All the Boundaries of the Land: The Promised Land in Biblical Thought in Light of the Ancient Near East 9781575068688

Citation preview

All the Boundaries of the Land

All the Boundaries of the Land The Promised Land in Biblical Thought in Light of the Ancient Near East

Nili Wazana Translated by Liat Qeren

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2013

© Copyright 2013 Eisenbrauns All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Wazana, Nili, author. [Kol gevulot arets. English] All the boundaries of the land : the Promised Land in Biblical thought in light of the ancient Near East / Nili Wazana.    pages cm Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-283-9 (hardback : alk. paper) 1.  Palestine—In the Bible.  2.  Palestine—Boundaries—Biblical teaching.  I. Title. BS1199.P26W3913 2013 221.9′1—dc23 2013033824

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984. ♾™

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   vii Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   xi Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

1

Part 1 Borders and the Concept of the Border in the Bible and Ancient Near East  1.  “Border” versus “Frontier” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   11  2.  Spatial Merisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   58

Part 2 The Promised Land  3.  The Land Promised to the Patriarchs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4.  The Promise of World Dominion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5.  “The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries” Document (Numbers 34:1–12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6.  Ezekiel’s Vision of the Ideal Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  85   97 127 167

Part 3 The Fulfillment of the Promise  7.  The Dimensions of the Land in the “Book of Conquest” (Joshua 1–12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8.  “The Land That Yet Remains” (Joshua 13:1–6) . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9.  The “Book of Settlement”: The Land of the Tribal Portions . . . . . . 10. The Dimensions of the Land according to Biblical Historiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

185 207 240 277 296

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Indexes   Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323   Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329   Index of Subjects, Geographical Names, and Personal Names . . . . . . . 338

v

Preface The study of boundaries is dangerous. —André Siegfried 1

A person is none other than an image of the landscape of her native land. The kernel of research for this book lies in a period of time during which I was living on the slopes of the Judean Hills, near Jerusalem. My daily passage through the folds of the princely ridges above the line of soft rolling hills of the lowlands prompted an urge within me to discover precisely in which tribal borders I had made my home. This innocent geo-historical inquiry blossomed into research of a completely different nature, focused on investigating the wide range of geographical descriptions found in the Hebrew Bible related to the “Promised Land” and its boundaries, including literal “maps” and general expressions scattered across diverse literary genres. This examination led in turn to a series of additional questions born from both a literary perspective and the general conditions of reality: What were “borders” in the ancient world? How was territory marked and delineated? How was it defined and depicted in literary documents? Which literary patterns did the texts employ, and how should they be understood? I chose to attempt to clarify these issues in light of descriptions of a similar literary nature found in ancient Near Eastern literature in the framework of my doctoral dissertation (Biblical Border Descriptions in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Literature), written under the supervision of Professor Sara Japhet in the Department of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The fruit of this doctoral research formed the foundation of the present book, in which I investigate one of the key issues of biblical thought: the concept of the Promised Land. On the basis of understanding the function of borders in the ancient world (in political relations and internal administrative infrastructures) during that period, I set out to examine the geographical descriptions of the Promised Land in the promissory, historiographical, prophetic, and poetic texts of the Hebrew Bible. An examination of the borders as they existed in reality conducted in the light of literary and historical issues produces a different picture than is normally portrayed in this field of research. My analysis revealed the fact that biblical thought comprises several concepts of the Promised Land, 1.  In J. Ancel, Géographie des frontières (4th ed.; Paris: Gallimard, 1938) 7.

vii

viii

Preface

both in relation to its breadth and scope and with respect to its place in the unique relationship that God establishes with the people whom he chose out of all the nations of the earth. I was aided by numerous people in diverse ways during the course of my research and writing, to all of whom I am deeply grateful. Sara Japhet directed the writing of my dissertation, shaped the course of my research, and was my guide and “doctoral mother” in the full sense of the expression. Her clear thinking and uncompromising critical analysis led me along the far-from-easy road of dealing with questions and challenges while constantly verifying the correctness of the path I was following and the way I was traveling it. She also took it upon herself to ensure that I was supported by endowments that enabled the work to progress, as well as giving—as she continues to do—advice and practical help at every stage and juncture. Above all, she served me as a personal example par excellence of the ability to combine successfully a fruitful and rich research career with a full family life. Hayim Tadmor, of blessed memory, opened the portals of the ancient Near East to me, teaching me to value the rich treasure buried in extrabiblical documents and their contribution to biblical studies. The “suit” that I stitched for myself on this path was tailored by means of his assistance and inspiration. Itamar Singer, of blessed memory (formerly of Tel Aviv University), illuminated my way through the landscape of Anatolia. In 1998, he presented a study of Hittite border descriptions in a seminar he taught; his approach to the issue of borders together with his comments greatly benefited my studies. Peter Machinist of Harvard University took me under his wing during my postdoctoral studies, and our conversations consistently inspired me and gave me food for thought. Shalom Paul, whose research integrates biblical studies with the study of ancient Near Eastern civilizations encouraged me along the length of my professional path. I owe special thanks to Elnathan Weissert, who directed me to many valuable sources, gave unstintingly of his time, and taught me the importance of critical, epistemological writing. Many of my teachers, colleagues, and students accompanied me at various stages of the work and helped sharpen its claims and arguments. My friends and fellow academics, Ronela Merdler and Dalit Rom-Shiloni, supported me through the good times and the hard. Ronela patiently listened to my musings at various points of the research, devotedly read different versions of the book, and gave me invaluable comments. Noam Mizrachi, who edited the Hebrew manuscript elegantly and intelligently, shaped the composition, improved the formulation, and weeded out the wild growths and untidy patches. To all these and the others who assisted me in every possible way, I express my gratitude.

Preface

ix

The writing of this book was performed with the help of the following: a scholarship from the Memorial Fund for Jewish Culture; a two-year maintenance scholarship dedicated to the memory of Maurice and Charlotte Warburg; a scholarship for outstanding academic excellence from the Dean of the Humanities faculty; a scholarship from “Three Women, Mexico”; and a postdoctoral scholarship from the Rothschild Foundation. The publication of the book was aided by a grant from the Mandel Institute for Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The English translation by Liat Qeren was funded through the generous assistance of the Lubin Foundation and the Israel Academy of Science. The substantial grants that these latter bodies generously made available, without which the English version of the book would not have been possible, are greatly appreciated.

Abbreviations General Bo field numbers of tablets excavated at Boghazköy, 1906–12 bold-face type represents the totality being implied by an expression Chr the Chronicler (author[s] of Chronicles) D Deuteronomic writer/source E Elohistic writer/source EA El-Amarna H Holiness Code italic type represents the meristic “extremities formula” (in the context of discussions about figures of speech regarding boundaries) J Yahwistic writer/source njps Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the Traditional Hebrew Text. New York: Jewish Publication Society P Priestly writer/source pl. plural RS field numbers of tablets excavated at Ras Shamra

Second Temple and Talmudic Literature ʾAbot R. Nat. ʾAbot de Rabbi Nathan b. Babylonian Talmud Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah Josephus, Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews Jub. Jubilees LXX Septuagint m. Mishnah Num. Rab. Numbers Rabbah Philo, Abr. Philo, On Abraham Pirqe R. El. Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer Tana deBei El. Tana de Bei Eliyahu

