Part 17
(5:2—15) Circumcision and Passover Before the march of Jericho, three things occur. The first is a circumcision of Israel, designed to ensure that the nation is properly constituted ritually. Circumcision was widespread among ancient Semites. In Israel, however, it marked the convenantal relationship with God. Its institution is traced in the Old Testament back to Abraham, and is told in a text which states that no uncircumcised male can be regarded as an Israelite (Gen 17:9-14). The institution ofthe Passover reiterates the requirement, allowing resident aliens in Israel to be included on condition that they are circumcised (Ex 12:43—9).
The twelve tribal representatives (3:12; 4:2) are now appointed to carry stones from the midst of the Jordan to the far side. The stones present a difficulty. Did Joshua set up twelve stones in the Jordan besides those which the people carried across, as suggested by NRSV's parenthesis (v. 9)? A better solution is to see v. ga as explaining how it came about that twelve suitable stones were found in the middle of the Jordan (cf. v. 3). Thus v. gfc ('and they are there to this day') should fall outside the parenthesis, and be seen as a continuation of v. 8fc (with Ehrlich 1968: 16).
The connection between circumcision and Passover is important; Israel must be ritually pure to celebrate its central memorial feast. That connection is re-established here, at a place not otherwise known, Gibeath-haaraloth, or 'the Hill of the Foreskins'. The name of the place is presumably connected aetiologically with the action. How it relates to Gilgal, which is also named as a result of this action (v. 9), is unclear. Perhaps there was a special site in the locality for the ceremony (Soggin 1972: 70).
The liturgical function of the actions performed is clear. That is, the narrative is not merely relating events, but also instituting an act of worship for all future generations (w. 67, 21—2). In this it resembles the narrative of the first Passover (cf. Ex 12:24-7).
The importance of Joshua's performance of the commands given to Moses is now re-emphasized, together with his comparable standing in Israel (w. 10—14). m heralding the accomplishment of the crossing this passage echoes the signal given of Joshua's importance at its beginning (3:7-8). The two passages mark out the key players in the whole action, namely Joshua (the bearer of God's commands), the priests (guardians of his holiness), and the people, constituted as an army (4:13). The numbers of warriors here are small by
According to MT, the circumcision was necessary because the wilderness generation had not been circumcised (w. 4—7), though it is not clear why this was so. (Against MT, LXX adds that some Israelites who came out of Egypt had not been circumcised; but this is unlikely to be a better tradition.) God's decree banning the Sinai generation from seeing the land of Canaan is prominent here (w. 4, 6; cf. Num 14:22—3; Deut 1:34-40). The point is that as that generation had been unfit to
163 JOSHUA
go into the land, this generation will be fit. The circumcision of adult males would therefore have been a necessary precaution. The term 'a second time' shows, however, that Joshua did not initiate the practice in Israel.
65-7; Rang 1989: 38-40). When armies went to war, it was a war of the god against the god(s) of the enemy.
Against this background, YHWH asserts that the battle against the Canaanites is his. (His unexpected 'No!', v. 14— not 'Neither', NRSV—presumably denies only that he is on the side of the enemies.) But the incident also serves to grant to Joshua a direct experience of God, like that of Moses, at the beginning of the real test of his leadership.
The first section of the passage ends with an aetiology of the name of Gilgal. In the phrase T have rolled away from you the disgrace of Egypt' the verb closely resembles the name Gilgal. The explanation is of a sort that is frequent in the OT, not a scientific etymology, but rather a paronomasia designed to bring out a connection between word and event (cf. the renaming of Jacob 'Israel', Gen 32:27—8). Gilgal thus becomes a necessary stage, theologically speaking, in the progress to the land, the place where the people were made fit to possess their inheritance. The 'disgrace' of Egypt cannot refer to the mere fact of uncircumcision (though Gen 34:14 might suggest so), for the people were circumcised there (v. 5). The reference is probably to the social disgrace of servitude; the entry to the land will mean freedom, and a realization of who Israel properly is.
The story of the attack on Jericho raises a tricky historical question. Early excavators discovered a section of collapsed wall, which they thought was evidence for our narrative (Garstang 1931). Later work revealed, however, that the wall was earlier, from the Early Bronze Age (late third millennium; Kenyon 1979). The town was briefly reoccupied in the Middle Bronze Age. Thereafter the evidence for settlement is slight, apparently because of erosion of the mud-brick defences. There is, therefore, no clear evidence of the Israelite attack
(mid-thirteenth century).
The commissioning scene (5:13—15) passes directly to the attack. There is a pregnant pause (v. i), which recalls the fear in the city (2:24). The note that the city was 'shut up inside and out' presents a challenge, though it may also recall ironically the easy entry and egress achieved by the spies, and that even now there is a fifth column within.
Gilgal then becomes the place of the first Passover held in the land (w. 10-12)—the second event preparatory to taking possession. The allusion to Jericho (v. 10) has ominous overtones for the Canaanite population. While the correct date is given for the Passover, the cultic rituals are not spelt out in detail (there is no account of the Feast of Unleavened Bread that followed Passover for seven days, Lev 23:5—6; and the language, especially the combination 'unleavened cakes and parched grain', does not suggest the P source). Rather, the Passover is here associated with the ceasing of the manna (cf. Ex 16) and the eating of the produce of land. Yet the 'unleavened cakes' also recall the 'unleavened bread' which had been the food of hasty flight from Egypt
The preparations for the attack (w. 2-7) continue the religious note struck in the crossing of the Jordan. The armed men precede the priests, who blow trumpets as they in turn precede the ark. The ark itself symbolizes Israel's Holy War (cf. i Sam 4:1-3), and is therefore likely to be original to the narrative (against Noth 1953: 41—2; Fritz 1994: 75—6, who assign ark and priests to secondary Deuteronomistic additions). A'rearguard' (v. 13), not otherwise specified, completes the procession that marches round the city. The marching round the city is not a military manoeuvre in the proper sense, though one of the verbs used is reminiscent of the encircling of a city in a siege (Soggin 1972: 86-7). The encirclement actually reported is stylized; the procession of priests and ark, the blowing of trumpets, and finally the great shout of all the people (v. 5), show that the whole procedure is an act of religious obedience and devotion. The lack of military realism, despite the involvement of the 'men of war', stresses that in this primary account of Israel's Holy War the victory is YHWH's. The language of v. 2 (T have given into your hand Jericho, with its king and mighty men of valour') is reminiscent of Deuteronomy's theology of the gift of the land (and of ancient Near-Eastern Holy War language; Rang 1989:130—2). Early victories in the Holy War were recorded there with the triumphs in Transjordan (Deut 2:26-3:11, esp. 2:31). Yet there is a new significance and solemnity about the taking of Jericho, as a 'first fruits' of the conquest of the land proper.
(Ex 12:15-20; Deut 16:3). The eating of it now, along with 'parched grain', is consistent with a people not yet settled; nevertheless, they have already begun to enjoy what they themselves had not planted or laboured over—a sign of the beginning of legitimate possession (Deut 6:10-11). With circumcision and Passover, the cessation of manna and the bounty of the land, a full circle has been turned since the departure from Egypt.
