Mount Sinai, Israel consecrated itself by washing their clothes and abstaining from sex (). In the Kirta epic from Ugarit, the god El instructs the king to prepare for his campaign by washing and rouging himself and by sacrificing animals.

Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites and Jebusites. Cf. . Canaanites. See note on ; see also the article “

” Hittites. See notes on ; . Hivites. See note on . Perizzites. See note on . Girgashites. See note on . Amorites. See notes on ; . Jebusites. See note on .

It is not proper to call this “holy war,” because in the ancient Near East there was no other kind of war. The divine warrior motif depicts the deity fighting and defeating the deities of the enemy. The gods empowered the king and fought before/beside him. Warfare was a divine undertaking, because it was generally understood as a response to unrest. Deities were responsible for bringing rest and maintaining it for their people, so unrest had to be addressed.

In Assyria, the god Nergal is the King of Battle, and Ishtar is viewed also as a war goddess. The Canaanite Baal and the Babylonian Marduk are divine warriors. In situations of impending battle, prayers would be made and omens asked to assure the god’s presence. Standards or statues of the deity were usually carried to symbolize their presence. Assyrian kings of the ninth and eighth centuries BC regularly refer to the divine standard that goes before them. The ark of the covenant, as Yahweh’s standard, represents the Lord as clearing the way before the Israelites and leading the armies into Canaan. Nearly every army in the ancient Near East included priests and diviners (as seen in the Mari tablets), prophets (cf. ), and portable sacred objects (Assyrian annals of Shalmaneser III [858–824 BC]). In this way, the god(s) could be consulted on the battlefield or invoked to lead the soldiers to victory. In this worldview, human warfare is simply a representation of warfare among the gods. The stronger god would be victorious regardless of the strengths or weaknesses in the human combatants. Therefore, if Yahweh fought on their behalf, the Israelites would be convinced that they would be victorious.

Divine wars were not wars intended to “wipe out the infidel” or to force conversion to the worship of the victorious god. The reasons for war were practical, not ideological. Wars were fought to provide/ensure prosperity for the nation, which, in turn, provided prosperity for the god. Modern nations view prosperity as a result of market forces, and our philosophy of war is consequently shaped in economic terms. In the ancient world, prosperity was seen as a result of divine activity, so the philosophy of war was constructed in religious terms. Warfare served to bring additional wealth into the coffers of the temple. In cultures where the care of the gods was viewed as a primary responsibility, more wealth meant more luxury and grandeur for a god, who would be anticipated to then respond with blessings. The god was the one who commanded war to be undertaken (usually through oracles or divination) and who vouchsafed the victory.

In Israel, the wars of Yahweh were often designed to bring judgment on peoples whose offenses called for their destruction. This is explicitly stated with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah (, ), as well as Nineveh (; ), but it is also true of God fighting against Israel when they became unfaithful (from the book of Judges to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar). For the inhabitants of Canaan, they are being driven out not as punishment for offenses but so they do not become a snare to Israel. More specifically, offenses were at times committed against the Israelites (such as the Amalekites preying on the stragglers, ). In these cases, the Israelites became the instrument of God’s judgment. In all these instances, the wars conducted by Yahweh were designed for God to uphold his part of the covenant. ◆

Go to

flood stage all during harvest. After the winter rains, the spring harvest of the grains also represents the time when the Jordan River would reach maximum levels, above its average 90–100 feet (27–30 meters) in width and 3–10 feet (1–3 meters) in depth.

water from upstream stopped flowing. It piled up . . . at a town called Adam in the vicinity of Zarethan. Adam is Tell ed-Damieh, almost 17 miles (27 kilometers) north of Jericho. Zarethan lies east of the Jordan River. Either it is Tell es-Sa’idiyeh, 22 miles (17.7 kilometers) north of Adam, or it is Tell umm H’amid, 2.8 miles (4.5 kilometers) north of Adam. Adam has been a traditional crossing point of the Jordan River. Close to where the Jabbok River joins from the east and the Wadi el-Fara from the west, the site marks the spot where the southerly flow of the Jordan River becomes more difficult to cross. Adam is 16.75 miles (27 kilometers) from the Dead Sea. This means that some 29 percent of the Jordan Valley was affected by this “amazing thing” (see v. ). The high banks in the region and the tectonic nature of the Jordan Valley have contributed to periodic collapses of earthen mounds into the river, damming it temporarily. This occurred at least three times in recent history: 1267, 1906, 1927. On the last occasion the river was blocked for some 21 hours. No natural explanation is necessary, but neither would something that we call a “natural” explanation diminish God’s hand.

These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever. The use of uncarved standing stones for various cultic purposes is well attested in the West Semitic world. Like Jacob at Bethel () and Moses at Mount Sinai (), these stones could be erected as a memorial to a vow or for another dedicatory purpose. More often, however, standing stones have been ascribed religious significance either in the sense of some sort of representation of a deity or as a symbol of a sacred spot for veneration. Their association with the worship of other gods is condemned in the Bible (; ; ; ). In the Negev and Eastern Sinai, some 142 independent sites of standing stones have been found, most with origins dating thousands of years before Israel’s appearance. They are generally thought to represent deities and were venerated by libations and other offerings. Here in Joshua, they symbolize the unity of the people rather than gods, but they resemble the other usages insofar as they are associated with a religious center (Gilgal), with a divine act (crossing the Jordan River) and with a memorial for every generation. Since they are taken from the river, they are likely rocks that could be carried by one person.

forty thousand armed for battle. The Hebrew word for “thousand” (aleph) can carry the sense of a group of soldiers or a squad of indeterminate number. Especially in military contexts such as this one, the idea of an organized squad is implied. The orderly march, maintaining a distance from the ark and between squads, may be compared with instructions given to the Hittite palace guard (see note on ).

hand of the LORD is powerful. See note on .

hearts melted in fear . . . no longer had the courage. The fear of enemy leaders is a common motif in ancient Near Eastern battle accounts. As in many such accounts, it forms a prelude to victory over the enemy.

Although war accounts are replete with sacrifices given to appease the gods before a battle, there is little in the comparative literature to compare with the circumcision and celebration of the Passover (with no mention of a lamb or any other animal in these verses).

flint knives. Better understood as obsidian, the use of such smooth and sharp stones for cutting is attested long after the introduction of bronze and iron.

the Passover. The Passover celebration culminates the crossing of the Jordan River and the entrance into the promised land. The Passover occurs on the 14th day of the first month at the time of the barley harvest. Therefore, the “wave offering” of the barley sheaf takes place at this time (). It is the presentation of the firstfruits of the barley, a grain that matures around this time and forms the most important staple for the inhabitants of Canaan. The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread constitute both a memory of the exodus and a celebration of gratitude for the firstfruits of barley.

Cylinder seal impression showing presentation of grain sheaf. The Israelites had an offering of the barley sheaf at Passover () and then would eat some of the produce the following day ().

Kim Walton. The Oriental Institute Museum, The University of Chicago.

Return to

unleavened bread. Required time to make; as a complement the roasted grain could be made more quickly ().

The manna stopped. The change in diet, from manna to grain, provides one more signal that the period of the wilderness has ended and a new age is dawning.

Given the absence of much, though not all, archaeological evidence for settlement at Jericho in the Late Bronze Age period, the picture of a small settlement surrounded by mud brick walls (see note on ) seems reasonable. Indeed, the term translated “city” (Hebrew ‘ir) in can describe a “citadel” (e.g., ) or a fort (e.g., , ), perhaps within a city. This seems a more reasonable understanding of Jericho in light of our current knowledge of the site gained through excavations. It may have been primarily a military compound, a small fort, rather than a civilian population center. As such it would have been designed to guard strategic passes east and west, a major ford across the Jordan, and the north-south road on behalf of towns in the hill country, such as Bethel and Jerusalem. This would be an ideal location for an inn or hostel, such as the one Rahab operated with her family. The “king” of Jericho () would then have been a military commander under the authority of hill country leaders. From about the same time period the Amarna letters reveal the West Semitic root for “king” (mlk), used in Joshua, to apply as well to commissioners and others under a higher authority.