Journals, Series, and Dictionaries AB ABD AfO AHw

Anchor Bible Freedman, D. N., et al. (editors). Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Double­day, 1992 Archiv für Orientforschung Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wolfram von Soden. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1959–65

xi

xii AnBib ANET

Abbreviations

Analecta Biblica Pritchard, James B. (editor). Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament AOS American Oriental Series AS Assyriological Studies ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research BA Biblical Archaeologist BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BDB Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 BH Biblica Hebraica BHS Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph (editors). Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984 Bib Biblica BibOr Biblica et Orientalia BO Bibliotheca Orientalis BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Altestamentliche Wissenschaft CAD Oppenheim, A. L., et al. (editors). The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. (A–Z). Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2011 CANE Sasson, Jack (editor). Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 vols. New York: Scribner’s, 1995 ConBOT Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament COS The Context of Scripture EncBib Sukenik, E. L., et al. (editors). Encyclopedia Biblica. 9 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1950–88 ErIsr Eretz-Israel GKC Kautzsch, E. (editor). Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910 HALOT Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and M. E. J. Richardson. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000 HANES History of the Ancient Near East Studies HAR Hebrew Annual Review HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament HdO Handbuch der Orientalistik HSS Harvard Semitic Studies IB Buttrick, G. A., et al. (editors). Interpreter’s Bible. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1951–57 ICC International Critical Commentary IDBSup Crim, K. (editor). Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976 IEJ Israel Exploration Journal Int Interpretation

Abbreviations JAOS Jastrow

xiii

Journal of the American Oriental Society Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Mirashic Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005 JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JSEHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient JNES Journal of Near East Studies JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies KAI Donner, Herbert, and Wolfgang Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966–69 KBo Keilschriftexte aus Boghazköi KEHAT Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament KTU Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín (editors). Die Keil­alphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. AOAT 24. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976 KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi LCL Loeb Classical Library Leš Lešonénu MVAG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft NCB New Century Bible Commentary Series NEAEHL Stern, E. (editor). The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Carta, 1993 NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament OIP Oriental Institute Publications Or Orientalia OTL Old Testament Library OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PJ Palästina-Jahrbuch PRU Le palais royal d’Ugarit RB Revue Biblique RIMA The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Records RIME The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods RINAP The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period RlA Ebeling, E., et al. (editors). Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928– SAA State Archives of Assyria SAAB State Archives of Assyria Bulletin SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

xiv StBoT SubBi TAD

Abbreviations

Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten Subsidia Biblica Porten, B., and A. Yardeni (editors). Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Dept. of the History of the Jewish People, 1986–99 TDOT Botterweck, J., and H. Ringgren (editors). Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 TLOT Jenni, E., and C. Westermann. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. 3 vols. Translated by M. Biddle. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997 TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries TUAT Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testament UBL Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur UF Ugarit-Forschungen VT Vestus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements WANT Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament WÄS Erman, Adolf, and Hermann Grapow. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. 5 vols. Berlin: Akademie, 1926–31 WO Die Welt des Orients YOSR Yale Oriental Series: Researches ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins

Introduction The biblical people of Israel perceived themselves as a nation whose origins lay outside its land and whose right to the land was founded on an ancient divine promise. The Hebrew Bible, which focuses on the unique relationship established between God and the people he chose, assigns central significance to this promise and its fulfillment. The extended literary unit that was formed by initially independent textual traditions that were subsequently linked together to form the Hexateuch (the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua) was bound together around the triple axis of God–People–Land, and this Hexateuch describes the realization of the promises pledged to the patriarchs and the destiny ordained for the people of Israel. 1 The idea of the Promised Land is not an abstract or random notion—a mere “heavenly place” or “matter of the heart.” It is a concrete concept grounded in physical reality—space and time—whether a historical entity that truly existed in the past or an idealized location of the imagination, the fruit of aspirations and dreams conceived by the biblical authors. Its landscape is shaped by hills, fields, and valleys, by territorial expanses and mounds of earth. As such, it involves spatial definitions that delineate its boundaries. The idea of the Promised Land thus cannot be understood without examining its dimensions, and this is a task that calls for a profound grasp of the descriptions of its borders. The biblical texts that deal, directly or indirectly, with the question of the proportions of the Promised Land and its borders are numerous. The most prominent among them are the recurrent passages containing the promise of its bestowal to the patriarchs (Gen 12:7; 13:14–17; 15:7, 18–21; 17:8; 24:7; 28:4, 13; 35:12; 48:4), those in which the promise is made to the people as a whole (Exod 23:31; Deut 1:7–8, 11:24; Josh 1:2–4), and the description of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries,” contained in Moses’ speech to the Israelites at the end of their wanderings in the wilderness on the eve of their entrance into the land (Num 34:1–12). The concept of a geographically-defined territory 1.  Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962–65) 1:167–75. The view that the book of Joshua depicts the fulfillment of the promise made to the patriarchs also corresponds with Martin Noth’s theory that the historiographical composition commences with Deuteronomy and continues into the Former Prophets: Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. B. W. Anderson; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1972) 54–56.

1

2

Introduction

is also manifest in God’s caveat to the people against taking possession of the lands belonging to their neighbors east of the Jordan—Edom, Moab, and Ammon (Deuteronomy 2). Ezekiel—the only prophet apart from Moses to institute ordinances for Israel—renews the promise of the land, laying out its future dimensions in precise form in the vision that concludes his book (Ezekiel 47–48). In addition to these promises and admonitions, the land’s proportions are also reflected in the stories about the fulfillment of the promise that are presented in biblical historiography: the summaries relating to the inheritance (Josh 10:40–42, 11:16–17, 12:7–8), the document defining the “the land that yet remains” 2 (13:1–6), and the depictions of the tribal inheritances given in the same book (13:7–19:51). The descriptions of the land’s borders during diverse periods in Israelite historiography, such as the details given in the story of the spies (Num 13:21), during Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 8:65 = 2 Chr 7:8), and the days of Jeroboam II (2 Kgs 14:25, Amos 6:14), also contribute to the picture of the fulfillment of the promise and thus form part of the biblical authors’ perspective regarding the land’s dimensions. These texts are composed of various literary sources and genres, adopt divergent methods, contain differing depictions, and embody diverse literary formulations. Likewise, among the numerous place-names they employ, both specific sites and general locations and regions are to be found. The issue of the dimensions of the Promised Land has long stood at the center of a specialized discipline known as historical geography. Scholars in this field initially outlined maps on which they attempted to identify concrete geographical notations and trace the lines of speculated borders. Boundary lines were compared with one another in order to reconstruct possible “Promised Lands.” The primary questions that these researchers sought to answer were: what are the geographical dimensions of the Promised Land and what historical period is reflected in any particular description? The scholarly preoccupation with this issue is perhaps most readily explained as being part of an endeavor to extrapolate the largest quantity of historical information possible from the biblical texts and, on the basis of these data, to draw an outline of the Israelite settlement and identify the administrative entity that governed it. It is also plausible to understand this approach, however, as the efforts of proponents of the historical-critical method to produce a chronology of the various biblical sources. On occasion, the personal tendencies or political and/or theological background of the researcher—or the 2.  As this usage indicates, the English translation of Hebrew Scripture used in this book follows the njps, with my own modifications where necessary.