The Taking of the Land (5:13-12:24)
(5:13-6:27) The Fall of Jericho Joshua's encounter with the 'commander of the army of the LORD' close to Jericho proclaims the beginning of the war of conquest. The figure seems to be the same as the 'angel (or messenger) of the LORD', who represents the presence of YHWH himself (cf. Judg 6:14; 13:20-2). The angel's function is sometimes military (Num 22:23; 2 Sam 24:16—17; 2 Kings 19:35); at other times there is a commissioning, as with Gideon (Judg 6:11—12). Both elements are present here. The closest echo of our passage is the appearance of the angel to Moses early in his ministry (Ex 3:2), also clearly a manifestation of God (Ex 3:4—6). The words of the 'commander' here recall God's words on that occasion (v. 5). Joshua evidently knows the angel's military role (v. 13), and also recognizes him as God when he worships him. The idea of Holy War was universal in the ancient Near East, where kings typically believed they were mandated by their gods to undertake campaigns of conquest (Younger 1990:
The repetitiveness of the account of the action itself (w. 8— 21) may be liturgical; the taking of Jericho could have been rehearsed on great religious occasions. Equally, it may simply be a feature of ancient narrative's manner of building towards a climax. The prominence of the number seven is noticeable (seven trumpets, v. 8; days, circuits on the final day, w. 14-15; cf. v. 4). The use of seven (and multiples) in religious texts is a feature not only of the OT (Gen 1:1—2:4; 4:24)> tut also of the ancient world. In the literature of Ugarit epic events often occur in seven-day cycles, with the climax on the seventh day
JOSHUA 164
The narrative of Josh 7—8 combines the story of Achan's offence against the 'devoted things', and the battle report concerning Ai. The two themes are connected. Israel's approach to the heartland will proceed via the Valley of Achor, an important route from the Jordan valley into the central ridge, and later part of the northern boundary of Judah (Josh 15:7). Progress is temporarily halted, however, by Achan's sin. The name 'Achor' is explained by association with 'Achan'
(IDE iii. 564). The literary and theological character of the account means that no firm answer can be given to the question as to what actually happened. Yet it is by no means impossible that an actual event, remarkable in some way, might have come to be memorialized in this particular way.
The theology of the herem, or 'ban', is at the centre of the narrative, and of the Holy War. (The notion was known also outside Israel; King Mesha of Moab boasts of having laid Israelites under the herem, on the mid-ninth century Moabite Stone; see Rang 1989: 80—4). The implications of it are spelt out in w. 17, 21 (cf Deut 20:16—18 for the law). All living creatures are to be put to death, and all the city's wealth is to be devoted to God by being placed in the 'treasury of the LORD'
(7:26). The name Achan is sometimes remembered as 'Achar' (i Chr 2:7, and regularly in LXX), the letters 'r' and 'n' being easily confused in Hebrew.
The immediate sequel to the triumphant demolition of Jericho is a reverse (7:1). It now emerges that the Israelites' respect for the ban on Jericho was not complete. The word 'break faith' indicates rebellion against God, meriting severe punishment (cf. i Chr 10:13-14). And the whole people is affected by the sin of one person.
(that is, in any sanctuary of YHWH). The rationale derives from 'holiness' ideas; in animal sacrifice, the animal is regarded as having become 'holy' in a technical sense. Similarly, the slaughter of a city's population in Holy War is a kind of sacrifice to God. Further, since it is seen in this way, it is not optional but an absolute obligation. Transgression in this area could rebound on the transgressor, and indeed the whole people (v. 18).
Joshua now sends spies into the interior (7:2—9), recalling both the first intelligence mission that he had authorized (2:1), and the still earlier one sent by Moses (Num 13-14; Deut i). The message of these spies contrasts starkly with that of Moses' fearful spies (Deut 1:28). In that case, initial fear gave way to a false confidence which resulted in ignominious defeat (Deut 1:41-5); here there is false confidence (as it transpires) in the first place, with similar results. In both cases the people's hearts 'melt' (Deut 1:28; Josh 7:5) at the apparent invincibility of the enemy. And there as here Israel's advance is halted as YHWH withdraws his presence from them (Deut 1:42; Josh 7:12). Ironically, Israel's fear here also directly reverses the fear (once again the 'melting hearts') already felt by the Amorites before their own advance (5:1).
The OT's justification of the herem is in terms, first, of God's judgement on the sin of the peoples thus condemned (Deut 9:5), and second, as a measure for preserving the purity of Israel (Deut 20:18). This is subordinate, in the wider biblical picture, to the project of bringing salvation to the nations (Ex 19:5—6). For modern readers the positive theology in such ideas is hard to discern. Perhaps it may be attempted in terms of God's holiness, consistency, and loyalty.
Modern sensitivities aside, there are further strictly theological problems. First, the picture given here represents the extreme of the tendency to exclusivism in the OT The OT ultimately keeps in view the purpose of salvation for all the nations (Isa 40:5; 42:6; Jonah), and even sees the election of Israel as a means to that end (Gen 12:1—3; ^x I9:5~^)- Election as an end in itself becomes monstrous. Our present text is part of an inner biblical dialogue in which the salvation of all nations is balanced by a concern for the preservation and purity of the chosen people. Second, the idea of the herem can lead to the prevailing of the 'holy' over the ethical, a dilemma which the OT seeks to avoid by entering a justification in terms of God's judgement on evil (Deut 9:5).
The numbers involved in the first attack (2,000-3,000) are much less than in the second (8:3). Ai is no mean city (the number of its citizens who fall in the final battle are 12,000; 8:25). Israel has to learn again not to take this enemy for granted; God must be among them or they cannot succeed. When that is in place numbers are not the main factor.
Joshua now assumes the Mosaic role of intercessor (w. 6— 9). When he prays together with the 'elders of Israel', it is Israel as a whole that cries to YHWH in this crisis. Joshua's wish that they had remained on the far side of the Jordan seems to run counter to God's declared intent (Ex 17:3). Yet the prayer finishes with an appeal to God to glorify his 'name', that is to establish his reputation, by finishing the task he had begun.
The story concludes with the notes about the sparing of Rahab and her family (w. 22-5), according to the commitment made in ch. 2. It is laid to rest in Joshua's curse of the city (v. 26, grimly echoed in i Kings 16:34), with its hint that, in the story's own terms, the command to destroy has been somewhat compromised. That suggestion will be taken up again in the narrative.
YHWH's reply to Joshua (7:10—15) is the theological centre of the passage. The problem, known to the reader since w. i— 2, but not yet to Joshua, is now revealed. Israel, having been unfaithful in respect of the ban, has become subject to the ban itself. The sin against the ban is a breach of the covenant (v. n). As at previous times, the very continuance of the life of Israel with God is at stake. The call to 'sanctify' the people means to make them ritually ready for a solemn encounter with God (cf. Ex 19:10). God now prescribes the harsh penalty for infringement of the ban (w. 13—15). The theology of the ban implies a division within all of reality between the holy and the profane (meaning common, or normal). The holy sphere may be described as that which belongs entirely to God. The distinction is symbolized in the geography of temple and tabernacle, which portrays a stepped progression from the profane sphere
(7:1—26) Achan's Sin Against the 'Devoted Things' After Jericho, Joshua now turns his attention to Ai (literally 'the heap') a city near Bethel in the central mountain ridge, giving an important foothold in the heartland, yet at this stage avoiding one of the toughest strongholds, Jerusalem. The reference to Beth-aven (v. 2) is obscure. Lacking in LXX, it is a contemptuous corruption (lit. house of iniquity). It is elsewhere used of Bethel (Hos 4:15; 5:8), but not in Joshua (cf. Josh 18:12). Some see it as referring here to Ai itself (with apparent support from a minority Gk text). But it may be a third site in the vicinity.
165 JOSHUA
of Bethel along with Ai in v. 17. The narrative really relates the defeat of the more important Bethel. This theory has to assume that Ai has been virtually substituted for Bethel throughout, to explain how this mere outpost could have a 'king' (8:1). A more radical suggestion, based on the topographical data of w. 9—11, is that Et-Tell is not Ai, an option which entails an alternative siting of Bethel too (Livingston 1970; but against this, Rainey 1971). YHWH now commissions the taking of Ai (8:1—2), in contrast to ch. 7, where Joshua acted on his own initiative. The words of encouragement, 'Do not fear or be dismayed', recall Deut 1:21, where they also preface a new phase in the story of the conquest. The ban is reiterated for Ai, as for Jericho, except that the people may on this occasion take plunder.