The Amarna letters also provide examples of the size of armies in Canaan in the fourteenth century BC, textual evidence that is closer than any other to the period in which the Bible places the story of Joshua. Here many princes of Canaan request forces from the pharaoh to supplement their own in order to fight their enemies. The numbers requested are never higher than a few hundred and sometimes a low as 20. These are reinforcements, not the whole number of defenders. Nevertheless, it would not make sense to request reinforcements unless they significantly enhanced the strength of the existing force, increasing it by at least a fourth, or more likely something on the order of doubling the force. Jericho, a smaller site than Jerusalem, could have 100 soldiers or fewer guarding it.

If this is so, then why does the book of Joshua make so much of the attack on Jericho? From a comparative perspective, the importance of Jericho is that it is the first victory of a new leader. Whatever the actual size of Jericho, this victory would serve to confirm Joshua as the true leader and successor of Moses in the eyes of Israel (), and it would further demoralize the Canaanite opponents (). Furthermore, Jericho did represent a strategic foothold that offered access to several other regions. The lengthy account of initial battles should also be noted. This occurs, e.g., in the campaign of Thutmose III during years 22–42 of his reign (c. 1458–1438 BC), where his initial battle at Megiddo receives the fullest report. So in Joshua the first battles at Jericho and Ai receive more detailed discussion than the later ones. ◆

Conquest of Canaan.

Go to

commander of the army of the LORD. The presence of this supernatural being is another indication that Yahweh is going to be responsible for Israel’s military successes. In the ancient Near East, war was usually carried out according to divine instructions, following a divine plan. In the Ugaritic Keret epic, the god El brings Keret instructions for battle in a dream. The Babylonian king Samsu-iluna receives instructions for battle from supernatural messengers from Enlil. In the case of Joshua, later theologians sometimes wondered whether this was God himself or perhaps even a preincarnate Christ, but the role of messengers in the ancient world fully accounts for everything in this passage. The instructions given in are likely presented to Joshua by this commander.

This person is identified as the commander of God’s armies. As such he is worthy of highest respect. He is also serving in the role of God’s messenger, which means that he can speak for God. Apparently the message that he has begins in . At times in the history of the church, people who were eager to find every possible connection to Christ interpreted this figure to be a preincarnate appearance of Christ. Nothing in this context requires anything that radical, nor does the NT suggest such a connection.

Do this for six days. In the Ugaritic Keret epic, the army is instructed by the god El to stay quiet for six days without attacking. On the seventh day, the city would offer tribute for them to leave. A passage like this suggests that the strategy proposed to Joshua may not have sounded as outlandish to him as it does to us, whether or not Joshua was familiar with the tales from Ugarit.

trumpets of rams’ horns. The trumpet (shofar) is capable of a variety of tones, but cannot play a tune, and as such is used mostly for signaling, using a preset code consisting of combinations of short and long blasts. seventh day. The number seven here has a twofold significance. First, the Passover takes on a special and new significance with the crossing of the Jordan River (see note on ). Second, the seven days of marching around Jericho are identical to the seven days of the Festival of Unleavened Bread. They thus continue to invest this annual event with a new significance. God routinely uses culturally familiar ideas but then invests them with deeper meaning.

, The account in these verses repeats all the phrases found in vv. . The emphasis is on obedience, carrying out the word of Joshua given to him by God. The movement around the city is a ceremonial procession that continues the ongoing purpose of God and his people begun in the exodus and at Mount Sinai and culminating in the deposit of the ark in Jerusalem (see ) and the temple. God is leading, moving and fighting on their behalf. Seen in this manner, the emphasis is upon the movement of the ark (Yahweh) and its escort (Israel). Thus the collapse of the wall and the destruction of Jericho are a consequence rather than the focus of the main action. Unlike modern storytellers, the text emphasizes the obedience of Joshua and the Israelite army as they accompany Yahweh in his work.

devoted. This is the same term used by Rahab in to describe Israel’s treatment of Sihon and Og (“completely destroyed”). However, its most significant and controversial usage is as applied to Jericho and the subsequent battles in Joshua. It is commanded in the Law of Moses as something that must be done to every Canaanite population center in the promised land (). The same term is used in the ninth-century BC Moabite Stone of King Mesha concerning his treatment of the men of Gad in the land of Ataroth. The text describes how he killed all the people and “devoted them to the ban.” Thus the practice was not limited to Israel. Indeed, similar customs occur among the Hittite, Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations. The Hebrew word used here, herem calls for something or someone to be made ineligible for human use. For a city, that means that it must be emptied of inhabitants—those who resist are to be killed. For people, that means that they cannot be assimilated—they must be driven out. The call for total annihilation or the report that total annihilation took place are standard elements of conquest rhetoric in the ancient world. The accounts in the book of Joshua show many characteristics similar to conquest accounts throughout the rest of the ancient world. In this genre, it is typical to use universalistic rhetoric.

the wall collapsed. Like the sign given at the crossing of the Jordan River, this sign indicates God’s presence with his people and the futility of resistance. Those who heard of the destruction of this site would have understood the significance of Israel’s mission and the power of its God.

Ai, which is near Beth Aven to the east of Bethel. There were three main routes that led from Jericho westward into the hill country. The best known was the southerly road to Jerusalem. The northernmost road led to Ophrah. In between there was a road that led to Beitin, with Ai functioning as a fort (like Jericho) to guard the approach.

stone quarries. The Hebrew word shebarim describes the steep slopes of the Wadi el-Makkuk, about 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) east-southeast from Ai along the road to Jericho.

consecrate the people. The story of is one of an attempt by the Israelites to pursue a military campaign against Ai apart from God, their failure, their confession before God and the subsequent identification and eradication of the sin of Achan. Ancient Near Eastern literature does not often address failed military campaigns, since most of this literature served royal interests of legitimation of the king through the success given him by the gods. The Hittite rituals include one for an army that is defeated by the enemy, but it is very different from the events of . The presence of an event like this in Joshua is therefore further confirmation that this is not just standard ancient-world propaganda to serve a political agenda. It also demonstrates the theological point that God is the one bringing victory (as well as defeat).

beautiful robe from Babylonia . . . a bar of gold weighing fifty shekels. Inventory lists contemporary with early Israel are found in Babylonia and Egypt, as well as the culturally closer city-states of Ugarit and Alalakh. Two hundred shekels of silver would amount to about 6 pounds (2.7 kilograms), while 50 shekels would calculate to about 1.25 pounds (0.56 kilograms). Such an extravagant amount would have taken a common worker a lifetime to earn. The note of a garment followed by its place of origin is found repeatedly on inventories from thirteenth-century BC Ugarit. A letter from Old Babylonian Mari carries a close parallel to the incident described here. Though fragmentary, its message is clear: At the time of a victory, the soldiers were forbidden to take any of the spoil. Anyone doing so would be breaking the asakku (taboo) of Addu and Shamash. One man did ignore the prohibition, taking two bronze containers, some silver and gold. The penalty for his action was death.

spread them out before the LORD . . . they burned them. The items that Achan had taken had been designated as ineligible for human use and had to be destroyed (or, in the case of gold, given to the temple). The expression “spread them out before the LORD” may suggest a formal display of these items before the ark of the covenant as part of the ceremony to appease the divine wrath directed against Israel. In the Old Babylonian period, the theft of temple property was a serious offense. It is among the first of the laws in the Code of Hammurapi. The punishment for theft of property dedicated to a deity (asakku) was death by burning. The Israelite approach appears more merciful, with death by stoning preceding the incineration.

Achan . . . his sons and daughters. In the ancient Near East, a person found identity within a group. Integration and interdependence were important values. Consequently, individual behavior would not be viewed independently from the group. When one family member sinned, the whole family shared the responsibility. This is true on the national level as well; Achan, as a member of the group of Israel, infects the entire nation with his sin (v. ). When the law forbids children to be punished for the sin of the parents (), it refers to the children being subject to punishment in place of the parents. The punishment for violating the ban was to be put under the ban, which entails the elimination of the family line.

attack Ai. With the sin of Achan fully addressed (ch. ), the narrative now turns to the attack against the leader of Ai, his forces and his stronghold. The particulars of the plan used here are not unusual; however, the comprehensive description of this battle has no parallel in the writings of the ancient Near East. This is not to say that battles were not described; rather, the emphasis on the Israelite forces remains surprising. Most of the detailed contemporary battle accounts emphasized the role of the commander and hardly mentioned that of the soldiers involved. Here there is no doubt that Joshua is the leader, but the soldiers with him receive full credit for their work in the military expedition. Thus the story is not of a sole king or leader, such as the Egyptian accounts of campaigns in which the pharaoh reigns triumphant. Instead, the unity of the army of Israel is emphasized, in contrast to the partial force of . In this manner, success is assured, and the victory belongs to the nation and its God rather than to the individual leader.