Introduction

3

period during which s/he was working—are visible “between the lines.” Wittingly or unwittingly, these factors influenced the endeavors of these scholars to identify and define the borders of the Promised Land. Among the contributors to this discussion, the most prominent are still the American archaeologist and historian William F. Albright, who attributed the passages dealing with the tribal inheritances to the period of the United Monarchy, and the German scholar Albrecht Alt, the first to perceive the necessity of separating the discussion of the perimeters and historical background of the biblical border descriptions from their ascription to the various pentateuchal literary sources—J, E, P, and D. 3 Israeli research in particular gave great impetus to the historical-geographical discipline in the 1950s and 1960s. Foremost among the promoters of this approach were Benjamin Mazar and Yohanan Aharoni, both of whom examined the historical-geographical background of the boundaries of the land, 4 and Zecharia Kallai, whose analysis of the depiction of the tribal inheritances has become a classic in the field. 5 In the 1980s, Nadav Naʾaman’s reexamination of the historical-geographical issues contributed to renewed debate about central questions such as the identification of the historical background of the biblical tribal border descriptions and the identification of key sites, such as the “Wadi of Egypt.” 6 These studies, 3.  William F. Albright, “The Administrative Divisions of Israel and Judah,” JPOS 5 (1925) 17–54; Albrecht Alt, “Judas gaue unter Josia,” PJ 21 (1925) 100–116; idem, “Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Josua,” in Festschrift Ernst Sellin: Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte und Archäologie Palästinas (ed. W. F. Albright et al.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1927) 13–24. Alt was also the first person to distinguish between descriptions of the borders and the city rosters as representing two different literary genres. Noth developed this approach, incorporating his conclusions in his commentary on the book of Joshua: see Martin Noth, “Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches,” ZDPV 58 (1935) 185–255; idem, Das Buch Josua (2nd ed.; HAT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953). 4. Benjamin Mazar, “Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Boundary of Canaan,” in The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies (trans. R. Rigbi and E. Rigbi; ed. B. A. Levine and S. Aḥituv; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986) 189–202; Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962). 5. Zecharia Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986) [originally published in Hebrew in 1967]. 6. Nadav Naʾaman, “The Brook of Egypt and the Assyrian Policy on the Egyptian Border,” Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction. Collected Essays, vol. 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005) 238–64 [originally published in Hebrew in 1979]; idem, “The Canaanite City-States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances of the Israelite Tribes,” Tarbiz 55.4 (1986) 463–88 [Hebrew]. See also his other works, cited in the bibliography.

4

Introduction

principally based on data gleaned from surveys and archaeological excavations, illuminated numerous topics that were helpful in reconstructing the factual elements embedded in the early literary portrayals of the borders. While this significant body of research attributed great weight to historical-geographical concerns, it largely eschewed literary analysis. None of the scholars noted above examined the particular literary genre to which the border descriptions belong; nor did they investigate the relationship between form and content. 7 Their determination of associations linking various texts was performed solely on the basis of the nature of the territory depicted in the texts, to the exclusion of the text’s literary characteristics. In many cases, the historical-geographical approach replaced an analysis of the thought expressed in the actual texts, shifting the focus away from the perspective naturally required by the material—namely, that the issue of the Promised Land is, first and foremost, the central theological and ideological concern in biblical thought, and the concept of its boundaries possesses wide-ranging significance. In the approach that I adopt, isolating the border descriptions from the literary form in which they were transmitted or from the context in which they were placed is a grievous misreading of the texts. Questions about “what” and “when” cannot be separated from those about “how” and “why.” What are the borders of the Promised Land in the Hebrew Bible? What drives and characterizes the descriptions of them? The starting point for this research is the premise that, despite their geographical nature, the numerous locations that they mention, and the lines delineated in them, the biblical texts do not constitute genuinely geographical documents. They are more appropriately to be understood and examined as literary texts that were composed in the service of an ideological agenda. The biblical descriptions of the borders of the Promised Land juxtapose theological, literary, geographical, and historical elements, all of which must be analyzed jointly rather than individually. In order to comprehend properly the idea of the Promised Land presented in the Hebrew Bible—its definitions, dimensions, and significance—we must understand that the descriptions belong to diverse literary genres, were composed based on various literary devices, employ expressions and formulations that require decoding, and reflect a range of perspectives, outlooks, and notions. 7.  Aharoni’s analysis of the various methods adopted in the various biblical depictions of the borders of the land is an exception in this regard. He notes that the descriptions can be divided into two primary categories: “the fixing of terminal points or the recording in sequence of points along the border” (The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 86–87).

Introduction

5

My primary purpose in this volume is to attempt to clarify three principal aspects of the border descriptions of the Promised Land: 1. The literary aspect.  This aspect requires an analysis of the literary forms and formulas that are characteristic of the biblical border descriptions. To do this, I shall examine literary structures from other biblical texts and compare the biblical material with extrabiblical sources. In this way, I hope to outline the methods, rules of linguistic formulation, and significance of specific terms used in the various biblical depictions. 2. The historical and factual aspect.  This investigation of the biblical border descriptions is undertaken in light of the concept of the “boundary” that was prevalent in ancient Israel and the ancient Near East: the characteristics of a border, its functions, and the methods adopted for marking territory. Whether the areas and lines described in the biblical texts reflect a historical-geographical reality of one form or another or whether they constitute the outline of an imagined territorial entity, the depictions appear to reflect methods of referring to land division in the biblical period. These methods may be reconstructed, to a certain degree, with the aid of extrabiblical documents. 3. The ideological aspect.  The biblical border descriptions reflect religious and political ideologies associated with the God–People–Land axis. They are also intimately linked to Israel’s relations with its neighbors. Here, too, comparing the relevant biblical texts with ancient Near Eastern documents is a useful tool. I shall endeavor to illuminate the biblical material in light of the Sitz im Leben of the border descriptions in order to clarify the administrative function for which the extrabiblical texts were composed. I shall also identify comparable documents in Israel that the biblical authors may have been imitating or on which they may have relied. This investigation is intended to elucidate the ideologies and motives impelling both the authors of the original documents and the composers of the biblical descriptions. While comparison of the biblical texts with ancient Near Eastern literature involves each of the above three aspects of analysis, this methodology requires explanation and elaboration. As is true with regard to biblical literature in general, the biblical descriptions of the borders of the Promised Land are the product of the actual world in which they were conceived. They consequently mirror the reality of the world of ancient Israel with respect to the division/demarcation of land and the way in which the latter was presented in literary form. Unfortunately, no administrative documents have survived that permit us to identify the physical and literary customs prevalent in Israel during the biblical period in this respect. However, since both Israelite reality and the literature

6

Introduction

that reflects it were part of a broader context—ancient Near Eastern civilization—we may legitimately compare the biblical texts with extrabiblical sources belonging to the same period. This procedure must obviously be undertaken with caution. The majority of the extrabiblical sources were both dated and located at a great divide from the biblical material. Nor can we ignore the literary divergence between them. The biblical geographical texts are part of literary compositions that carry weighty ideological, theological, educational, and even political messages. They also reflect a complex, diverse literary artifact that has undergone editing and revision at various stages, as well as a long process of textual transmission, during which they were exposed to diverse reworkings before they reached their extant form. In contrast, ancient Near Eastern border descriptions predominantly appear in ancient epigraphical documents—such as the vassal treaties, edicts, judicial rulings, and land bestowals preserved in the royal archives of Ḫattuša, Ugarit, and other power centers. Most of these texts are functional and legal in nature. This disparity notwithstanding, the fact that both sets of texts belong to a single broad cultural milieu and possess—at least partially—a common literary heritage makes comparison between them both permissible and legitimate. Moreover, it is precisely the technical discipline of border descriptions—by definition they are international documents—that enables us to establish the existence of common literary traditions. Likewise, such a cross-cultural setting makes it unlikely that the documents were “doctored,” either from idealistic or religious motives. That possibility is far more likely in other fields, such as myths and legal corpora, where those agendas obviously had an impact on the biblical texts. Comparison of the biblical border descriptions and ancient Near Eastern sources is consequently a cognitive-typological and pan-cultural process; I do not claim any direct influence between the two literatures. A second important interpretive tool is the informed use of the terminology and categories prevalent in modern discussions of borders within the disciplines of Political Science and Political Geography. While the spatial and temporal divide between contemporary approaches and the biblical texts calls for caution here, too, an appropriate application of modern concepts and distinctions has great value for the analyzing of ancient texts. In this volume, I do not intend to answer the question of the precise borders of the land or the way they were altered throughout the course of history. This issue is of relevance only insofar as it furthers the discussion of the literary and ideological aspects of the Promised Land. The reader will consequently find no maps or outlines in this book. The historical-geographical debate over the physical location and precise definitions of the borders of the land further