(outside the sanctuary) to the holy of holies itself. Rituals from the consecration of priests to the act of sacrifice are conceived as a transfer from the profane sphere to the holy. The sin of Achan consists not merely in having stolen the goods, but in having illegitimately transferred them from the holy realm to the profane. This is not only a kind of robbery of God, but also a contamination (in a technical sense) of the profane realm. This is what makes the offence so serious; the penalty for the infringement of holiness conventions or regulations was death (cf Num 16). And the culprit must be found because otherwise the guilt of the offence would fall on all Israel.
The method of discovering the guilty party is important. The division of Israel into tribes, clans, households gives a glimpse of its pre-monarchical constitution (see Wright 1992). The identification of the culprit was probably made by sacred lot (cf. i Sam 10:20-1). Its use here may function to preserve unity among the tribes in a judicial action which must lay the blame at the door of one (Wilson 1983), as well as to establish that the procedure is God's.
The strategem of pretended flight was well-known to the ancient world (see Fritz 1994: 90 for examples and cf. Judg 20:36-8). Here, the mimicry of the first defeat is an added narrative factor (v. 6, cf. 7:4—5). The garrison having been tricked into leaving the city, a second unit set in ambush would come in from the west and destroy it. Though the initiative is God's (w. 1-2), Joshua's resourceful leadership also comes into play. Numbers are now commensurate with the task (v. 3). (On the numbers themselves, see on 4:13.)
The remaining narrative (7:16-26) tells how the divine command was carried out. The execution of Achan's family along with him is one of the most shocking incidents in the book. The narrative may suppose that they were actually implicated in the sin, but it must be admitted that there is no hint of that. The logic of the judgement may be, not that they were deemed guilty by association, but that they had had contact with the holy things. It is thus comprehensible within the world-view that is represented in the text, though alien and even outrageous within a modern world-view.
The forces move into place (w. 10-17). Th£ Israelites take up a position to the north of the city (v. 13). Their general direction of approach, however, is from the east, the 'Arabah' (v. 14), or Jordan valley, with Gilgal and Jericho. The ambush to the west is thus from the opposite direction. Bethel lies a little further west again. The possible exposure of the ambush to Bethel gives some support to the view that the peoples of Ai and Bethel are in reality one here, as does the remark in v. 17.
The whole action takes place at God's initiative and 'before' him (v. 23). The narrative illuminates some of the central concepts of the account of the conquest. The war on Canaan is a Holy War, conducted by YHWH himself; the people, in covenant with him, are holy, in the sense of belonging specially to him; this is the root of the solidarity of Israel that plays a role here. Overcoming God's enemies means uncompromising loyalty to him. The call to probity before God, and the solemnity of commitment, is echoed in the NT too (Acts 5:1-11).
God's command to stretch out the sword towards Ai (v. 18) recalls the staff that Moses held out, also at God's command, atthe crossing ofthe Reed Sea (Ex 14:16, 21). Joshua holds out the sword until the battle is won (v. 26). The relative strength ofthe two armies is not an issue. For when the forces of Bethel and Ai see their city in flames they have no more power even to flee (v. 20; 'power' is literally 'hands', in contrast to the 'hand' of Joshua, mentioned four times in w. 18—19).
As in Jericho, the population ofthe city is not spared. The stipulations of the ban in this case are carried out, and the livestock and wealth taken as plunder. Two memorials ofthe victory are left behind: the pile of rubble that was the city; and a second heap of stones, where the body ofthe king of Ai was thrown at its entrance (w. 28-9). As at Jericho, it is not only an army but a king who is defeated.
(8:1—29) The Fall of Ai The action in this chapter follows both from Josh 6, the taking of Jericho, and Josh 7, in which the defeat of Ai was delayed. Now that the problem reported in ch. 7 has been resolved, God is with his people again in their conquest of the land. Ai is thus next after Jericho, and like it, will fall to the Israelites (v. 2). The narrative is a battle account, told with unusual military and topographical detail.
The history and geography of this incident are complicated. In the narrative, Ai is located by reference to Bethel (cf. above, 7:2). Bethel is almost universally identified with modern Beitin, a few miles north of Jerusalem in the central ridge. That being so, the site of Ai must be a place called Et-Tell (meaning, like Ai, 'heap' or 'ruin'), the ruined remains of a once substantial city. Et-Tell, however, shows no sign of having been occupied between the late third millennium and the eleventh century, when there is evidence of Israelite occupation. In other words Et-Tell seems not to have been a living city at the time of the conquest.
(8:30—5) Ceremony at Mt. Gerizim The taking of Ai, and the implied defeat of Bethel as well, marks an important point in the conquest, as the ceremony that is now described makes clear. Deuteronomy had provided that, 'on the day that you cross over the Jordan', the people should setup large stones on Mt. Ebal, cover them with plaster, and write 'all the words of this law' on them (for the erection of stones in solemn rituals, see Koopmans 1990:404-5). In addition they were to erect an altar for sacrifice (Deut 27:2—8), and solemnly accept the terms ofthe covenant (Deut 27:11—26).
There are some differences between that passage and this. While Deuteronomy requires two separate kinds of construction (stone stelae for writing and an altar for sacrifice), Joshua
One proposed solution is that Ai, though uninhabited, was a military outpost of Bethel. This is supported by the mention
JOSHUA 166
sense they are like the king of Moab, Balak, who had tried to employ magic against Israel on its approach to the land
makes no such distinction. Here, the ceremony involves a reading of the law, with its blessings and curses; Deuteronomy had recorded only a proclamation of curses. Even so, our narrative sees itself as the fulfilment of that one (w. 30-1).
(Num 22).
The theological heart of the present passage is in w. 14-15. The 'leaders' (v. 14), or 'leaders of the congregation' (v. 18) are presumably the elders and judges who represent Israel, as the people of YHWH, in an official way. They conclude the treaty, eating the Gibeonites' bread. Joshua then makes peace with them (the narrative excludes him from the treaty-making, perhaps to show that he was not implicated in the duping of Israel). In the narrator's view, the treaty was not according to the will of YHWH, and Israel was tricked because they did not consult him. Once again, Israel's fortunes decline rapidly after a triumph.
The 'words of the law' are probably the Deuteronomic law, the basis of the ceremony on Mts. Ebal and Gerizim, near ancient Shechem. If the 'book of the law' was first made the rule for Joshua himself as he led Israel into the land (1:7-8), it now becomes so for the whole people, in anticipation of the fuller covenant renewal ceremony at Shechem reported at the end of the book (Josh 24).
This narrative does not sit naturally, chronologically or geographically, within the account of the conquest. Shechem lies well to the north of Bethel and Ai, and the subjugation of the whole land has not yet been related. Furthermore, a report of the covenant renewal at Shechem comes appropriately at the end of the book (Josh 24). The present passage has been put here, however, for a theological purpose. Following the setback at Ai, it shows first, that the people are now committed to proceeding in obedience to God; and second, that a decisive point has been reached; there will be no stopping till the land has been taken.
When the truth is out, the issue is whether Israel should go ahead and implement the ban (w. 16-21), or stand rather by the oath. The answer is that the oath must stand, in accordance with treaty practice. However, the Gibeonites are consigned to servitude, to mark their deceit.
The final paragraph (w. 22-7) expands the sentence reported in v. 21, with a dialogue between Joshua and the Gibeonites, in which he pronounces them 'cursed', and they accept his right to decide their fate. The curse properly belongs to a situation in which a treaty has been violated, and is therefore unexpected here. The thought is probably that the deceit used by the Gibeonites is itself a violation of trust.
One further point is important, namely the inclusion of the 'aliens' among the Israelites as full members of the community (v. 33). Deuteronomy provided liberally for non-Israelites who lived among the people (Deut 14:28—9), and the religious community was in principle open to them (Deut 23:7—8). This picture is consistent with that. (9:1-27) Covenant with Gibeon The first two verses prepare for the battles ahead. An alliance by some of the Canaanite kings begins to form. The geographical limits and the names of the peoples are familiar from Deuteronomic description (Deut 1:7; 7:1; Josh 3:10—see on that passage; the Girgashites are missing here). What the kings 'hear' is presumably a report of the successes of Israel at Jericho and Bethel/Ai.