Set an ambush behind the city. See also v. . The use of an ambush in warfare has great antiquity. It occurs in Canaan in the thirteenth century BC as recorded by the Egyptians in the Papyrus Anastasi I. It appears again in the strategy of a tenth-century BC Assyrian king; there it resembles the tactic used by Israel in this chapter. Also comparable is the ambush by the Israelites against the Benjamites at Gibeah in . There as well the topography allowed for a hiding place near the target.

sent them out at night. Maneuvers and whole battles might be fought at night. There are examples centuries earlier at Mari of night warfare. Night marches and attacks were used by the fourteenth-century BC Hittite king Mursili II and by the opponents of a military commander from thirteenth-century BC Ugarit.

, , Bethel. Located perhaps 1 mile (1.5 kilometers) west of Ai (according to the traditional designations of the sites), Bethel represents the main population center of the immediate area. If Ai is indeed a fort intended to guard Bethel, then it was probably staffed by soldiers from Bethel, so the two armies would have been parts of one and the same military force. For this reason, Joshua takes Bethel into account in his strategy and, as expected, the army of Bethel joins Ai in the apparent rout of the Israelites.

, javelin. The Hebrew kidon was actually a curved sword, either a sickle sword or a scimitar (in the Philistine version of ). In Egyptian it was called the khopesh.

Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city. This verse (cf. v. ) demonstrates the flexibility of the herem. God varied the rules in comparison with what he had commanded at Jericho (). At Ai, the Israelites could and did carry off the plunder for themselves. This would be crucial for the people. The manna had stopped before they attacked Jericho. While in the fertile Jordan Valley, they might enjoy both cultivated and wild barley that was ready for harvest. Now that they were in the less fertile highland and the rather arid region of Ai, they might have found less available food growing naturally. Thus, the livestock and other supplies provided essential support for the continued success of the army.

Assyrians impaling prisoners from the palace of Tiglath-Pileser III, c. 730–727 BC. The treatment of Ai’s commander () is characteristic of the method of execution for enemy leaders.

Return to

impaled the body of the king of Ai on a pole and left it there until evening. This treatment of Ai’s commander resembles that of the five Amorite kings in . This is not the mode of execution, but the treatment of the corpse after execution used on enemy leaders, especially those whom the victor wishes to use as an example.

The Hebrew Bible clearly states that Joshua built an altar of uncut stones on Mount Ebal in accordance with divine instruction to Moses (). A site located on the third highest peak near the ridge facing an open area where a large number of people could easily gather has been identified as an open-air altar with two levels of occupation. Evidence suggests that a rather simple pit was built and used for sacrifices in the second half of the thirteenth century BC. This was followed peacefully by a more elaborate structure built of field stones, surrounded by a veranda, and accessed by a ramp, in the first half of the twelfth century BC. The main animals killed there (for sacrifice) were cattle, sheep and a local species of deer; no pigs were slaughtered at the site. Current consensus is that this represents an anomalous Early Iron Age ritual site that has no clear cultural antecedents anywhere in the region, but no evidence connects it directly to the Israelites or the events in Deuteronomy or Joshua. ◆

The Mount Ebal altar shows two levels of occupation: a simple pit from the second half of the thirteenth century BC and the more elaborate structure in the first half of twelfth century BC.

Bill Schlegel/www.BiblePlaces.com

Go to

altar of uncut stones, on which no iron tool had been used. This is the type of altar commanded to be built in and specifically for Mount Ebal in . A parallel occurs in the Iron Age II sanctuary at Tel Arad in southern Judah (tenth–ninth century BC), which contains an Israelite-period altar made of field stones. Otherwise, altars (and other cultic objects) within Canaan were constructed of carefully cut stones.

Joshua wrote on stones a copy of the law of Moses. Here Joshua fulfills the Law of Moses regarding the king who must copy and read the law (). He also fulfills the command to coat the stones with plaster and to write on them the words of the law at Mount Ebal (, ). Writing on plaster is known in the ninth century BC from sites in the northern Sinai and the Jordan Valley. In both cases, this occurs in religious contexts. Writing in alphabetic (proto-) Hebrew script is known in the second millennium BC, and examples have been found in the land of Israel from the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BC onward through every subsequent century in all major areas of the land and reflecting a variety of writers. Basic literacy was common enough, but for official documents scribes would have been used.

they resorted to a ruse. Despite the absence of an exact parallel, the Hittite annals of Mursili II do record examples of willing capitulation of a region that leads to servitude instead of annihilation, of the use of vulnerable “emissaries” instead of the leader to negotiate, and of elders of a town coming and subjugating themselves.

Gilgal. If this is the Gilgal of and , then the story would appear to be out of sequence, as the Israelites appear at the end of ch. to be based in the central hill country near Shechem. However, Gilgal may be a description of any oval-shaped site. El-‘Unuq, east of Shechem, could qualify.

, treaty. The suzerain-vassal treaty has many examples preserved from the Hittite archives. It was used by that empire for making official agreements with neighboring states of lesser strength. This would have been the type of treaty made with the Gibeonites. An element of such a treaty is the list of gods of each side who are called upon to uphold the treaty.

Kephirah, Beeroth and Kiriath Jearim. That these cities are mentioned along with Gibeon suggests that there was a league of four cities of Hivites in what would become the heart of the territory of Benjamin. All these towns lay close to one another. The region should not take three days to reach from the area of Mount Ebal (). Either the Israelites were interrupted on their journey, perhaps by unrecorded battles, or the term “third day” signifies a general period of time rather than a specific number of days.

sworn an oath to them by the LORD. If an oath was not kept, the invoked deity’s name was being held as worthless and powerless. In a culture where gods were active and powerful, treating them with contempt had serious consequences, which are demonstrated when this same oath is broken in .

he made the Gibeonites woodcutters and water carriers for the assembly, to provide for the needs of the altar of the LORD. Assuming that the Gibeonites remained in their cities (as ch. suggests), it seems reasonable to assume that part of the community and at least one sanctuary were located in the region of Gibeon. This may refer to the high place at Gibeon that Solomon later visited (). An Israelite sanctuary, like those of their neighbors, would require wood to burn the incense and sacrifices, and water to keep the altar and sanctuary clean from the blood and gore of the animal sacrifices. The menial nature of the work gave them permanent lower-class status.

Perhaps more than any other chapter of the book of Joshua, ch. is filled with material that possesses parallels in ancient Near Eastern literature and can be further illuminated by comparisons with aspects of contemporary culture. In its totality, it resembles the annalistic accounts of the ancient Near East. Thus the Ten Year Annals of Mursili II include near their beginning a description of hostilities taken against Mursili and his response in the destruction of two cities. This is followed by the Kashka enemy all gathering together against him for war and his defeat of them. Then, in subsequent years, there is an iterative construction in which the same phrases are used repeatedly to describe the assault and defeat of enemy city after enemy city. This bears a surprising resemblance to the book of Joshua, where the Israelites first defeat two “cities,” Jericho and Ai (chs. ; ). This is followed by a coalition coming together to oppose them (). There follows a description of town after town being attacked and destroyed in an iterative fashion (vv. ). Also of interest are the annals of Thutmose III covering years 22–42 of his reign (c. 1458–1438 BC). Here as well there is the threat of the enemy consolidating diverse forces and coming together at Megiddo to battle the pharaoh. The first battle at Megiddo and its immediate background receive the greatest detail of coverage. This resembles Joshua’s initial battle from Gibeon to Makkedah (vv. ). In both cases the far greater detail of the initial battle contrasts with the briefer more repetitious descriptions of the following battles in the campaign, whether the 16 of Thutmose or the five or six of . The similarities in style argue that was styled in the manner of royal annals and followed forms known and used in the Late Bronze Age.