Introduction

7

requires an analysis of additional sources that do not fall within the strict purview of my present interest. My emphasis on the literary tools employed by the authors who delineated the borders and the ideological motives that guided them requires a focus of attention on the “promissory” descriptions and the depictions of their fulfillment, together with other passages that directly relate to the concepts referred to in these texts. In the first section of this book, I examine the background necessary for analyzing the various descriptions of the dimensions of the Promised Land in the Hebrew Bible, taking terminological, ideological, factual, and literary perspectives into account. The first chapter investigates definitions of the terms border and frontier, which feature prominently in modern border theories. I elaborate on the qualitative and quantitative differences between these concepts, and I discuss their relationship to “multicentric” and “monocentric” political world views. The second chapter is an analysis of the territorial expressions that contain the formula of extremities—“from . . . to”—which I define as “spatial merisms.” I examine these formulas as literary categories in their own right and as used in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern literature. Part 2 discusses the “promissory passages” themselves. Chapter 3 presents the linguistic features of the promise to the patriarchs in the stories of Genesis. Chapter 4 focuses on the one text in Genesis that employs explicit geographical terminology in relation to the Promised Land: God’s utterance to Abraham at the conclusion of the Covenant of the Pieces (Gen 15:18). This passage is examined in the light of similar promissory formulas found in God’s words to the people in the epilogue to the Book of the Covenant (Exod 23:31) and Deuteronomy (1:7, 11:24; cf. Josh 1:4). The next two chapters look at two biblical documents that provide full cartographical details of the entire Promised Land: chap. 5 discusses the document known as “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” embedded in the book of Numbers (Num 34:1–12), while chap. 6 studies the description of the future land presented in the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 47:13–48:35). Part 3 deals with descriptions of the fulfillment of the promise. It examines the three sections of the book of Joshua, corresponding to three elements. Chapters 7 and 9 discuss the idea of the land as formulated in the two major sections of Joshua. The former chapter focuses on the depiction of the conquest of the land in the Book of Conquest (Joshua 1–12), while the latter discusses the dimensions of the land as portrayed in the Book of Settlement (Josh 13:7– 21:43). The intervening chapter (chap. 8) investigates the unique approach adopted in the document known as “the land that yet remains” (Josh 13:1–6). An analysis of the Promised Land as presented in Joshua reveals the multiple

8

Introduction

concepts about this prominent biblical motif presented in the Hebrew Bible and the central place that it held in the thinking of the biblical authors. Chapter 10 analyzes the sources that relate indirectly to the Promised Land via descriptions of its dimensions during diverse periods. These contain various spatial merisms that attempt to anchor the fulfillment of the promise in discrete historical periods within Israelite history. Some of these, such as the depiction of the land in the story of the spies’ exploration “from the Wilderness of Zin to Rehob, at Lebo-hamath” (Num 13:21), evince the extent of the “land of Canaan.” Other texts reflect the view from the fifth Persian province of Eber-hanahar in alluding to the realization of assurances of world dominion. Writing a book about the borders of the Promised Land in the historical context in which I personally live (the modern State of Israel) obligates me to add a final caveat: this research is not a study of contemporary reality but of biblical literature within the context of its own historical period.

Chapter 1

“Border” versus “Frontier” Of all these bounds, even from this line to this, With shadowy forests and with champains riched, With plenteous rivers and wide-skirted meads, We make thee lady. To thine and Albany’s issue Be this perpetual. —Shakespeare, King Lear 1.1.63–67 Just as geographers, O Socius Senecio, crowd on to the outer edges of their maps the parts of the earth which elude their knowledge, with explanatory notes that “What lies beyond is sandy desert without water and full of wild beasts,” or “blind marsh,” or “Scythian cold,” or “frozen sea” . . . —Plutarch, Theseus 1.1

The Contribution of Modern Terminology to the Study of Ancient Borders In a psalm lauding God, the creator of the world, the biblical author praises the divine victory over the surging waters that enabled God to establish order over his creation: “You set boundaries they must not pass so that they [the waters] never again cover the earth” (Ps 104:9). With this formulation, the wording that originated in international political reality was transferred into the mythological and cosmological realm. God’s status as the creator of the world, sovereign over the nations, and distributor and bestower of inheritances to the peoples is explicitly reflected in Shirat Haʾazinu: “When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, He fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel’s numbers” (Deut 32:8). 1 These mythical-poetic images of the establishment of cosmic borders during the process of creation and the formation of political boundaries between people evokes a reality in which a sovereign overlord determines territorial divisions that are governed by subordinate rulers. 1.  The original version of this verse apparently read “sons of God” rather than “sons of Israel,” as evidenced by the LXX and 4QDeutj.

11

12

Chapter 1

The term ‫ ( גבול‬gĕbûl, “border”) is a key term in passages such as these. In Biblical Hebrew, the term “border” denotes both a demarcated area (cf. Judg 19:29: “He sent them throughout the territory of Israel”) and the boundary by which the territory is delimited (cf. Jer 5:22: “Who set the sand as a boundary to the sea”). 2 The precise connotation of the term in the biblical texts is understood from the context in which it occurs. Naturally, the text occasionally carries both senses, as in 1 Sam 6:12: “The lords of the Philistines walked behind them as far as the border/territory of Beth-shemesh.” In the Hebrew Bible, the root ‫ גבל‬appears in the Qal with the following meanings: “to set a boundary stone” (Deut 19:14: “You shall not move your countryman’s landmarks, set up [‫ ]גבלו‬by previous generations”), “to delimit” (Josh 18:20: “the Jordan was their boundary [‫)”]יגבל‬, “to be on the border of, to border on” (Zech 9:2: “Including Hamath, which borders on it [‫)”]תגבל‬. In the Hiphil, it denotes “to determine, set a border for” (Exod 19:12: “You shall set bounds [‫ ]והגבלת‬for the people”; Exod 19:23: “Set bounds [‫ ]הגבל‬about the mountain and sanctify it”). 3 The dual signification of the Hebrew term gĕbūl as “border” and “territory” is common to many other ancient languages. Thus, for example, it occurs in the parallel Akkadian (itû, kisurrû, kudurru, miṣru, paṭû, pulukku, taḫūmu), 4 Egyptian (tꜢš), 5 Hittite (irḫa, arḫa), 6 and Latin ( finis, fines) terms. 7 Linguisti2.  See BDB 147–48; Magnus Ottosson, “‫ ּגְבּול‬gebhûl; ‫ ָּגבַל‬gābhal; ‫ ּגְבּולָה‬gebhûlāh,” TDOT 2:365. 3. See Ottosson, “‫ ּגְבּול‬gebhûl”; BDB 148. It should be noted that the homonymous root 2‫גבל‬, which signifies ‘to wind, braid’ (cf. Exod 28:14, 22; 39:15), has no etymological relationship to the first root discussed here (contrary to the claim in BDB 147): see Ottosson. 4.  See the relevant entries in AHw and CAD. 5. See WÄS 5, ##234–35. For a discussion of the uses of the term in Egyptian texts during the Eighteenth Dynasty, see Jose M. Galán, Victory and Border: Terminology Related to Egyptian Imperialism in the XVIIIth Dynasty (Hildesheimer ägyptologische Beiträge 40; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1995) 101–35. 6.  See the entry arḫa in Johannes Friedrich, Kurzgefaßtes Hethitisches Wörterbuch (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1991) 29. 7. See further Jehuda B. Palache, Semantic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon (trans. R. J. Z. Werblowsky; Leiden: Brill, 1959) 17. The word ‫ּגְבּול‬, which appears in Ezekiel’s descriptions of the future Temple, is an archaic technical term signifying “barrier, fence” (Ezek 40:12) or “high edge” (Ezek 43:13, 17, 20). On several occasions, ‫ ּגְבּול‬also denotes a “mountain,” similar to the Arabic jabal: “He brought them to His holy gĕbūl, the mountain His right hand had acquired” (Ps 78:54; cf. the expression ‫הר נחלתך‬, “your own mountain” in Exod 15:17), and perhaps also the “gĕbūl [mountain] of Benjamin” (1 Sam 10:2): see HALOT 1:171. This sense may be intimated in additional passages: (1) 1 Sam 13:18: “the gĕbūl which overlooks the valley of Zeboim towards the desert”—a passage that the LXX renders “Geva,” the place (cf. Num 23:28: “the gĕbūl of Peor, which