The servitude imposed on the Gibeonites is now specified as service of the 'place that he [YHWH] should choose', that is, the main worship sanctuary of Israel. The term occurs in Deuteronomy in a number of forms (Deut 12:5, 14, and frequently in Deut 12—26; see DEUT 12:1—5). ^ is often taken in the critical literature to refer cryptically to Jerusalem, a device to maintain the Mosaic guise (Clements 1989: 28). However, the phrase is connected with Shiloh in Jer 7:12, a central sanctuary for Israel before Jerusalem (i Sam 1—3). And here it could refer to Gibeon itself, the great 'high place' at which Solomon would worship before building the temple (i Kings 3:4; Chronicles goes further and locates the tent of meeting there at the time; 2 Chr 1:3).
First, however, there is an extraordinary incident, and a fresh setback. Gibeon lay to the south of Bethel and Ai, a little to the north of Jerusalem. The Israelite camp is still at Gilgal
(v. 6), near Jericho. (This reinforces the chronological point made above; the Israelites have not yet marched north.) The Gibeonites were Hivites, one of the native peoples (Deut 7:1; see 'Hivites', ABDii. 234). They too 'hear' what Israel has done (9:3), fear for their lives, and decide to pretend that they are not indigenous to the land, but foreign travellers. They approach Joshua and 'a man of Israel' (a way of referring to the Israelite army, Judg 7:23). In asking for a treaty (v. 6) they are aware that Israel's Holy War rules out such a treaty with the local population. (For treaties, see Mendenhall and Herion, 'Covenant', ABD i, 1179-202.)
The story of the treaty with the Gibeonites echoes an actual early encounter of Israel in Canaan. When the Gibeonite covenant reappears in the OT, in the traditions about Saul, it is as a fact already well established. Saul, it seems, broke the covenant with the Gibeonites, perhaps to extend his territory in Benjamin, and suffered the consequences of a famine in Israel (2 Sam 21). The 'curse' of Joshua's covenant thus rebounded on Israel for its failure to keep its terms. (10:1-43) Defeat of the Southern Alliance The submission of Gibeon has a devastating effect on the region (w. 1-15). It now transpires that Gibeon is a relatively powerful city, 'like one of the royal cities' (v. 2). This means that it was a significant citystate, though it may imply that it did not have a king. (Strikingly, no king is mentioned in Josh 9, in a narrative which otherwise regularly focuses on the non-Israelite kings.) The power of Gibeon here seems at odds with its weakness in Josh 9 (Soggin 1972: 121). Yet Josh 9 need only imply that Gibeon perceived Israel to be very strong. And the war that is now declared on Gibeon by neighbouring states may in any case suggest uneasy relations between them, which might have
The prohibition of treaty-making with the population of Canaan is the theological rationale of the episode, spelt out in Deut 7:1—5, and echoed by Joshua here (v. 7; Mayes 1985). Treaties, or covenants (the word is berit, the same that is used for God's covenant with Israel, Ex 24:7) were a universal means of establishing relationships among peoples in the ancient Near East (see JOSH 24). The Gibeonites here seek an inferior, vassal status as the price of survival. Their knowledge of Israel's successes extends back to Egypt, and includes the victories in Transjordan (w. 9—10). In this
167 JOSHUA
overlooking the coastal plain west of Jerusalem, and not finally taken until the time of Solomon (i Kings 9:16; cf. Josh 16:10). Debir lay south of Hebron. Its name, incidentally, was attributed to the king of Eglon at first (w. 3), and may bespeak a transference in the course of the narrative's transmission.
contributed to Gibeon's seeking alliance with Israel. Under that alliance, Gibeon can now turn to Israel for help (v. 6).
The chain effect of Joshua's conquest continues when, in the style of preceding accounts, the king of Jerusalem 'heard' about both Ai and Gibeon (v. i). Suddenly Joshua is playing for control of the whole southern region of Canaan. The king of Jerusalem, Adoni-zedek, is called Adoni-bezek by LXX, as in Judg 1:5-7 (^e confusion has led some to suppose the tradition about both is unhistorical (Auld 1975: 268-9) )• He initiates an alliance of city-states against Gibeon, to maintain control of the region. The cities involved are located across the southern highlands (cf 12:10-13). Jerusalem occupies an important position on the central ridge, between south and north. The other cities were further south, in the heart of what would be Judah. Lachish was a major city-state in Joshua's time (now illuminated by the reliefs of Sennacherib's siege in the British Museum). Hebron, south-east of Lachish, was known to the patriarchs as Kiriath-arba. We are less well informed about the others; there is nevertheless an authenticity about the kind of political response narrated here.
The unity of Joshua's victories in the land to date has been conveyed by various rhetorical and literary means, for example, by the catchword of 'hearing' (10:1), and by making Jericho and Ai paradigms of subsequent victories. In this section there is a reappearance of the herem, or ban (w. 28, 35, 37, 40). The narrative ends with a summary statement of Joshua's control of the entire southern part of the land. Kadesh-barnea is important because it recalls the startingpoint of the journey of conquest (Deut 1:2; 2:14). Gaza takes in the coastal area of the Philistines, even though there is no report of victories there. Goshen is probably an area in the southern reaches of the Negeb (not the Goshen of Joseph's Egypt (Gen 45:10)). The geographical perspective here is the ideal one that pictures a total conquest of the land in a series of swift campaigns by Joshua himself.
Joshua marches again from Gilgal. The battle report stresses the hand of God in the defeat of these powerful enemies, the hailstones from heaven proving more devastating than the Israelite forces. The famous staying of the sun and moon (meaning simply that the day was lengthened) showed that it was YHWH, not Joshua, who defeated the kings; and he controlled not only Israel but even the heavenly bodies. The latter miracle poses a bigger problem to the imagination, perhaps, than the hailstones, though neither can be conceived in a strictly literal way. The two belong in the same category. The day was remembered in Israel as especially remarkable, the victory having been attended by strange natural phenomena, which are attributed to YHWH's power.
(11:1-23) Defeat of the Northern Alliance There is no account of a march north by Joshua and Israel, and no specific military or strategic plan is explained. It is simply assumed that Joshua's task is the conquest of the whole land of Palestine, the 'promised land' of Pentateuchal narrative. The narrative of the northern campaign begins with the familiar formula, 'when x heard'—here Jabin, king of Hazor. Here again, an alliance forms around a leading power, and the campaign runs a similar course.
The centre of the new threat is Hazor (w. 1-9). The partly excavated tell shows that Hazor was by far the largest city of Joshua's day, perhaps ten times larger than Jerusalem, with as many as 40,000 inhabitants. Known from the Amarna letters and other texts, it is a historically plausible leader of an alliance against an incomer that threatened its interests in the area. Furthermore, archaeology shows that this great city was destroyed in the thirteenth century BCE, not to be rebuilt as a fortified city till the days of Solomon (i Kings 9:15), though there was some settlement in the interim.
The first general account of the battle had reported that Israel pursued the fleeing armies of the alliance into their territory, 'as far as Azekah and Makkedah' (v. 10). Azekah lies on the route from Jerusalem to Lachish; Makkedah has not been identified. There is now a further report (w. 16—27), that tells how Joshua captured the five kings and held them until their armies were thoroughly defeated and only a number of survivors had regained their cities (v. 20). (The passage has been thought originally to be independent of w. 1—15, an aetiology based on five trees, and a separate story about the caves (Noth 1971: i. 282-3). It is now> in an7 case» well integrated with the preceding.) The five kings are made subject to a demonstration of Joshua's victory (v. 24), and executed and exposed, recalling the fate of the king of Ai (8:29). Memorial stones are again erected to mark the triumph. Joshua's words of encouragement to the troops (v. 25) recall God's words to Joshua at the beginning of the campaign (1:6).