Come up and help me attack Gibeon . . . because it has made peace with Joshua and the Israelites. This is the only Biblical example of a reported message from one Canaanite king to another. Although most likely a summary of what was sent, it preserves rhetorical forms not unlike the Amarna letters from Canaan in the fourteenth century BC. The use of threefold repetition in the verbs (“come up,” “help me,” “attack”) and in the identification of the king’s enemy (here: Gibeon, Joshua, the Israelites)—all have their parallels in letters from Canaanite kings of Jerusalem and Shechem. Even the manner in which “peace” becomes a pretext for war has a parallel. Thus the message reflects authentic style of this period.

the LORD hurled large hailstones down on them. Again, there are parallels to such divine intervention in the annals of ancient kings and their battles. Close in type is that of the eighth-century BC Assyrian king Sargon, who writes concerning one campaign: “The rest of the people, who had fled to save their lives, whom he had abandoned that the glorious might of Ashur, my lord, might be magnified, Adad, the violent, the son of Anu, the valiant, uttered his loud cry against them; and with the flood cloud and hailstones, he totally annihilated the remainder.”

This event has motivated interpreters to seek a variety of solutions, and it remains among the most widely contested of events in the Bible. The traditional interpretation of this passage is that Joshua’s prayer takes place as daylight is waning, and he feels that with just a few extra daylight hours, he can finish off the enemy. Unfortunately, this interpretation has failed to take into account the details given in the text. The passage explicitly notes that the sun is over Gibeon and the moon over the Valley of Aijalon. Since Gibeon is east and Aijalon is west, we must conclude that Joshua prays in the morning. Consequently we begin to wonder why Joshua would even bother to request a longer period of daylight if it is still morning. This critique is also true of a second view, namely, that Joshua is seeking relief from the heat of the sun. A third view, that a solar eclipse is in view, is impossible, because a solar eclipse cannot take place if sun and moon are on opposite horizons.

We can now try to understand the text as an ancient text rather than a modern one. As such, we must begin with the idea that the text operates in the world of omens, not the world of physics and astronomy. Then we must consider the possibility that the correct interpretation of this passage is that Joshua was praying for the Amorites to see a bad omen. The argument for this position is as follows: If the sun is in the east and moon is in the west, we can conclude that not only is it morning, but it is morning at the time of the full moon. On the first official day of the full moon, the orb of the sun is fully visible above the eastern horizon line and the orb of the moon is fully visible above the western horizon line for about four minutes. When we explore ancient celestial omen texts, we find that this is one of the most important times of the month for getting an important omen.

In the ancient Near East, the months were not standardized in length, but varied according to the phases of the moon. This lunar calendar was then periodically adjusted to the solar year so as to retain the relationship of months with the seasons. The beginning of a month was calculated by the first appearance of the new moon. The full moon came in the middle of the month and was identified by the fact that the moon set just minutes after the sun rose. The day of the month on which the full moon occurred served as an indicator of how many days the month would have. When the opposition of sun and moon—the full moon—occurred on the 14th day of the month, that meant that the new crescent would be seen on the 30th day. Such a month was considered the “right” length, and all would be in harmony. It was then considered a full-length month made up of full-length days. Longer or shorter months were believed to contain longer or shorter days. Thus, seeing the full moon on the morning of the 14th day was a good omen.

As a result of these beliefs about omens, the horizon was observed very carefully in the middle section of the month hoping for this opposition of sun and moon to come on the propitious day (the 14th). Opposition on the wrong day was believed to be an omen of all sorts of disaster, including military defeat and overthrow of cities. In this way, the movements of the sun and the moon became monthly omens of good fortune or ill. As is evident from , on the day of Joshua’s battle, he requests that the sun and moon would not give an omen that the Amorites would have hoped for. In the ancient Near East, great significance was attached to these omens, and they well might have been used to determine whether or not battle should be engaged on a particular day. As noted above, the positions reported in Joshua for the sun and moon suggest that it is near sunrise in the full-moon phase. Since Joshua wants the Amorites to receive a negative omen, we can reason that it must not be the 14th day of the month. If what Joshua prays for takes place, the Amorites would feel that their battle was doomed.

Not only are the focus and the timing right, the language also supports this sort of interpretation. The Mesopotamian celestial omens use verbs like “wait,” “stand” and “stop” to record the relative movements and positions of the celestial bodies. When the moon and/or sun do not wait, the moon sinks over the horizon before the sun rises and no opposition occurs. When the moon and sun wait or stand, it indicates that the opposition does occur for the determination of the full-moon day. The omens in the series known as Enuma Anu Enlil often speak of changing velocities of the moon in its course to effect or avoid opposition with the sun.

The major objections to this interpretation of the passage as involving an understanding of omens come from . Most standard translations are relatively close to the NIV: “So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.” Four Hebrew terms deserve some attention:

1. Till. This translation gives the impression that the described situation was sustained until victory was achieved. In fact, however, the Hebrew preposition used here can be rendered “before” in precisely the sort of syntactic arrangement used in this verse. A good example is found in .

2. Middle. By “middle,” we should not assume that the text refers to midday. At midday, the moon would not be visible in the west; neither would Joshua know he needed extended light at midday. A more likely treatment would be to see it as a reference to its half of the sky (i.e., the eastern half of the sky)

3. Delayed. Here the text says that the sun “did not hasten.” The same phrasing is found in an omen text concerning Mars: “It will not stand in it [in its midst], it will not become stationary [= wait] and not tarry [= rest]; it went forth hurriedly.” Furthermore, some translations say that it did not hasten to set. The Hebrew verb is sometimes translated that way, but it is the basic verb “to go, enter” and could feasibly be used for any transition from one section to another.

4. Full. This is the most difficult term to assess. A couple of options are worthy of consideration. In Akkadian omen texts, a “full-length” month (30 days) is made up of “full-length” days. When the full moon is on the 14th, it will be a full-length month filled with full-length days. If the month is not going to be 30 days, as here, then they are not full-length days. It may not make sense immediately to us, but it is how the texts are interpreted. Alternatively, rather than translate “full-length” we might consider the possibility of translating the Hebrew adjective tammim as “propitious.” In this case, the phrase would be translated “the sun did not hasten to its entry as on a propitious day.”

Beyond these lexical discussions, some object to this reading, because all of the omen texts are Neo-Assyrian and therefore many centuries later than the time of Joshua. Furthermore, the interest in celestial divination is strongest in the seventh century BC and in the area of Assyria. We have little information concerning the use of omens from the Levant in the mid-second millennium BC. Nevertheless, recent study has shown that even the Neo-Assyrian sources have their roots in the second millennium BC, and the Levant is not totally lacking evidence (cf. Emar).

The lexical issues remain vexing and problematic, but they can be addressed. Even if we acknowledge that we have not yet sorted out the lexical details, the presence of terms such as “stop,” “stand” and “wait” gain new possibilities in light of the language of celestial omens, and the fact that the context is one that is just right for an omen application (i.e., on the brink of battle). Certainly a reading of the text in light of omens is more likely for an ancient text than a reading in light of physics.

It should be noted that the text does not suggest the astronomical phenomena were unique. Instead, says plainly that what was unique was the Lord accepting a battle strategy from a man (“the LORD listened to a human being”). A Mesopotamian lamentation (first millennium BC) shows this same type of terminology for divine judgment when it speaks of the heavens rumbling, the earth shaking, the sun lying at the horizon and the moon stopping in the sky, and evil storms sweeping through the land. Joshua’s knowledge of the Amorites’ dependence on omens may have led him to ask the Lord for one that he knew would deflate their morale—for the opposition to occur on an unpropitious day. ◆

Go to

exposed their bodies on five poles. Compare the fate of the king of Ai (see and note).

the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes. This summarizes the whole region south of Gibeon. hill country. Includes the region immediately south and dominated by sites such as Jerusalem and Hebron, with Arad and Beersheba at the southern tip. Negev. In the Bible refers to the region around the Beersheba Valley at the southern end of the region of Judah. the western foothills and the mountain slopes. Seems to describe the same area, that which is located between the coastal plain and the hill country. It is called the Shephelah (Hebrew for “western foothills”).