“Border” versus “Frontier”

13

cally, this phenomenon corresponds to the semantic process known as a “metonymic shift”—that is, the transfer of meaning from one signifier to another. The absence of any conceptual distinction between a line demarcating an expanse and the area itself, however, has led some scholars to conclude that the ancient concept of “territory” was holistic rather than geographical. This understanding differentiates the ancient notion from the modern concept, the latter originating in Greek thought patterns. 8 The term “border” also has a primary function in modern theories of boundaries. 9 In this context, it is employed to distinguish between “internal borders” and “political” or “international borders.” An internal border demarcates different areas governed by one authority; a political or international border distinguishes and differentiates between areas governed by discrete, independently-sovereign authorities. These two categories, of “internal borders” and “international borders” contribute to an analysis and classification of territorial division as practiced in the ancient world. It must be noted at the outset, however, that the political units prevalent in antiquity are not completely congruent with the definitions commonly accepted today. Modern definitions are formed based on attributes ascribed to the nation-state. Likewise, the ancient idea of “sovereignty” does not necessarily correspond to the modern notion. Thus, for example, the border between two vassal states divides two areas subject to an

overlooks the wasteland”); (2) the phrase “at/toward the gĕbūl of Israel” (Ezek 11:10–11) is most frequently understood as “the mountains of Israel,” a phrase that appears numerous times in Ezekiel (cf. Ezek 39:2, 4); (3) the compound expression ‫הר נחלה‬, which is divided into two parallel stichs and then defined in terms of “the gĕbūl of wickedness” set against “the gĕbūl of Israel” (Mal 1:3–5): see Shemaryahu Talmon, “‫ הַר‬har; ‫ִּג ְבעָה‬ gibhʿāh,” TDOT 3:431. According to Palache, Semantic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon, the term ‫ ּגְבּול‬underwent three stages of semantic development: mountain → border of a territory → territory. See also Shelomo Morag, Studies in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996) 297 n. 105 [Hebrew]. 8. Thorleif Boman, Das hebräische Denken im Vergleich mit dem grieschen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954) 133–40; Uriel Simon, Time and Space in Biblical Thinking (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1961) 143–44 [Hebrew]. 9.  Border theory is a specialized discipline in the field of political geography and examines the mutual relations between borders and the expanse that they demarcate. The theory is based on the premise that it is possible to define general features that apply to diverse borders—despite the fact that attempts at generalization are arbitrary and liable to blur the distinctiveness unique to each border, since in reality no two borders are identical: see Stephen B. Jones, Boundary Making: A Handbook for Statesmen, Treaty Editors and Boundary Commissioners (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law, 1945).

14

Chapter 1

overlord. 10 In consequence of his supremacy, the overlord could move the border or transfer areas and populations from one to another. 11 At the same time, the populaces on either side of the border were subject to different rulers, to whom they paid taxes and appealed for the resolution of legal conflicts. 12 While the terms “internal border” and “political/international border” are helpful in sharpening the question about who constituted the sovereign ruler over an area, their use must be predicated on an understanding of their discrete functions in ancient Near Eastern governance. In light of the importance of collecting taxes in this context, I shall define a “political border” as the line that divided two territorial entities governed by two sovereign authorities, each of which imposed taxes on its citizens, even when parts of the taxes were paid to an overlord (that is, an authority superior to both local administrations). According to this definition, the border between two vassal states constituted a “political” or “international” border. In order to examine the biblical concept of borders in general and the boundaries of the Promised Land in particular, we will find it helpful to examine two key terms commonly employed in modern border theory: border (or boundary) and frontier. 13 Territorial land-division methods differ both quantitively and qualitatively, while also reflecting the diverse world views held by political authorities ruling over delimited territories. The “quantitative” aspect of borders relates to the “width of the line.” A border is a line that separates and divides specific geographical expanses. Its width is fixed and can reach several meters, usually being clearly and prominently indicated on the ground, either in proximity to natural physical landmarks— 10.  Although the terms vassal and vassal state are anachronistic, since they derive from the social terminology of the medieval European feudal system, they are still commonly employed today to define a hierarchical relational system in which one party was subject to another. This is the sense in which I am using the terms in the present volume. For the problematic nature of the term vassal, see Guy Kestemont, Diplomatique et droit international en Asie occidentale: 1600–1200 av. J.C. (Louvain: Université Catholique de Louvain, 1974) 53–55. 11.  On the moving of borders between vassal states as a display of authority, see my “‘I Have Erased the Borders of Peoples’ (Isa. 10:13): Border Shifts as an Assyrian Power Tool in ‘The Land of Hatti,’” ErIsr 27 (Miriam and Hayim Tadmor Volume; 2003) 110–21 [Hebrew]. 12.  See McCarthy’s caution in this respect: Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (AnBib 21; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978) 11–12. 13.  See John R.  V. Prescott, The Geography of Frontiers and Boundaries (London: Hutchinson, 1965) 34–40; idem, Political Frontiers and Boundaries (London: Allen and Unwin, 1978) 33–48. The distinction between these two terms is particularly helpful in analyzing borders in the ancient world and their extant descriptions.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

15

such as water features—or by synthetic signs, such as walls, security fences, or border markers. 14 In contrast, a frontier comprises territory that is undefined in political terms, the breadth of which may reach several kilometers. It may separate political entities as a “political frontier” or a populated area from the region beyond it—a “settlement frontier.” 15 Qualitatively, the two terms are differentiated by means of the concept of territorial division. In this respect, the border delineates the areas within which, through common agreement, the populace resident on either side is recognized as subject to the respective rulers. While borders may suffer periodic fluctuations and adjustments due to changes in the balance of power between the two parties, such that their location is liable to be controversial, the division of territory they denote is static by virtue of its definition and function. In contrast, the term frontier reflects an external-oriented, dynamic territorial division, constituting “a process, not an area or a boundary.” 16 Frequently associated with land claims over “external” regions, a frontier customarily reflects a centrifugal drive to enlarge one’s territory by annexing additional lands. 17 A frontier possesses two dimensions, its proportions depending on the ability of the center to control its (outlying) territory. Although artificial fortification lines or walls may be established within its area, these form an integral part of the frontier region rather than a one-dimensional borderline. Thus, for example, the Great Wall of China constitutes a linked chain of walls erected from the third century b.c.e. onwards in order to protect the Chinese kingdom 14.  In the initial stages of modern border theory research, the border was perceived as a combination of an abstract line and its concrete marking on the ground. In the words of the German geographer Friedrich Ratzel, “Der Grenzraum ist das Wirk­liche, die Grenzlinie die Abstraktion davon” (Ratzel, Politische Geographie [3rd ed.; Munich, 1923] 385). If the border was associated with a specific geographical feature, such as a river or precipice, its width was identical with the width of the latter. 15.  See the entry “Frontier” in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1976) 914. 16.  Charles R. Whittaker, Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994) 5—in relation to the American frontier. 17.  In English, the term frontier signifies the section of a country that “fronts” another, usually hostile, sovereign territory: see Peter Sahlins, The Making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989) 6. For the dynamic character of the frontier, see also Bradley J. Parker, The Mechanics of Empire (Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 2001). Parker described the imperial Assyrian frontier as “a dynamic transitional zone of interaction that lay between the consolidated power of the Assyrian empire and cultures of varying degrees of political centralization in south-eastern Anatolia” (p. 11). Parker’s claim that this constitutes the sole form of land-division that existed in the ancient world is untenable, however.