The other cities of the alliance may be identified with various sites in the region between the Sea of Galilee (Chinneroth) and the Mediterranean. The size of the region depends on identifications. The 'Arabah south of Chinneroth' (v. 2) may mean the Jordan valley south of the Sea of Galilee, which would imply a very large area for the alliance, but the phrase has also been taken to denote some more restricted area east or west of the Sea. The peoples involved are mixed (v. 3), but the names are familiar from the formulaic designation of the Canaanites in Deuteronomy 7:1 and elsewhere. The Jebusites are normally associated with Jerusalem.
The last stage in the campaign (w. 28-43) is the destruction of the cities from which the alliance had come, now defended only by the stragglers from the battlefield. The passage thus records the completeness of the victory. The towns taken here do not correspond exactly to the towns that formed the original alliance. Jerusalem is omitted, in keeping with the picture given in Joshua and Judges that it was not subjugated by Joshua (Josh 15:63). Jarmuth is omitted too. Libnah, Gezer, and Debir are the new entrants. Gezer was an important city
The name of Jabin is associated with a defeat of Hazor also in Judg 4—5, where it is sometimes considered secondary (Soggin 1972: 136). Alternatively the name is dynastic. In the latter case, some revival in Hazor's fortunes in the period after Joshua is implied.
Battle is joined at Merom (v. 7). This may be identical with the Madon of v. i (both are 'Marron' in LXX), and is probably near Hazor. LXX also adds 'from the mountain' in v. 7, giving a
JOSHUA 168
essentially complete. The phrase 'the land had rest from war' is the ideal perspective on events that dominates this part of the book. It recalls Deut 12:10, which anticipates the blessed life of Israel in the land after all wars are won.
picture of an ambush by a people that would become naturalized in the hills, while the Canaanites would hold to the plains. The rout extends to the Mediterranean far to the north at Sidon, and returns south-eastwards past Lake Huleh (now a fertile plain) towards Hazor itself. It is a mighty sweep as far as 'Lebanon and... to the Western Sea', to borrow part of Deuteronomy's classical description of the extent of the land. Victory is complete.
(12:1—24) Tne Subduing of the Whole Land In closing the account of the conquest, this chapter reverts again (w. i—6) to the victories in Transjordan, already recalled in Josh 1:12-15
(cf. Num 21; Deut 2—3). This accords with the Deuteronomic view that the promised land includes territory in Transjordan and Cisjordan, the ban having been applied there first (Deut 2:34; 3:6). The promised land began, therefore, at the river Arnon, running from the east into the Dead Sea, and forming the northern boundary of Moab; and it extended on the east side of Jordan as far north as Mt. Hermon.
The hamstringing of the Canaanites' horses and the burning of their chariots incapacitates them at the point of their natural advantage over the Israelites (v. 9). This is done in fulfilment of YHWH's command, a vital element in the narrative of Joshua's success. Command and fulfilment are closely related here (w. 6, 9).
Hazor itself is now put to the ban (w. 10—15); its king is executed, and the city burned. The other towns are also destroyed, but not burned, an authentic note in an account that otherwise stresses the total extirpation of the enemy. As at Ai the booty is excepted from the ban (v. 14), a further exception to the law of Deut 20:16, though the terms of that law are borrowed here (as elsewhere in our account) in the phrase 'all who breathed'. Here as in the case of Jericho the report of the total destruction of human life reflects the 'ideal' perspective of a pure Israel in the land (see JOSH c.i-3). Even so, it is hard to avoid the implication that Hazor was thoroughly razed.
The two principal adversaries in Transjordan were Sihon of Heshbon and Og of Bashan. Sihon's kingdom extended from the Arnon to the next major tributary of Jordan to the north, the Jabbok (where Jacob had wrestled with God; Gen 32:2232), and eastwards to the Ammonites' borderland. Chinneroth is the Sea of Galilee; this implies that Sihon controlled a stretch of the Arabah well to the north of the Jabbok. Og's territory lay to the north and east. His major cities, Ashtaroth and Edrei, lay well to the east of the Sea of Galilee, but his land extended south to the Jabbok. The biblical author's point, however, is that Moses took all the Transjordan from the Arnon to Hermon. He also distributed these kings' lands to the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh
The present paragraph also ends on the note of commandfulfilment (v. 15). The chain of command extends from YHWH through Moses to Joshua. The line from YHWH to Moses appears twice, framing the sentence, the name of Joshua occurring twice in the centre. By this rhetorical means, the author portrays Joshua as the one who acts according to God's word, and who therefore successfully leads Israel into its inheritance.
(cf. Num 32: Deut 2-3).
The next section (w. 7—24) portrays Joshua's conquests as the continuation of the land possession and promise fulfilment that had begun under Moses. Baal-gad and Mt. Halak are the northern and southern extremes of the land, as in 11:17. The parts of the land, and the peoples in it, are recorded here as on other occasions (Deut 1:7; 7:1; Josh 11:16—17), an(^ the theme of land distribution is continued.
The summary paragraph (w. 16—20) records the full extent of the land now under Israelite control, from south to north. Mt. Halak is on the borderland of Edom (Seir) in the far southeast; Baal-gad is in the shadow of Mt. Hermon. The defeat of all the kings of the land is stressed by means of a repetition (w. 17-18). The exception of Gibeon is recalled, perhaps as a blemish on the record. And the rationale is given: God 'hardened their hearts' against Israel, so that they might be utterly destroyed (the term refers again to the ban). The language is similar to that which is used of Pharaoh in the great confrontation between that king and Moses (Ex 7:13; and esp. 10:20, where, as here, it is YHWH who does the hardening). The phraseology does not mean that the enemies were helpless puppets; rather, it is designed to show their determination to oppose the will of God. The parallel between Pharaoh and the kings of Canaan is no doubt purposefully drawn. God took Israel from one situation to the other, overcoming powerful opposition, both political and moral.
The list of cities (w. 9-24) roughly follows the progress of the conquest as reported in Joshua: Jericho and Ai come first, then the southern alliance under Jerusalem, and the northern, under Hazor. Some of the names mentioned here are new: Geder, Hormah, Arad, Adullam, Tappuah, Hepher, Aphek, Lasharon, Taanach, Megiddo, Kedesh, Jokneam, Tirzah. This suggests that the list was originally independent of Josh i-n. It is doubtful if these towns were all occupied at any one time (Fritz 1994: 136-7). Some of the locations are well-known (e.g. Arad, on the southern borders of Judah, with its temple to YHWH; Megiddo, an important fortress on the north-south route, commanding the entrance to the plain of Esdraelon). Others are less certain. Bethel is unexpected in v. 16, because of its mention in v. 9; it is omitted in LXX, and may not be original here. (Judges records the fall of Bethel to the 'house of Joseph', Judg 1:22-5; mis was
The Anakim (w. 21-3) had inspired fear in Israel at the first, and deterred timid Israel from proceeding to inherit their land (Num 13:28; Deut 1:28). The ease of this victory comments on the misplaced fear there, and fulfils the promise of Deut 9:1-3.
'after the death of Joshua', Judg 1:1.) Shechem is a striking omission.
The list represents a spread from north to south, and epitomizes the completeness of Joshua's success. The recurrence of the 'kings' is significant. Again, it is not only geography that interests our writer, but the character of the enemy. YHWH empowers Joshua, who is not a king, to overcome the kings of Canaan.