Kadesh Barnea. The place where the previous generation reached the southern border of the promised land, but was unable to enter (). Gaza. The traditional southwestern corner of the land of Canaan and the first Canaanite city that the Egyptians reached when traveling from their country across the northern Sinai. region of Goshen. Mentioned as a southern boundary in Canaan in and as an otherwise unattested hill country town of Judah in . This is not the region of Egypt where the Israelites lived before the exodus; rather, it may refer to a region at the south central or southeastern edge of Canaan (and Judah).

Aerial view of Hazor (, ).

Z. Radovan/www.BibleLandPictures.com

Return to

Jabin king of Hazor. From the time of the Middle Bronze Age Mari letters (eighteenth century BC), the leader at Hazor was a Yabni-Addu; the first part of the name sounds like Jabin but is not identical to it, and in fact is derived from a different root. The form, ib-ni, also occurs in a Middle Bronze letter from Hazor as part of a personal name. It is possible that this was a dynastic name at Hazor that was preserved in the Bible, both in and in , but with a different vocalization added later. Hazor. The site, including its lower tel, covers some 175 acres (70.8 hectares), the largest city in ancient Israel. It was destroyed by violent conflagration in the thirteenth century BC, which may relate to the events of . Madon. Occurs elsewhere only in , and should probably be identified with Merom. The d and r resemble one another in Biblical Hebrew, so this could be a copyist error. Alternatively, there could be two slightly different names for the same place, perhaps dialectical variants. The battle at the Waters of Merom (vv. ) would then have been near a site that itself was close to Hazor, Tel Qarnei Hittin, on the heights west of the Sea of Galilee. Shimron. Tel Shimron, 5 miles (8 kilometers) west of Nazareth at the western end of the Jezreel Valley. Akshaph. It may be Tell Keisan, 4.5 miles (7.3 kilometers) south of Akko on the plain, or it may be Tel Regev, at the foot of Mount Carmel and at the entrance to the Jokneam Pass to the Jezreel Valley.

northern kings who were in the mountains. Like the summary of the southern coalition region in , the description here divides the north into four areas. The description begins in the north and proceeds in a clockwise direction. This term includes the towns in the Galilean highlands north of the Jezreel Valley. in the Arabah south of Kinnereth. Kinnereth is Tel Kinrot, overlooking the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee. The Arabah is the whole region of the Sea of Galilee and the northern half of the Jordan Valley. in the western foothills. In Hebrew, the Shephelah (see note on ). Naphoth Dor. There is no certain translation of “Naphoth.” Dor lies on the Mediterranean coast, south of Mount Carmel. This expression could refer to the coastal plain in that region.

The northern assembly is composed of diverse groups, perhaps reflecting the international cultural and commercial importance of the north, as seen in the later history of the northern kingdom of Israel. Jebusites. Encountered around Jerusalem (, ; ). hill country. May be the central hill country and may reflect their presence well north of Jerusalem. Hivites below Hermon in the region of Mizpah. For the Hivites located around Gibeon, see v. ; . In , there are Hivites living in Shechem. Here the description takes the reader farther north. If Hermon is equated with Sirion and Senir in , then Mizpah could refer to the eastern part of the Litani River, which flows south from the Beqa and turns westward toward Tyre at a point close to the northern end of the Huleh Basin. This would be the region of Dan and the northern limits of the Israelite settlement.

Waters of Merom. Perhaps these are to be located north of Tel Qarnei Hittin at Wadi el-Hamam. This site lay on the ancient road north to Hazor and would provide a staging point for the coalition.

hamstring their horses and burn their chariots. The presence of chariots among the northern coalition suggests a sophistication not found in the south. Here in the north, the leaders had more wealth and power, such that they could afford to field the most advanced weaponry of the era. Horses were not used for transportation (or cavalry) by themselves, but only for pulling chariots. The chariots functioned as mobile fighting platforms, particularly serving to move archers quickly across the battlefield and to aid in their effectiveness. Hamstringing the horses would render them useless for battle. Chariots needed to be light and were often built of wood. Hence they could be burned. Bronze or iron could be used as linchpins for the wheels and perhaps as plating to protect the wood; hence the description of “chariots fitted with iron” (, ; see note on ).

Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds—except Hazor. ; record that Jericho and Ai were also burned, though archaeological evidence at these two sites is lacking. However, there is no record of other towns of either the southern or northern coalition being burned. This may explain why archaeologists have not found destruction layers, characterized by evidence of burning, at the many other sites listed in chs. . Hazor does evidence a very clear burn layer, but there is still controversy over whether it can be attributed to Joshua’s armies.

from Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir, to Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon. In Mount Halak lies between Israel and Edom. Jebel Halaq is located midway between Kadesh Barnea and the southern end of the Dead Sea. If it marks the southern end of Israel’s activity, Baal Gad marks the northern end. If Mount Hermon is the Anti-Lebanon range, then the Valley of Lebanon could be the Beqa or the Valley of Mizpah to its south.

Late Bronze Age Hazor was burned by Joshua (). Excavations have revealed three clearly datable destruction layers, one of which may provide the strongest evidence yet for a historically verifiable date for the conquest.

The excavator thought Joshua burned the latest level c. 1230 BC, but others argue that it must actually have been the earliest of the three levels, c. 1400 BC (see note on ).

Go to

the Anakites. The Bible associates the sons of Anak with the Nephilim () and they are in turn connected to the Rephaim (). These as a whole are best understood as mighty warriors who fell in battle, often slain by Israel. They are not a race but an ethnic group (see notes on , ). The thirteenth-century BC Egyptian Papyrus Anastasi I notes that among the Canaanites are “some of whom are of four cubits or five cubits (from) their nose to foot and have fierce faces.” Five Egyptian cubits would be a few inches/centimeters short of nine feet (2.7 meters). Og of Bashan (see and note) and Goliath of Gath () are examples of this type of warrior. The towns where Anakites remained—Gaza, Gath and Ashdod—all lay on or near the southwestern Palestinian coast.

This chapter reviews all the battles to this point where Israel acquired land. Thus it begins with a review of the land east of the Jordan River acquired through the defeat of Sihon of Heshbon and Og of Bashan (). This review lists their territories by regions and natural landmarks such as mountains and rivers (vv. ). This is followed by a list of the leaders and their towns west of the Jordan River that Israel defeated. There are three features of note that are also common in ancient Near Eastern war documents: summarizing texts, selectivity in lists and the use of itinerary lists. Summarizing texts, such as vv. , occur in annalistic inscriptions.

from the Arnon Gorge to Mount Hermon. The southernmost and northernmost extent of Sihon’s kingdom and of Israel’s possessions. Arnon Gorge. Lay between Moab to the south and the tribal territories of Reuben and Gad to the north. The Arnon River (Wadi el-Mujib) flows into the Dead Sea at a point across the Dead Sea from the location of En Gedi. Mount Hermon. See note on .

Heshbon. This town in Joshua at times has been identified with Tell Hesban, but excavations have not identified any Late Bronze occupation there. It may be that the second-millennium BC site should be sought elsewhere, and that the name shifted from the other site to Tell Hesban in the Iron Age. Candidates from other sites include Tall Jalul and Tall al-Umayri, both of which possess the necessary occupation levels. Aroer. Tell ‘Ara‘ir. Jabbok River. The Wadi ez-Zerqa (see note on ). Gilead. Its southern border is the Arnon Gorge; its western border is the Jordan River; its eastern border is the desert; its northern border is perhaps the Yarmuk River, as the Jabbok River divides the area in half.

eastern Arabah. This constitutes the Jordan Valley east of the Jordan River. Sea of the Arabah. The Salt Sea, i.e., the Dead Sea. Beth Jeshimoth. Possibly Tell ‘Azeimeh. Pisgah. Whether or not Pisgah is Ras es-Siyagha, the slopes of Pisgah are found at the northwestern edge of the Moabite tableland where it descends into the Jordan Valley.

Rephaites. See note on .

Here is a list of the kings. The phrase is followed by a list of place-names, most of which have occurred previously in . includes southern sites, many of which are mentioned in ch. . includes northern places, many of which are mentioned in ch. .

Megiddo. Arabic Tell el-Mutesellim or Hebrew Tel Megiddo. It was assigned to Manasseh, but not captured by the Israelites until the period of the monarchy (; ).