16

Chapter 1

from the Mongolian tribes on its northern border. 18 Another well-known ancient line of defense is the Imperial Roman Wall, remains of which have been discovered in North Africa and Europe, including the fortification line (fossatum) in North Africa, the limes in the Rhine region of southwest Germany and the Danube in the Balkans, and Hadrian’s Wall in Britain. 19 Remains of a similar system from the Byzantine period have also been found in Israel: a defense line known as the Limes Palaestinae that ran the length of the populated country from Eilat to Moab and comprised a series of strongholds, fortresses, and observation posts integrated into the settlements in the area. 20 All these walls were intended to protect the local populace against invaders, thus differing substantively from the walls known to us in modern history, such as the wall erected between East and West Berlin or the wall dividing North and South Korea. Twentieth-century walls were primarily constructed in order to provide close supervision over the movement of citizens and physically separate hostile political entities that bordered one another. The ancient walls that formed part of the defense system within a frontier region cannot be considered borderlines. As John Prescott writes, “The walls formed not the limit boundary of the sovereignty, but rather the first or last line of defence in depth.” 21 18.  According to the sources, the wall was originally around 4,100 km in length. Historians have even determined that the Chinese are an especially “wall-minded” people: see Derk Bodde, “The State and Empire of Ch’in,” in The Cambridge History of China (ed. D.  Twitchett and J.  K. Fairbank; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) 1:63. 19.  See Eric Birley (ed.), The Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, 1949 (Durham, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1952); Steven K. Drummond and Lynn H. Nelson, The Western Frontiers of Imperial Rome (Armonk, NY: Sharpe, 1994) 19–41; Whittaker, Frontiers of the Roman Empire, 8, 38–49. 20.  See Michael Avi-Yonah, “The Date of the ‘Limes Palestinae,’” ErIsr 5 (Mazar Volume; 1958) 135–37 [Hebrew]; Yoram Tsafrir, “The Security Problems of the Desert Border Area in the Byzantine Period,” Teva Vaaretz 17 (1975) 213–18 [Hebrew]; Mordechai Gichon, “The Military Significance of Certain Aspects of the Limes Palaestinae,” in Roman Frontier Studies 1967 (ed. S. Applebaum; Tel Aviv, 1971) 191–200. 21.  Prescott, The Geography of Frontiers and Boundaries, 44. For the Roman limes, Prescott relies on the work of Baradez, who surveyed the Roman defense system in Numidia (present-day Algeria) both aerially and on the ground: see Jean Baradez, “Fossatum Africae,” in The Congress of Roman Frontier Studies 1949 (ed. E. Birley; Durham, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1952) 18; cf. Whittaker, Frontiers of the Roman Empire, 48. Baradez has demonstrated that the frontier zone “associated with this defence-work, up to 70 miles in depth, is studded with innumerable forts and with watchtowers, together with many large sites. . . . In the rear of the defence line lies an extensive

“Border” versus “Frontier”

17

Although a clear theoretical distinction exists between the concepts of “border” and “frontier,” in practice some territorial divisions share characteristics common to both phenomena. When, for example, the border between Persia and the Ottoman Empire was determined in the nineteenth century, notwithstanding the fact that it was neither marked on the ground nor patrolled, every inhabitant of the villages along the border knew to whom s/he owed his/her dues right up until 1975, the ruling authorities on both sides collecting taxes from their respective populaces. While the quantitative features of this boundary thus correspond to the definition of a “frontier” as a region rather than a line, its qualitative features more closely resemble the definition of a “border” in its function of dividing and distinguishing two political-geographical entities. When these modern concepts are applied to the description of ancient boundaries, the primary distinction between the definitions of “border” and “frontier” appears to lie in the qualitative aspect—i.e., the question of the nature and function of the boundary—rather than in the quantitative aspect (the width of the border line). The latter is a product of the geographic, economic, and historical circumstances by which the border is determined: the topography of the region, its economic value, and the interests of the bordering entities. In contrast, the qualitative aspect of territorial division—its function and connection to the surrounding area—provides more detailed information regarding the nature of the border. It also possesses far greater significance than the physical aspect of the boundary in understanding the concept of the border. I shall therefore adopt the border’s function and link to the territories it separates as the determining criterion for defining a specific territory in terms either of a “border” or a “frontier.” 22 While the issue of the “width” of a border will also become clear during our discussion of ancient Near Eastern and biblical border descriptions, it is not an issue in defining territorial division.

Multicentric and Monocentric World Views The qualitative distinction between a border and a frontier is linked to the particular world views adopted by political units in the context of territorial land system of irrigation . . . leading to fields. . . . Occasionally, particularly to the south-west, the field-systems extend far outside the wall.” 22.  Here, I am following the argument made by Mario Liverani in his analysis of the diplomacy and international relations practiced in the ancient Near East between 1600 and 1100 b.c.e.: “A correct historical evaluation of the ‘archaic’ systems can only be accomplished by embedding them in their technological, social and cultural settings” (Mario Liverani, International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600–1100 bc [New York: Palgrave, 2001] 1).

18

Chapter 1

division. The concept of the border, which refers to a line separating (at least) two territorial entities, reflects the recognition that other centers of authority hold jurisdiction over other lands. The historian Mario Liverani has defined this world view as “multicentric,” being an attitude characteristic of periods in which equal power centers coexist simultaneously. 23 In the international arena, this phenomenon produces what is known as a “multi-polar system.” 24 According to this scheme, the governing authorities of the various power centers (in the ancient world, royal dynasties) are linked together by a broad network of political, commercial, cultural, and familial ties anchored in written contracts and oral agreements and reinforced by marital and diplomatic relations, a general recognition of the “rules of the game,” and a common cultural basis. A classic example of the multipolar system was the balance of power that obtained among the principal forces at work in nineteenth-century Europe—Britain, France, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russia, and Prussia-Germany. In contrast, the concept of the frontier is linked to a centralist world view, which distinguishes between an ordered, civilized center and its chaotic peripheries inhabited by barbarians. 25 Under this rubric, land division is not grounded in border agreements but relates primarily to regions populated by peoples of different origins and distinguished from one another by cultural background. The hostile peripheral areas on the fringes of a sovereign state that are unregulated by border agreements correspond to both the quantitative and the qualitative aspects of the frontier concept. This term is particularly apt in regard to the peripheral regions of an empire. 26 The concept of the frontier is appropriate to the margins of an empire 23.  In his definition of a “power center” in his 1990 study, Liverani relies on two categories established by Karl Polanyi—reciprocity and redistribution: see Mario Li­ verani, Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100 b.c. (HANE/S 1; Padua: Sargon, 1990); Karl Polanyi, Origins of Our Time: The Great Transformation (London: Gollancz, 1945). 24.  For this term and its features, see Michael Handel, Weak States in the International System (London: Cass, 1981) 175 and the bibliography cited there (p. 209 n. 13; p. 212 n. 49). 25.  For the various aspects of this world view in the ancient world, see Mario Li­ verani, “Memorandum on the Approach to Historiographic Texts,” Or 42 (1973) 184; idem, Prestige and Interest, 33–43. The concept of the frontier as dividing civilization from barbarity also applied to the American frontier settlement and the British Empire: see Whittaker, Frontiers of the Roman Empire, 2, 5. 26.  The term empire signifies here the rule of a sovereign over subjugated peoples; the term imperialism indicating “a policy that aspires to enlarge as far as possible the power of any state over additional territories, without such extension being limited by any principle or consideration other than the will to avoid difficulties and overly discon-