The allocation of land according to tribes, though it belongs properly to the next major section of the book, is intimated here, to reinforce the message that the mission of Joshua is
169 JOSHUA
The possibility of non-possession is hinted at afresh, in the notice about Israel's failure to drive out the inhabitants of Geshur and Maacath (v. 13), an area in the far north, below Hermon. This will become a kind of motif in chapters to come, and will present the other side of the picture of conquest, namely of failure to conquer entirely (see Mitchell
Dividing the Land (13:1-21:45)
(13:1^7) The Command to Allot the Land Following the conquest narrative, the next major section concerns the allocation of territory to the tribes. Noth thought that this section derived from a second Deuteronomistic author, citing 13:1 as a secondary anticipation of 23:1 (Noth 1953: 10), designed to introduce the long insertion (13:1-21:42). Both conquest and land division belong within the Deuteronomic concept, however, and the appeal to a second source is not necessary (Wenham 1971). The command to Joshua (v. i) is at first surprising, in view of the summary statements of complete conquest that we have just read (11:23). Th£ same tension, between the conquest as accomplished and as not yet accomplished, is found in w. 67. But there is a counterpoint of real and ideal in Joshua. Its author, like that of Deuteronomy, knows that possessing and not possessing are always twin possibilities. These commands to Joshua resemble other challenges to Israel in the book, which promise and warn at the same time (23:16; 24).
1993)- Finally, though Moses and Joshua distribute the land, it remains an 'inheritance', and its ultimate giver is God. While Joshua succeeds Moses, neither figure acts like a dynastic king (against Nelson 1981; see Schafer-Lichtenberger 1995: 219-24). Joshua has no successor. In this respect Israel is unlike the kings of the ancient Near East, whose prerogative was the land grant.
(14:1—15) Caleb's Inheritance The allocation of the land in Cisjordan by Joshua together with Eleazar the priest and tribal chiefs (w. 1—5) continues directly from Num 26, where Moses and Eleazar had taken a census of the people precisely for this distribution (Num 26:1—4, 52~6; cf Num 32:28). The use of the sacred lot was commanded in Num 26:55. Th£ explanation of Levi's exclusion from land inheritance, and the dividing of Joseph, supplies the lack of such an explanation in Num 26.
The centre of w. 1—7 outlines land not yet won. It covers three areas: the Philistine lands from the border with Egypt
(the Shihor is probably a branch of the Nile's eastern delta) to the five Philistine cities in the coastal plain above it (v. 3); the Phoenician coast (v. 4), and the mountains of Lebanon
The grant of land to Caleb (w. 6—15) is a special case. Caleb had dissented from the first spies' timid report (Num 13:30—3), as had Joshua, according to another text (Num 32:12). For his faithfulness he was promised a possession of his own (Num 14:24; Deut 1:36), and this is now fulfilled in the area of Hebron, which Caleb requests (v. 12). Hebron is in the south of the territory shortly to be allocated to Caleb's tribe of Judah. Caleb's speech emphasizes his vigour into old age, like Moses (Deut 34:7). This also is part of the promise to him (Num 26:65). mhis trust in YHWH,he is not even dismayed by the Anakim, the giants who had terrified Israel at first (v. 12; cf. Num 13:22, 28, 32-3). And the next chapter records his conquest of the city (15:13—14).
(w. 5—6). The exact limits are not clear (e.g. Aphek could be a location close to the Philistine lands, or another in Galilee). Nor is it obvious how these areas relate to the conquests already described (cf 11:8), or to the total area of Joshua's activity, which apparently does not include Lebanon. They are, however, part of Deuteronomy's ideal extent of the land (Deut 1:7), and as such, unfinished business. Joshua's task is to divide the land in Cisjordan (v. 7), the Transjordanian land having already been distributed.
Theologically, this passage establishes that it is YHWH who will now divide the land. Joshua may die, but YHWH will still give the land.
Hebron plays a distinctive role from the beginnings of Israel until long after the conquest. Sarah died and and was buried there (Gen 23:1-7); its ancient name Kiriath-arba (lit. city of four) has been interpreted variously (four cities? clans?). In our passage (v. 15) Arba is the name of one of the Anakim. A story about David's time also links Caleb to the area, albeit in a crisis (i Sam 30, note v. 14). David will rule at first from there (2 Sam 5:3—5). The city will thus have a strategic importance for Israel as a whole, and Judah in particular.
(13:8—33) The Settling of Transjordan Transjordan now also prefaces the section about the distribution of land. The lists of cities have a more abbreviated parallel in Num 32:34-8. But the extended narrative here draws more widely on other material (e.g. with 13:21—2; cf. Num 31:8). And the explanation of the Levites' non-inheritance of territory (w. 14, 33) is based on Deut 18:1.
It was Moses who had conquered in Transjordan (w. 12, 21), and could therefore 'give' it; the expression 'Moses gave' occurs here several times, in connection with the land as 'inheritance' (w. 8, 14-15, 24, 29, 33). Moses continues to 'give' in ch. 14 (w. 3-4, 9, 12), but there it is finally Joshua who 'gives for an inheritance' (v. 13). The narrative concerning Transjordan therefore affirms the unity of Moses' and Joshua's work.
Hebron becomes the first place in Cisjordan to be allocated, and this is Joshua's first such act, in which he assumes completely the mantle of Moses.
(15:1—63) The Territory of Judah The description of Judah's tribal land, the first and longest of such descriptions, consists principally of a definition of its boundaries (w. 1-12), and a list of its cities (w. 20—63), with a further passage on the inheritance of Caleb (w. 13—19). (For treatments of Judah's boundaries, see Alt 1953; and for the boundaries in general, Na'aman 1986.)
It also stresses the unity of all Israel. The twelve tribes have a stake in the land, and inherit in it. The concern to show this explains the repeated assertion that the tribe of Levi did not receive land of its own (w. 14, 33). Their compensation for this is elaborated in Josh 21. The immediate point is clarified, however, in 14:3—4, where it is connected with the division of the large tribe of Joseph into two, Ephraim and Manasseh, thus maintaining the twelvefold character of Israel.
The boundary description (15:1-12) proceeds in the order south, east, north, west. The southern boundary runs from the southern tip of the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean, taking
JOSHUA 170
(16:1—17:18) The Territory of Joseph The tribe of Joseph ranks elsewhere too as next after Judah (cf the relative space devoted to each in Jacob's blessing, Gen 49:8-12, 22-6). As we have seen, Joseph was subdivided into Ephraim and Manasseh (14:4). Together they receive a huge swathe of land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean from just north of the Dead
in the old sanctuary of Kadesh-barnea in the Sinai borderland, and extending to the 'Wadi [or brook] of Egypt', that is the Wadi el-Arish (different from the Shihor, 13:3), which flows into the Mediterranean between Gaza and the Nile Delta. The east is bounded by the Dead Sea. The northern border is the most detailed, representing, no doubt, hard political realities. It is constructed carefully round the southern extremities of the city of Jerusalem (v. 8), pointedly excluding it from Judah. And the western limit is the Mediterranean.
Sea to Mt. Carmel in the north-west (as well as the lands held by the other half of Manasseh inTransjordan). (For the border descriptions that follow see Seebass 1984.)
The southern border (w. 1—3) runs from Jericho (converging there with both Judah and Benjamin) up towards Bethel, along the route followed by Joshua from Jericho to Ai. It borders Benjamin to the south (16:2—3 is paralleled by 18:12— 13), and goes past the important military outpost of Gezer, guarding the entry to the hill country from the plain. Bethel and Luz are remembered as separate places here, whereas they are elsewhere regarded as one (18:13; Judg I:23)-
Although Jerusalem is not counted to Judah here, its presence is felt. The last verse of the chapter (v. 63) notes that Judah could not take it. It is elsewhere assigned to Benjamin (18:28), whose southern border corresponds closely to the northern limit of Judah outlined here (Josh 18:15—19). Alongside this neat picture, however, must be laid Judg 1:8, which records that Judah did indeed take the city! Yet the same chapter notes that the Benjaminites could not drive out the Jebusites, who thus remained alongside them in the land (Judg 1:21). This complex picture suggests that Jerusalem was indeed fought for, perhaps by both tribes, the final outcome being failure. There may in addition have been contention over it between Judah and Benjamin. (Judg 1:8 then either recalls some short-lived triumph there, or belongs to the idealizing perspective found in passages such as Josh 11:23.) In the biblical history, it would be left to David to oust the Jebusites, and then to make a virtue of the city's disputed status by making it his capital over all Israel (2 Sam 5:6-10, cf.v.5).