Jokneam in Carmel. Arabic Tell Qeimûn or Hebrew Tel Yoqneam. The city was destroyed in the thirteenth century BC following the collapse of Egyptian control, and again at the end of the eleventh century BC, perhaps as part of the Israelite expansion to the north.

Dor (in Naphoth Dor). The Egyptian story of Wen-Amon’s adventure (eleventh century BC) indicates that the Philistines settled here. It was assigned to Manasseh, but not conquered until the reign of Solomon (). Goyim in Gilgal. The Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT) identifies this as Goyim in Galilee. As with Dor and Jokneam before it, this has the same construction of two place-names, in which the first is a town and the second should be a region. Galilee is a region; Gilgal is usually thought of as a town or cult site. However, both Gilgal and Galilee come from the same root (gll). Therefore, these could be variants of the same place-name. It is probably related to Harosheth Haggoyim in or near Galilee (see , ). If so, it may come from a region of pharaonic royal estates known from the Amarna letters in this area. An Arabic site possibly preserving the name is Jiljuliyey, a few miles/kilometers north of Aphek.

Several Hittite treaties offer boundary lists similar to those found in Joshua. The lists indicate the borders of the land entrusted to the vassal by the suzerain, who offers local control and delineates the boundaries that define the legal relationship. It is the role of the suzerain to define boundaries that demonstrates the suzerain’s control over the vassals and their land. Such lists often operate by simply naming cities that are counted in the region rather than drawing imaginary lines that circumscribe the territory.

all the regions of the Philistines and Geshurites. Before the settlement can be completed, there is a list of regions and towns within Canaan that have not been defeated by Israel. The allotments will include these areas, however, so that the picture created is one in which the document that follows remains in use through the period of the monarchy for various legal and royal purposes. Although Geshur has been previously mentioned (), this is the first and only mention of the Philistines in the book of Joshua. Three traditional Philistine cities connected with the Anakites appeared in , but there was no explicit association with the Philistines.

Shihor River. Either the easternmost branch of the Nile (Pelusiac) or the Wadi el-Arish in northeastern Sinai. The latter would fit better as a border for the known sites of the Philistines. Ekron. Modern Tel Miqne. Ekron was the most northeastern of the five cities of the Philistines. Thus, the region between the Shihor River and Ekron would have been the home of the Philistine newcomers. rulers. This term (Hebrew seren) is unique to the Philistines in the Bible. It is generally regarded as a Philistine term brought from their Aegean and Mycenaean homeland and possibly reflected in the later Greek word for a type of leader, tyrannos, from which the English “tyrant” is derived. Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron. These cities comprise the traditional pentapolis of the Philistines and are here so associated for the first time. Ashkelon and Ekron are mentioned here for the first time in Joshua. Avvites. Also called the Avvim, they are the pre-Philistine inhabitants of this region ().

The description in these verses constitutes the coastal area and the entire northern region of Canaan.

Arah of the Sidonians. Arah is not identified, but the coastal region of the Sidonians includes the region north of the area of the Philistines (which here may include other Sea People settlements such as the Sikil at Dor) to Aphek. Aphek. Tell Afqa, near the sources of the Nahr Ibrahim and southeast of Byblos. Amorites. Here refers to people of the ancient kingdom of Amurru, which flourished only in the Late Bronze Age. Their territory could have included the Lebanon mountain range and some of the Beqa to the east.

Byblos. Constituted the third major coastal division, after that of the Philistines and the Sidonians. Baal Gad. The northern limit of Israel’s activity in , located somewhere north of Galilee in the Beqa. Lebo Hamath. The northern limit of Canaan, perhaps as Lebweh. Thus, the entire region north of Galilee remained, as did the coast.

Misrephoth Maim. Located just north of Galilee and would form the northern boundary of Israel’s control before the united monarchy.

Aroer. See note on . Arnon Gorge. See note on . the town in the middle of the gorge. May be Khirbet el-Medeineh at the junction of Wadi Saliyeh and the Wadi Sarideh. Dibon. Although Tell Dhibân may be the Iron Age site of Dibon, there is a lack of evidence for a Late Bronze Age occupation there. Nevertheless, Egyptian scribes of the thirteenth century BC knew of the existence of a Dibon in this area.

Balaam. See and notes; see also the article “

”

Jazer. Perhaps Khirbet Jazzir. Rabbah. May be at the Amman acropolis.

Ramath Mizpah. Perhaps Khirbet Jel’ad. Betonim. Perhaps Khirbet Batneh. Mahanaim. Perhaps Khirbet ed-Dhahab el-Garbi on the north side of the Zerqa Valley. Debir. As Lo-debar it may be Tell Dober on the southwestern tip of the Golan Heights and north of the Yarmuk Valley.

Beth Haram. May be Tell Iktanu. Beth Nimrah. May possibly be Tell el-Bleibil. Sukkoth. May be Tell Deir ʿAlla. Zaphon. May possibly be Tell el-Qôs.

settlements of Jair. This is the only place-name in the description of Manasseh not mentioned earlier. Jair, a son of Manasseh, occupied a territory east of the Sea of Galilee containing 60 settlements (; ; ; but 23 settlements in ) ruled by 30 sons (). They would have been tent encampments, but the nine towns named as part of the land of Geshur may constitute some of what becomes the settlements of Jair.

Eleazar the priest. The son and successor to Aaron the high priest. He will oversee the allotment of the land (; ), the assignment of the priestly towns (), and the mediation with the Transjordanian tribes (, ).

assigned by lot. Divination was widely practiced in the ancient Near East. Types of divination include prophecy and necromancy, but also numerous other practices that involved a variety of techniques based on interpreting observations of signs in the sky, unusual births, or other abnormal occurrences in the world around them. However, in Israel, the only approved instruments for the determination of God’s will were the Urim and Thummim (see the article “

”). These are mentioned as fitting into the breastpiece of the high priest (; ) and as subject to the use of the priest (; ; ; ). They may well have been the lots used in the division of the land. Note their association with Eleazar the priest in v. , although Joshua seems to use them in . Behind the casting of lots is the principle that the ownership of the land, and therefore the right to give it according to his wishes, belongs to God. As with the land grant of the king of Alalakh (see the article “Land Grants”), the suzerain has the right to assign the land to whom he will.

pasturelands. In addition to the towns for the Levites, they received pasturelands for their flocks and herds. The Hebrew term (migrash) describes districts or regions that were allotted to the Levites, who otherwise did not receive land for farming, etc. It would appear that in the West Semitic world, towns normally had specific areas set aside for use by the townspeople for grazing and perhaps for some gardening.

These verses describe the southern boundary of Judah.

territory of Edom. East of the Arabah during the period of the settlement. Unless this represents an otherwise unattested incursion to the west, Judah’s land would have “touched” only south of the Dead Sea. Desert of Zin. First mentioned in and last mentioned in . It describes the desert area around Kadesh Barnea on the edge of Judah’s settlement. the extreme south. May be transliterated as Teiman, a desert region in the south whose name is attested in the ninth-century BC inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, south of Kadesh Barnea in the northeastern Sinai.

the bay . . . of the Dead Sea. The southern extension, the Lisan.

Scorpion Pass. Probably Naqb es-Safa. Zin. See note on v. . Kadesh Barnea. See note on . Addar. Ain Qedeis. Karka. Ain Qoṣeimeh.

Proceeding farther westward, the border passes Azmon (Ain Muweilih) and reaches the Wadi of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish).

The northern boundary proceeds from the mouth of the Jordan River westward. This boundary list is the most detailed, reflecting the use of this list throughout the period of the monarchy to determine boundary disputes between Judah and its northern tribal neighbors.

she urged him to ask her father for a field. Following the Hebrew text, this understanding suggests that the women in this society retained some right over their dowry, although it became part of their husband’s property. Aksah asks her husband to request her dowry from her father, Caleb. However, she then requests additional water sources directly from her father (v. ).

The town list in these verses forms the longest and most complex for any tribe. Many of the sites are not otherwise known, although some can be identified. The lists are divided according to regions that are identified at the beginning of each section. Each section and subsection concludes with a summary statement of the total number of towns and villages.