“Border” versus “Frontier”

19

for two major reasons: the first practical, the second ideological. In pragmatic terms, empires tend to expand until their march is halted due to financial difficulties or security risks. The decision to continue extending their reach is intimately linked to the question whether the benefit of subjugating additional territory is greater than the cost of the invasion and subsequent maintenance expenses. 27 Acts of conquest and expansion are consequently dependent on historical circumstances and the balance between labile forces. The peripheries of empires are accordingly provisional and mutable by definition. The second— ideological—factor most frequently represents the need to justify a policy of subjugation and aggrandizement. Virtually all imperial rulers and their citizens regarded world domination to be their natural and divine right. In the words of the Roman poet Virgil (first century b.c.e.), Rome’s destiny was to rule other peoples without limitation—“imperium sine fine” (Aeneas 1.279)—an idea warranted by divine promise (Jupiter’s, according to the Roman paradigm). 28 According to this concept, imperial borders are always tactical, transitory, labile, and only viable until the next conquering crusade; the empire will continue to enlarge its territory until the point at which its dynamic borders coalesce with the static boundaries of the world itself. 29 It is no surprise that one of the most common designations for an imperial ruler seeking to vanquish the world was the “Sun,” an appellation intended to strengthen his image as a personage to whom the whole world was subject. 30 certing risks” (see Benjamin Akzin, Yesodot ha-medinaʾut ha-beinleʾumit [The Principles of International Relations] [Jerusalem: Academon, 1984] 158 [Hebrew]). For a theoretical summary of the significance of the term empire and its historical expressions, see Parker, The Mechanics of Empire, 12–17, and the earlier works cited therein. 27.  See Hayim Tadmor, “Assyria and the West: The Ninth Century and Its Aftermath,” in Unity and Diversity: Essays in History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East (ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975) 37–38; Parker, The Mechanics of Empire, 14–15. 28. Cf. Virgil’s maxim, Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento, “You, Roman, remember to rule peoples with your power” (Aeneas 6.851): see Akzin, Yesodot hamedinaʾut ha-beinleʾumit, 159. 29.  For the relation between world and royal borders, see Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 51–58, 79. As Charles Whittaker notes, the cosmography of Strabo, Polybius, and other Roman writers reflects, on the one hand, the insight that the whole world is subject to Rome’s power and the recognition, on the other hand, that practically speaking the territory Rome actually ruled did not reach the “seas.” In this sense, Rome’s hegemony extended over the lands that it had chosen to rule, its territory being expandable “at will.” 30.  For the epithet “Sun” in Akkadian, see CAD Š/1 336–37. The designation also appears in letters from Ugarit (e.g., RS 18.038 and RS 34.356). The king’s title “Sun” is

20

Chapter 1

Imperial frontiers possess an additional characteristic, not necessarily present in every case: the existence of buffer states or buffer zones, whose purpose is to prevent the intrusion of external hostile powers. 31 In this way, for example, the status of the Hanigalbat kingdom as a buffer state between the Hittite and Middle Assyrian Empires in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries b.c.e. enabled it to exist until its annexation by Tukulti-Ninurta I, king of Assyria. 32 Likewise, the Kingdom of Armenia existed as a buffer state between the Roman and Parthian Empires until the two powers divided it between them in the fourth century c.e. 33 Because imperialistic ideology does not recognize other centers of power, it corresponds to Liverani’s “monocentric” concept. 34 In the context of international relations, the imperialistic ideological “gaze” is directed inward. Imperial rulers perceive the empire’s expansion (in periods of dominance) and diminution (in bad times) to be a direct consequence of its conduct of domestic affairs. As with every general definition, these are merely theoretical and abstract models. In reality, the relationship existing between states and centers of power reflects diverse circumstances and disparate ideologies. 35 Although the monorelated to the sun’s role as the god of justice in Mesopotamian thought: see A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964) 195–96; Blane W. Conklin, “Arslan Tash I and Other Vestiges of a Particular Syrian Incantatory Thread,” Bib 84 (2003) 93 nn. 22–23. The appellation served rulers in other periods as well—such as Louis XIV, the “Sun King.” 31. A buffer state is a small, independent political unit interposed between two (or more) warring countries. A buffer zone stands between powers but is not structured along political lines: see John Chay and Thomas E. Ross (eds.), Buffer States in World Politics (Boulder: Westview Press, 1986) 2; Idan Briar, The Buffer State in the Ancient Near East in the Biblical Period (Ph.D. diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2000) 4 [Hebrew]. 32.  For Hanigalbat’s status as a dependency, see Briar, The Buffer State in the Ancient Near East in the Biblical Period, 123–50. 33. Benjamin Isaac, The Limits of Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990) 234. The second-century Alexandrian writer Appian notes two features of Armenian independence in the preface to his history of Rome: the kingdom does not pay taxes to the Romans, and it appoints its own kings (Appian, Hist. rom. preface, §2). Compare with Tacitus’s description of Armenia as a buffer state due to its relations with its neighbors: “This people has been inconstant of old, because of the character of the men and their geographical position, bordering, as they do, far along on our province and extending far to Media. They are situated between the two major empires and are often hostile to them out of hatred towards Rome and jealousy of Parthia” (Tacitus, Annals 2.56 [Church and Brodribb translation]); quoted in Isaac, The Limits of Empire, 10. 34.  Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 66–67. 35.  On the relationship between complex reality and abstract concepts, see Liverani, International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 7–9.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