The boundary of Ephraim (w. 5—10) is most carefully defined in relation to Manasseh on its northern and eastern side (6/7-7). It seems from v. 9 that the relations between them at the borders were complex; perhaps there were disputes between them. The theological comment on Ephraim concerns its failure to take Gezer (v. 10), which was taken at last—and then as a gift of Pharaoh—only by Solomon (i Kings 9:16).
The description of Manasseh's land in Cisjordan is prefaced by a passage about the tribe as a whole (17:1—6). The genealogical information, unusual in the narratives of land distribution, is closely related to Num 26:29-34. It ma7 ^e required because the allocation of land to Manasseh was peculiarly complicated, as indeed the inter-clan relationships may have been. Machir and Gilead appear as the names of tribes in Judg 5 (w. 14, 17). There Machir appears to be west of the Jordan, while Gilead is east. Personal names are hardening into names of geographical regions in that text (see Lemaire 1981). The six clans named are said in Numbers to descend directly from Gilead, Manasseh's grandson, while our passage traces them simply to Manasseh himself. (NRSV's 'tribe of Manasseh', v. 2, is literally 'sons of Manasseh', which need not mean the following generation.) The story of Zelophehad's daughters resumes a line of narrative from Num 27, 36, in which Moses established the right of inheritance for female descendants, in the absence of male ones, to protect family property. Num 36 specified in consequence thatthe daughters should marry within the tribe. The story is now concluded, to show that Moses' provisions were respected, and also to explain the division of territory in Manasseh. The five daughters of Zelophehad, son of Hepher, receive shares along with the five Gileadite clans (in place of Hepher), making 'ten portions' (v. 5). Of the eleven names (six sons of Gilead and five daughters of Zelophehad) six appear on ostraca (potsherds) found at
Caleb, having been granted Hebron, now has to take it in war (w. 13—19). This action of his may be regarded as part of Joshua's, reported in 10:36-7. Caleb becomes a 'distributor' in turn, granting land to his 'brother' (or close relative) Othniel, as well as his daughter Achsah, because of his role in the conquest. Her request for water reflects the realities of life in the drier areas of the land, such as the Negeb, Judah's southern desert. (Othniel later becomes the first 'judge-deliverer' of Israel: Judg 3:8—11.)
The list of cities can be divided into twelve groups (by the repeated phrase 'with their villages'), possibly reflecting a monarchical administrative system (Soggin 1972: 176-80). The cities also fall into four geographical groups: the Negeb
(or 'extreme south', v. 21), the lowlands (the Shephela), between the higher hills and the Mediterranean, v. 33, the hill country, that is the high hills of the central ridge (v. 48), and the wilderness, east of the central ridge towards the Dead Sea
(v. 61). This division has been thought to be military.
The long list shows how extensive and varied Judah was, incorporating both the rich plain and the dry wilderness. The blessing of Jacob associates Judah with viticulture, at home in the terraced slopes of the hill country and lowlands (Gen 49: 11-12). The lands bordering the drier area were more suitable for sheep-rearing than agriculture. Carmel and Maon (v. 55) feature in the story of Nabal, a sheep-farmer who crossed David (2 Sam 25:2).
Samaria, as geographical locations.
Manasseh stretches from Asher (the tribal land to the north of it) to Michmethath, on the border with Ephraim to the south (v. 7, cf. 16:6). Again the description (w. 7—13) shows that borders were not absolute lines, with Ephraimite towns belonging within Manassite land, and Manasseh having towns within the territories of Asher and Issachar. The picture is further complicated by the continuing presence, here too, of Canaanite enclaves (w. 11-12, cf. Judg 1:27-8). The comment
The final verse (v. 63) belongs to the pattern that indicates Israel's partial failure to take the land, and thus to obey God's command, predicated as it is on faith. The note of failure is an important counterpoint to the claims of sweeping victory that we have met in Josh 1-12, especially 11-12.
171 JOSHUA
distribution is reiterated in w. 2—9; and it reappears in 19:51, rounding off this section on land allocation, which is thus bound up carefully with Israel's religious life (Koorevaar 1990: 217-34; 289-91). Allocations have now been made to five tribes: Judah, Ephraim, Manasseh, Reuben, and Gad. The division of Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh compensates for the fact that Levi has no territorial inheritance (18:7; the arithmetic is not affected by the fact that Manasseh falls into two parts, on either side of the Jordan). Seven tribes remain, therefore, to receive land (v. 2).
about forced labour (v. 13) suggests Israelite ascendancy, yet failure in terms of the underlying programme of expulsion.
The request of Joseph (w. 14—18) relates oddly to the distribution already described. It may be out of chronological sequence, in which case the demand for more than one portion may actually have been met in the separate allocation to Manasseh and Ephraim, though this is not said. Joshua accepts the basis of the tribe of Joseph's claim, namely great numbers. His answer—that they should clear the hill country of trees and make it habitable—corresponds to a reality in the history of the hill country, namely agricultural deforestation. And the Joseph tribes may be assumed to have taken him at his word.
The characteristic paradox of Joshua reappears in w. i, 3: the land is 'subdued', yet the people have still to take it. The last stage of the allocation is prefaced by a survey (lit. writing, v. 4), a new feature in the story (and unexpected, but the account need not be supposed to follow a strict chronological order). Joshua continues to control events from Shiloh (v. 4), and provides for the allocation to take place by means of the sacred lot, 'here before the LORD our God' (v. 6, cf. w. 8, 10). This recalls the general requirement in 14:1; only now is the casting of the lot located in Shiloh, however.
Yet there is another undercurrent. Joseph's sense of constriction is related to their inability to confront the Canaanites of the plain, with their iron chariots, the tanks of the day. But Joshua ends on a note of challenge: Joseph must drive them out in spite of their strength. The point thus chimes in with the developing theme of Israel's limited grasp on the land that they have 'conquered'.
Benjamin (w. 11—28) lies between Judah and Ephraim. The description of its northern border (18:12-14) is as f°r
(18:1—19:51) Shiloh, and the Remaining Tribal Territories The allocations for the remaining tribes are now suddenly located at Shiloh, where, we are told, the tent of meeting is set up (18:1). There is other OT evidence that Shiloh was once an important sanctuary for all Israel at some time before the preeminence of Jerusalem. It appears as such in i Sam 1—2 (where it has a 'house of the LORD', 1:24, and the 'tent of meeting', 2:22, as in our text); and it is named as the place of God's choice, following Deut 12, in Jer 7:12. It also features as the central sanctuary for Israel in Josh 22.
Ephraim's southern one (16:1-3), but 1£SS detailed. Its southern boundary, as we have seen, follows closely that of Judah's northern one (18:15—19; cf. 15:8—11). The list of its towns (w. 2i—8) simply includes Jebus (Jerusalem), though it is elsewhere made clear that the city did not fall to Joshua (15:63). It also embraces Gibeon and its satellites (cf. 9:17), making no mention of their special status (Josh 9) or Israel's defence of them against the Jerusalemite alliance (Josh 10). The present concern is description, not conquest, and represents an ideal.