These verses list the towns in the southern Negev.

These verses list the towns in the western foothills, or Shephelah. The towns in the western foothills are divided into three districts (vv. , , ). Each district is organized between the east-west valleys from north to south: from the Sorek Valley to the Elah Valley, from the Elah Valley to Nahal Lachish, and from Nahal Lachish to the Negev. A fourth district in this region includes the towns on the coastal plain (vv. ) that were not occupied () until the united monarchy.

The hill country includes five districts in the region. The first three are in the south and include Debir and Hebron (vv. , , ). A region to the north appears in vv. . The Hebrew text of v. preserves only two towns, Kiriath Jearim and Rabbah. However, the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT) adds eleven additional towns immediately before these two. This includes Ephrath (Bethlehem), otherwise not found in the Hebrew list of Judah.

The final list of six towns in the desert includes En Gedi and other towns that lay along the western coast of the Dead Sea.

The southeastern boundary of Ephraim begins at the Jordan River and passes through Jericho (see note on ) and Bethel (see note on , , ).

Bethel (that is, Luz). The association of the name of Bethel with Luz occurs three times in Genesis (; ; ), twice in Joshua (here; ), and twice in Judges (, ). The last occurrence in Judges suggests that a survivor of the Israelite destruction of the town there went to the land of the Hittites and built a city called Luz. Among the proposed connections with Luz is the kingdom of Lydia in Iron Age southwestern Anatolia, and a Hebrew version of a known Hittite city such as Lahhuwiyassi. Arkites. Unattested outside this reference ( is a different spelling in the Hebrew and therefore a different group), except in reference to David’s diplomat Hushai, who is described as one ().

Japhletites. This group is unattested other than perhaps a son of Heber who carries the name Japhlet in .

Mikmethath . . . Taanath Shiloh . . . Janoah . . . Naarah. These previously unattested sites move from west to east along the northern border of Ephraim and the southern border of Manasseh.

required to do forced labor. This reference, part of the customary note at the end of a tribal allotment regarding unconquered land, refers to the mas or forced labor (corvée) that was extracted from subject towns by a more powerful ruler. It was a form of taxation known in Late Bronze Age and Iron Age Canaan. The term appears in a fourteenth-century BC Amarna letter from the leader of Megiddo who is using a corvée to cultivate the pharaoh’s land near Shunem. Solomon also uses this type of labor (). Here it may have come as a result of the battles of either or .

Makir. The part of the tribe of Manasseh that settled east of the Jordan River and north of Reuben and Gad ().

Abiezer, Helek, Asriel, Shechem, Hepher and Shemida. These are the remaining clans other than Makir. In the Samaria ostraca of the first half of the eighth century BC, these clan names appear as regions and towns neighboring Samaria. In relation to the city of Samaria: Abiezer lies to the south; Helek is immediately southeast; Asriel is farther south than Abiezer; Shechem (Tell Balata) is farther southeast than Helek; Hepher is northeast; Shemida is west.

daughters . . . Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milkah and Tirzah. For Zelophehad’s daughters, see note on . Zelophehad’s daughters were the granddaughters of Hepher, and thus the names of their towns are located northeast and east of Samaria by the beginning of the eighth century BC (see note on v. ).

Beth Shan, Ibleam . . . Endor. These are the only towns among those belonging to Manasseh that did not appear earlier in the book of Joshua.

Canaanites were determined to live in that region. These towns are better known, because they are larger and more prominent centers in and around the Jezreel Valley. Many of these names appear in Egyptian sources and in Amarna letters from the Late Bronze Age. The wealth of such towns in terms of agriculture in the fertile valley and, above all, in terms of trade, made them highly desirable prizes that the Canaanites held on to, in some cases until the period of the united monarchy.

forced labor. See note on .

If you are so numerous . . . and if the hill country of Ephraim is too small for you, go up into the forest and clear land for yourselves there. The sudden appearance of some 300 villages dating to the first half of the twelfth century BC and situated in the hill country occupied by Manasseh and, to a lesser extent, Ephraim, attests to the presence of Israel and its expansion in the region suggested in this verse. Perizzites. See note on . Rephaites. See note on .

, chariots fitted with iron. See note on .

Shiloh. Probably Khirbet Seilûn, where excavations uncovered a Middle Bronze Age shrine and a Late Bronze Age population center. Occupation continued into the Iron Age until it was destroyed in the eleventh century BC, perhaps by Philistines. tent of meeting. Mentioned only here and in in Joshua.

The allotments for Benjamin include the largest number of towns of any of the allotment descriptions and are second only to the allotments of Judah. Whatever the significance of these lists, the number of sites is out of proportion to those of other tribes. Like the towns of Judah and Simeon, this suggests the ongoing use of these documents for administrative purposes right to the end of the monarchy in Judah, when the population of the region was much larger and the towns far more numerous. The boundaries of Benjamin (vv. ) match those of their surrounding tribes. The following town lists are divided into the eastern (vv. ) and western (vv. ) lists.

Go to

The Simeon allotment is, like Benjamin’s allotment (), divided into eastern () and western (vv. ) lists.

The allotment for Zebulon lies in the western part of lower Galilee, north of the Jezreel Valley and reaching north to include the fertile Beit Netofa Valley. The southern boundary (vv. ) proceeds to the east (vv. ) and then turns north (vv. ).

Bethlehem. Northwest of Nahalal in Zebulun; it should not be confused with the well-known town in Judah. The judge Ibzan was buried here (), and a modern village nearby is still called Beit-Lahm.

Issachar’s inheritance includes only a town list, the southern part of which overlaps with towns belonging to Manasseh. Issachar reaches the Beth Shan Valley in the south and the Valley of Yiptah-el in the north with towns on the edge of cliffs, on the basalt heights, and in the Jezreel Valley.

Asher includes the territories from Carmel to the south along the Akko Plain to the north as far as Tyre and Greater Sidon. Kabul (Khirbet Rosh Zayit) and the eastern region was given to Hiram by Solomon ().

The territory of Naphtali includes the rest of Galilee (other than the southwestern part occupied by Zebulon), the area west of the Sea of Galilee, Hazor and the Huleh basin. The absence of Ijon and Abel Beth Maakah suggests that this list predates their incorporation into Israel during the period of the united monarchy.

Like the other major town lists in these chapters, the town list of Dan is divided into eastern (vv. ) and western sections (vv. ). It is coordinated with the conquest of the town of Leshem/Dan in .

Timnath Serah. Probably Khirbet Tibnah, 16 miles (25.7 kilometers) southwest of Shechem.

At the end of the formal allotments (chs. ) there appear two chapters (chs. ) in which towns within the allotted territory are set aside for other purposes.

The cities of refuge were so designated in the Pentateuch (; , ; ; ) and occur here again.

Kedesh . . . Shechem . . . Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron). These are the three towns of asylum west of the Jordan River. They are spread throughout the country from north to south. Kedesh. Distinct from the town in . Shechem. Although the name of a clan of Manasseh (), Shechem is a recognized town elsewhere (). Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron). See ; see also note on . Although suggests an additional three towns west of the Jordan River, they are not allocated. Perhaps this is due to a failure to achieve a complete conquest. These towns would have been fortified and provided a safe refuge from the blood avenger (see notes on , ). In particular, excavations at Shechem have revealed a remarkably strong wall and gate system built of cyclopean stones and dating from the Middle Bronze Age (early second millennium BC).

Bezer . . . Ramoth . . . Golan. These are the three towns of asylum east of the Jordan River. They are spread throughout the country from south to north.

The LORD commanded through Moses that you give us towns to live in, with pasturelands for our livestock. The instructions here require that not only the town, but also the surrounding pastures for up to 3,000 feet (900 meters) be given to the Levites (see note on ). That priests and priestly assistants should receive provision certainly has support throughout the ancient Near East. In particular the Egyptian temples were endowed with lands and settlements to provide food and income for the priests. The famous temple of Amun Re in Thebes owned 56 towns in Egypt during the time of Rameses III, not to mention nine additional estates in Palestine and Nubia. The Levitical town system is a simplification of this. There was no central temple to whom these towns and their lands were given. Further, the Levites lived in the towns and worked the lands themselves. The complex and almost certainly oppressive Egyptian system was alien to the Israelite system.

On the one hand, this is a story about the building of an altar and thus might be compared to . However, there are no examples of an altar built purely as a memorial. The erection of standing stones of special significance seems to have served that purpose elsewhere (see note on ). This account provides a dramatic visual and verbal means to affirm the ongoing unity of Israel and its boundaries. The Transjordanian tribes affirm their unity with the rest of the nation, and by doing so and extracting a confession from the other tribes, they also seek to guarantee that their own lands and borders will be respected. There will not come some future time when the tribes west of the Jordan see them as non-Israelites who worship other deities and thus attack and seize their land. Both Joshua the commander and Phinehas the priest confirm the loyalty and faithfulness of the Transjordanian tribes (vv. , ). In the context of Joshua, the altar serves as a witness, because there are no other deities than the God of Israel that can be recognized. For this reason the altar is named “A Witness Between Us—that the LORD is God” (v. ).

Gilead. See note on .

sin of Peor. This was stopped by Phinehas at Baal Peor in Transjordan (; see notes on ).

This is the final sermon of Joshua. It will be followed by a covenant renewal (). However, even here aspects of ancient Near Eastern treaty appear. The first part, vv. , reviews Israel’s experience in the promised land and the manner in which God enabled the nation to have success against all of its enemies. It concludes with observations about the manner in which God has blessed the people. Thus, v. —“One of you routs a thousand, because the LORD your God fights for you”—sounds similar to the blessings of ancient Near Eastern treaties of the second millennium BC, although the latter are more general. The same is true of vv. , which resemble curses such as may be found in many treaties, with an emphasis upon divine judgment. When we see details like this that correspond with literary forms well-known in the ancient Near East, it reminds us that Israel was part of a larger ancient Near Eastern world and that God was inclined to use their familiarity with that world to communicate effectively to them.

all Israel—their elders, leaders, judges and officials. This is a good example of the use of the term “all Israel” in a context where it is immediately qualified by the leadership that represented the nation. Thus, neither here nor elsewhere in the book does “all Israel” imply every man, woman and child in the nation. This type of rhetorical expression has parallels in the ancient Near Eastern annals.

The equation of invoking the names of the deities with service and worship of them brings to mind the use of their names in the ancient Near Eastern treaties that occur at this time. Every treaty that has not had its latter section destroyed preserves a listing of divine witnesses.

Shechem.

Return to

Joshua assembled all the tribes of Israel at Shechem. The earlier covenant ceremony of was at Mount Ebal, just north of Shechem. Because ch. does not mention Mount Ebal, whereas ch. does not mention Shechem, it is possible that the location of this covenant renewal was not at the same place as that of ch. (which itself is portrayed as a fulfillment of ). However, no attack or conquest of Shechem is ever mentioned. This has raised the question of how Israel came to occupy this city. It is possible that there was a battle that was simply not recorded. Alternatively, it may be that Israel peacefully occupied the region and did not fight against the inhabitants of Shechem. Although this latter suggestion seems to contradict , it is possible that some other accommodation was made at Shechem. We cannot be certain. The assembly point at Shechem suggests that, despite the important role Shiloh was taking on, it did not replace Shechem (and Mount Ebal?) as a center for other national meetings, for covenant renewal and for religious acts such as the erection of a sacred memorial stone (v. ). Furthermore, Shechem was the first place where Abram built an altar when he first came to Canaan () and the first place where Jacob came when he returned from Aram, as well as where he built an altar (). Further, land nearby is associated with the burial place for Joseph as one of the early patriarchal plots purchased by Jacob () where Joseph would be buried (see ). elders, leaders, judges and officials of Israel. See note on .

Terah. The father of Abram and Nahor, the brother of Abram (). beyond the Euphrates River. The area north and east of Canaan across the Euphrates River. The area discussed here lay in the Balikh River region and other rivers that flow into and form the Euphrates River in northern Syria. worshiped other gods. The nearby sites of Mari and Alalakh have yielded archives of cuneiform tablets from this period that attest to many deities worshiped by peoples of the region and same linguistic background as the patriarchs. This demonstrates that Abram did not come from a long line of unbroken monotheism.

I brought you out. Here and in many of the following phrases, note the switch to the second person. This report of a covenant renewal follows treaty language, in which a significant part of the historical reminiscence is directed to the actual recipient(s) of the treaty/covenant rather than previous generations. The emphasis is upon what God did for that generation and what they witnessed with their own eyes. While Rahab () mentions the drying up of the Red Sea as part of her confession, no mention of that is made here. More than the miracles, this covenant renewal review emphasizes God’s acts of deliverance of his people from their enemies.

citizens of Jericho. As the first enemies in the promised land, these symbolize the rest. The term is used of a group or assembly that makes decisions for the towns of Shechem () and Keilah (). At Ampi in the Amarna letters, they appear as a council who make decisions along with the governor.

the hornet. Although some have suggested that the hornet is Egypt, this seems unlikely, because this identification is nowhere made in the Bible. The use of insects in warfare is attested, but not found in the war chronicles of Israel unlike, e.g., the use of (hail)stones that God also sends. The hornet may be a symbol of terror or perhaps the term for hornet should be read as “terror.” This would exemplify the terror that is elsewhere attributed to the battles of Israel as in ; ; ; .

vineyards and olive groves. These constitute important nutritional sources for Israel. Mentioned some 185 times in the OT, wine was the most commonly consumed beverage. Wine culture in the region was known from the third millennium BC. Water could be contaminated, and other beverages were not available. Olive trees grow well in the climate and soil of the hill country of Israel. They do not compete with the staple diet grains that grow in different soil. Because it can take many years for olive trees to mature and yield fruit, the presence of these groves, as well as vineyards, suggests the replacement of one civilization by the other without the destruction of the natural resources. At seventh-century BC Ekron, the city processed 1,000 tons (900 metric tons) of olive oil annually, most of which was exported. Olive oil was used for food, medicine and lamp fuel, and as a base for cosmetics. It was also used in anointing kings and in ritual contexts.

You are witnesses . . . Yes, we are witnesses. The confession of the people is to agree with the covenant stipulations just as the vassal in a suzerain-vassal treaty must accept the treaty stipulations. Of course, in treaties the witnesses are customarily the gods of the parties involved. Therefore, it is of greatest interest that the reference to “witnesses” is followed immediately by a charge from Joshua that the people should throw away their divine images of other gods and goddesses (v. ). There is the context of the town of Shechem and the manner in which Jacob’s family responded to his charge to do away with their divine images by handing them over to Jacob so that he could bury them under the oak at Shechem (). However, in the context of a treaty/covenant and the reference to witnesses, Joshua’s exhortation denies to the images any validity to function as witnesses to this covenant. The response of the people here is “We will serve the LORD our God and obey him” (v. ). This sounds optimistic, but it is an ominous indicator that no mention is made of any Israelite relinquishing their images to Joshua, unlike the earlier “Israel’ who relinquished their images to Jacob.

Joshua made a covenant for the people . . . he reaffirmed for them decrees and laws. The text provides no further information, although such a treaty/covenant would likely include the sorts of statements that Joshua charged the people with in vv. . It may even be larger, along the lines of the Book of the Covenant (). On the role of writing and the significance of God’s covenant for Joshua, see note on .

Standing stone at Schechem (see note on ).

Kim Walton

Return to

a large stone . . . under the oak near the holy place of the LORD. Although the oak or great tree at Shechem had a long history of association with Israel’s ancestors and their worship of God (; ; cf. ), there is no known preservation of this tree. On the other hand, there is a standing stone that is visible in the cult center of the ancient site. Whatever association it may have with the account here is not known.

the age of a hundred and ten. This age matches that of Joseph, who also appears here (v. ). In addition, both the age of Joseph and that of Joshua are mentioned twice in the Bible (, ; ).

Mount Gaash. This site is otherwise unknown, although the phrase “ravines of Gaash” occurs in the duplicate texts of and . The Hebrew root behind “Gaash” means “to belch forth” or “to rise and fall,” and may suggest that this describes a kind of topographic feature rather than a proper name. Unlike the patriarchs who had to purchase their burial tracts (see and notes), Joshua is buried in a land claimed by conquest (see note on ).

↑ Back to top