Yet hitherto Gilgal and Shechem have been the important centres for Israel. For this reason, Noth and others saw the 'Shiloh' material here as secondary (Noth 1953: 107—8; Fritz 1994:179—80; but contrast Milgrom 1976). However, there is logic in its positioning here. First, it fits with the flow of the narrative, which has just recorded the allocation of land to the Joseph tribes, in which Shiloh lies. Second, Shiloh is projected here as the central sanctuary for all Israel in a way that Gilgal and Shechem were not. Principally this is because the tent of meeting is set up there. This has been conspicuously absent in the narrative so far (despite a reference to the 'altar of the LORD' and 'the place that he would choose' in Josh 9:27). Yet the introduction of Shiloh at this point is not just incidental. Its centrality is indicated in an artistic way by its placing between the allocations of land to Judah and Joseph on the one hand, and the remaining tribes on the other. This patterning of the narrative extends further: the distribution to Judah and Joseph is preceded by the settling of land on Caleb (14:615), while the remaining distribution is followed by an account of an inheritance for Joshua (19:49—50). The accounts of rewards for the two faithful spies are woven carefully into the whole story of the distribution, which is thus seen to be constructed according to an elaborate pattern. The notice about Shiloh is at the centre of this pattern, suggesting that the erecting of the tent of meeting there is important in the concept of the narrative as a whole. It fulfils the promisecommand that God would be among Israel in the land he was giving them (Lev 26:11—12: T will place my dwelling [tent, tabernacle] in your midst': Deut 12:5). Shiloh's role in the
The territory of Simeon (19:1—9) lay in the semi-arid Negeb, in the far south. Its description consists of a number of towns, some of which also appear in Judah's list (15:21-32). The narrative here locates Simeon within the territory of Judah, without a boundary description. It also provides a rationale for this arrangement (v. 9). In fact the identity of Simeon was lost early in Israel's life, as is clear already in Jacob's blessing (Gen 49:7), where it is paired with Levi, and condemned to be scattered in Israel. It is missing too in the Blessing of Moses (Deut 33) and the Song of Deborah, again perhaps because of its early failure to settle. The Judah list in Josh 15 seems to reflect this, while here in Josh 19 Simeon's separate identity is retained in accordance with the twelvetribe ideal.
The lots now follow for Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali (19:10-38), which form a cluster between the Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean. Proceeding from east to west, Issachar, Zebulun, and Asher have southern borders with Manasseh along the line of the Carmel range and the plain of Esdraelon. Naphtali is to the north of Issachar and Zebulun.
The data for these tribes consist of a mixture of town lists and border descriptions. The name of Mt. Tabor occurs in connection with three of the tribes (w. 12, 22, 34, twice in place-names), distinguishing it as a reference-point in this area. The other important landmark is the Mediterranean. Asher (w. 24-31) lies along the sea-coast from Carmel (at
JOSHUA 172
The instructions regarding cities of refuge (20:1—9) in Num 35:9—28 and Deut 4:41—3; 19:1—10 are now appealed to (v. 2), and what was commanded there is reiterated and put into practice. The requirement is essentially the same in aJJ the texts. The accidental homicide was subject, by virtue of the homicide itself, to a form of justice deriving from famiJiaJ relations in a tribaJ context. The 'avenger of blood' was appointed by the famiJiaJ group to exact bJood for bJood in cases of homicide. The word translated 'avenger' is elsewhere 'redeemer' (Ruth 2:20). The connection is in terms of responsibility for the protection of the family group. The blood vengeance system had no mechanism in itseJf to cope with accidental homicides, as exemplified in Num 35:22—3 and Deut 19:5. The present text, and parallels, permit the killer to escape to designated cities for asyJum.
modern Haifa) as far north as Tyre and Sidon, cities of Phoenicia. KabuJ is known as the pJace where SoJomon made an agreement with King Hiram of Tyre (i Kings 9:10—14).
(BethJehem, v. 15, is obviousJy a pJace in GaJiJee, not the 'city of David' south of JerusaJem. 'Judah on the east of the Jordan' (v. 34)—Jit. 'Judah of the Jordan'—can have nothing to do with the tribaJ territory far to the south.)
The description of Dan (19:40-8) stands apart from the preceding group. AJthough it settJed finaJJy in the extreme north (hence perhaps its incJusion here aJong with the GaJiJee tribes), its originaJ territory was farther south, and that first inheritance is described here. It consists of Jand to the west of Judah, running down to the Mediterranean at Joppa (TeJ-Aviv), and including certain PhiJistine territory (Ekron). It is debatable Jand between Judah and the Philistines, and some of the names here are known from the stories of Samson, who clashed with the Philistines on the edges of the ShepheJah (Jow hills) and their coastaJ areas (cf. Judg 13:2, 25; 14:1). Ir-shemesh is Beth-shemesh in the same region.
One criterion for deciding intentionaJity emerges from three of the texts, nameJy whether there had been previous enmity between the parties (v. 5/7, cf. Deut 19:4/7, Num 35:23/7). The means of determining guiJt or innocence is never clearly speJt out, however. The procedure at the gates of the city of refuge may be no more than formaJ request for sanctuary (v. 4). It is followed by a trial before the fedd, or 'congregation', that is, the whoJe people constituted as a religious assembly
The Danites may never have had a strong foothoJd in this region. It was onJy David who subdued the Philistines. AijaJon and ShaaJbim are mentioned in Judg 1:35 as places where Canaanites (Amorites) continued to Jive, under pressure, admittedly, from 'the house of Joseph'—but not from Dan. Dan's failure is admitted in the narrative, which aJso reports its migration north, to the outer edges of the territory. Its 'conquest' of Leshem is not celebrated as part of Joshua's conquest. It is toJd more fully in Judg 18, where the slaughter of Leshem (Laish) is implicitly criticized (18:27). Th£ final note in the description of the tribaJ inheritances, therefore, is decidedly downbeat. The summary in 19:48 appears to refer to the places that have been enumerated in the originaJ territory (since there is nothing in v. 47 that couJd correspond to 'these towns with their villages'). Dan's 'inheritance', therefore, was not inherited, and the 'complete' conquest is in the end incompJete.
(v. 6; cf. Num 35:12). It may have been represented by judges in the city of refuge, or indeed Levites (as aJJ the cities of refuge are aJso JeviticaJ cities; see beJow). Deuteronomy reserves the right of the eJders of the killer's city, where they beJieve him guiJty, to demand extradition (Deut 19:11-12). It is not cJear how these various procedures relate to each other.
Sanctuary is a common concept in the ancient worJd, often associated with places of worship ('sanctuaries' in that sense). A Jaw of Exodus aJso connects the principle of asyJum with an aJtar (Ex 21:12-14). <-)ur text and its parallels are unique in providing for asyJum cities. These may actually have had sanctuaries, yet it is not likely that the refugee was intended to remain strictly within them. The rationale may be deduced from the implied analogy with the Levites. It is to be afforded a pJace in the Jand where Jife and sustenance are possible. We may surmise that a refugee might be joined there by his immediate family and resume a normaJ Jife.
Joshua's personal inheritance (19:49—50) corresponds, as we saw, to that of CaJeb the other courageous spy (see JOSH 14:6-15). UnJike the case of CaJeb, there is no special preparation for such an allocation. Yet, as we saw (18:1), the two accounts balance each other within the structure of the Jarger narrative of the division of the Jand. There is an equiJibrium too in the fact that CaJeb inherits in (southern) Judah, whiJe Joshua does so in (northern) Ephraim.
The provision that the refugee must stay until the death of the high priest (v. 6b) may be intended to set a time-Jimit on the stalemate produced by a verdict of innocent, a verdict which nevertheless cannot revoke the right of bJood vengeance in principle (Num 35:27^. The asyJum Jaws are often dated to the post-exiJic period on the grounds that the office of high priest is thought to date from that time. The Jaws themselves, however, make best sense in the context of an attempt to impose a unified administration on a diversified justice system, perhaps in the earJy monarchy. And the office of high priest is apparently known in the administrations of David and SoJomon, with Zadok (i Kings 1:38-40). (The PriestJy sections of the OJd Testament trace the beginnings of the office to the desert period, with Aaron, but there is no special evidence to confirm the historicity of this.) It is difficult, moreover, to make sense of the prominence of the TransJordanian cities in the Jaws on the assumption of a post-exiJic setting, or indeed of the residual famiJiaJ Jaw. A compromise is to think of the high priest clause as a post-exiJic addition. (For other views see AuJd 1978; Gertz 1994: 117-57.)