21

centric and multicentric world views appear to be dichotomous, they can in fact coexist within the same regime, being embodied in its labile set of alliances with various power centers (internal or external). Thus, for instance, the policies adopted by the European empires of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries toward their neighbors reflected an awareness of a fundamental unity among themselves, alongside a sense of mutual responsibility toward the members of the Christian European family of nations. By the same token, their imperialist-colonial policies were directed toward more-distant regions and peoples of far-away lands. 36 Similarly, the royal ideology of the Hittite Empire dictated that its borders extended “from sea to sea”—that is, from the Black Sea in the north to the Mediterranean in the south. The Hittite king who subdued the hostile countries all around and “made them the sea border” of his kingdom realized this sea-to-sea ideal. 37 This monocentric and imperialistic world view characterized Hittite relations with the kingdom’s northern, southern, and western neighbors, its military expansion in these directions being perceived as a natural right. The dynamic condition of the empire’s periphery in regions such as the southwest border is reflected in the description of the boundary of the region bordering on the lands of Lukka outlined for the king of Tarḫuntašša by the Hittite king: “But if the Hittite king goes to war, and by force of arms conquers the land of Parha, it will belong to the king of Tarḫuntašša.” 38 A different situation existed in relation to the east and southeast, the area of Syria. In these regions, the Hittites came into contact with kingdoms possessing an ancient cultural heritage and wielding impressive military might—such as Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia. Since Hittite expansion into these territories was regarded 36.  Akzin, Yesodot ha-medinaʾut ha-beinle’umit, 170–71. 37.  See the document known as the Edict of Telepinu (ca. 1500 b.c.e.), which describes the founders of the early Hittite Empire, Labarna and Ḫattušili I, as accomplishing this goal: each of these early kings “made the sea his border” (nu-uš a-ru-na-aš ir-hu-uš i-e-et). For a transliteration and translation, see Inge Hoffmann, Der Erlass Telepinus (Texte der Hethiter 11; Heidelberg: Carl Winter/Universitätsverlag, 1984) 12 i 8; 16 i 17–18; 18 i 27). For an English translation, see Oliver R. Gurney, The Hittites (London: Penguin, 1952) 21–22; Theo P. J. van den Hout, Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag (StBoT 38; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995; in COS 1:194–95, §§3, 6, 8). See also Jaan Puhvel, “The Sea in Hittite Texts,” in Studies Presented to Joshua Whatmough (ed. E. Pulgram; The Hague: ’s-Gravenhage, 1957) 225; Heinrich G. Otten, “Aitiologische Erzählung von der Überquerung des Taurus,” ZA 55 (1963) 165–66; Einar von Schuler, “Grenze (B. Nach hethitischen Texten),” RlA 641 §2. 38.  Bronze Tablet i 62–64 (Heinrich G.  Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy: Ein Staatsvertrag Tutḫalijas IV [StBoT 1; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988] 12–13); Nili Wazana, “The Tribal Boundaries in Light of Tarḫuntašša Border Descriptions,” Shnaton 12 (2000) 74 [Hebrew].

22

Chapter 1

as a violation of the gods’ will—an act for which the whole Hittite nation was punished (see also below)—the Hittite rulers’ perspective in regard to these locales was multicentric rather than monocentric.

Borders and the Multicentric World View in the Ancient Near East Modern border theorists concur that interest in arriving at accurate demarcation of territory only arose with the economic development witnessed by the Middle Ages. The emerging methods of taxing land required that the lands governed by a specific ruler be delineated precisely. 39 These scholars reason that “linear” borders (borderlines) did not exist until the modern period. “Borders” in the ancient world always denoted frontier regions—that is, the dimensions of pieces of land were determined by a ruler’s will and capacity to impose his authority. 40 Scholars of this ilk tend to describe the ancient world in extreme fashion, as a realm in which kingdoms extended over borderless expanses—as, for example, in Mellor’s statement: “Early kingdoms lay separated by broad no man’s land in inhospitable terrain.” 41 Although this approach is still prevalent today in the social sciences, it relies principally on historical surveys of European borders from the Hellenistic period onward. A similar proposal has been suggested recently by the Assyriologist Bradley Parker, who has examined the northern frontier region of the Assyrian Empire in light of archaeological and literary findings. 42 Parker’s theory is disputed by other scholars. Thus the sociologist Steven Grosby has 39.  See Roy E. H. Mellor, Nation, State and Territory: A Political Geography (London: Routledge, 1989) 53. Compare Lucien Febvre’s remark: “Ancient borders were never, so to speak, linear; more often they were zones” (A Geographical Introduction to History [trans. E. G. Mountford and J. H. Paxton; New York: Barnes and Noble, 1966] 369). 40. See Moshe Brawer, Israel’s Boundaries: Past, Present and Future (Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1988) 14–15 [Hebrew]. 41.  Mellor, Nation, State and Territory, 74. Compare Benedict Anderson’s description: “In the older imagining, where states were defined by centres, borders were porous and indistinct, and sovereignties faded imperceptibly into one another” (Imagined Communities [London: Verso, 1991] 19). 42.  Parker’s remarks about the Assyrian frontier region are unambiguous in this regard: “In fact, in light of the archaeological and textual evidence discussed in the following chapters, the entire concept of the linear border must be abandoned as a modern stereotype contrary to the nature of borders in the pre-modern world” (The Mechanics of Empire, 11). His view appears to be overly reliant on archaeological evidence, but there are no extant remains of the ancient “borders.” As we shall see, however, the literary evidence definitively demonstrates their existence in the ancient world.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

23

drawn attention to ancient Near Eastern sources that prove the existence of borders. 43 The investigation of ancient Near Eastern border descriptions supports this latter position, attesting the existence of borderlines alongside land divisions with a character that appropriates the definition of a “frontier.” In light of this evidence, we can no longer continue to propound that borders are a late historical development. We must also examine the multicentric world view related to international borders. A multipolar political perspective that we can observe in the broad international diplomatic activity associated with it existed in the ancient Near East during two significant periods in the second millennium b.c.e.: the eighteenth century and the fourteenth–thirteenth centuries. Evidence that several centers existed that possessed equal power is manifest in the words addressed to Zimri-Lim, king of Mari, in the eighteenth century b.c.e.: No king is powerful by himself: ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurabi, king of Babylon, as many follow Rim-Sin, king of Larsa, as many follow Ibalpiel, king of Eshnuna, as many follow Amutpiel, king of Qatna, twenty kings follow Iarimlim, king of Iamkhad. 44

One of the kings mentioned in this document, Yarim-Lim, king of Yamkhad, implicitly recognizes the areas governed by other rulers and the borders separating them in explaining that his father Shumu-epukh’s premature death was due to the sin he committed in trespassing the Assyrian border: “Shumu-epukh . . . came close to the kingdom that the god Adad had given Shamshi-Adad. But Shumu-epukh, my father, did not live until old age: because he attacked the land that Adad had given Shamshi-Adad, Adad killed him.” 45 An international border violation was thus considered to be a religious transgression—an act of defiance against the gods (here, Adad) who had determined the countries and borders of peoples—that was punishable by premature death. 43.  These even illustrate the existence of nation states—entities that were similar to what are considered exclusively modern phenomena by the social sciences. See Steven Grosby, Biblical Ideas of Nationality (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002) 120–49. 44. Georges Dossin, “Les archives épistolaires du Palais de Mari,” Syria 19 (1938) 117; English translation follows Jean-Robert Kupper, “Northern Mesopotamia and Syria,” in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 2/1: History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1800–1380 b.c. (3rd  ed.; ed. I.  E.  S. Edwards et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 10. 45. Jean-Marie Durand, “Le Mythologème du combat entre le Dieu de l’orage et la Mer en Mésopotamie,” MARI 7 (1993) 55, lines 1–21; cited in Robert M. Whiting, “Amorite Tribes and Nations of Second-Millennium Western Asia,” in CANE 2:1237.

24

Chapter 1

A similar balance of power existed in the fourteenth–thirteenth centuries, the second period of “the club of international powers,” to use Hayim Tadmor’s phrase. 46 A typical example of the multicentric world view characteristic of this period appears in the words of the Hittite king Tudḫaliya IV in his treaty with Šaušgamuwa, king of Amurru: “And the kings who are my equals in rank are the king of Egypt, the king of Babylonia, the king of Assyria, and the king of Ahhiyawa” (the scribe deleted the final name here). 47 The belief that transgressing international boundaries constituted a serious religious trespass reappears during this period, together with the accusation that the monarch’s father was responsible for committing sins of this sort. In the so-called “Plague Prayers” (1300 b.c.e.), the Hittite king Muršili II confesses that his father, Suppiluliuma, had encroached on Egyptian territory in violation of the agreement signed by the two powers. 48 This trespass, in breach of the agreement with Egypt, was considered an especially grievous sin, equivalent to abandonment of the cultus. The plague that visited Ḫatti in the days of Muršili II was considered the punishment for Suppiluliuma’s hubris, a belief reinforced by the fact that the plague reached Ḫatti by means of Egyptian captives. 49 The Hittites were thus well aware of the existence of other centers equal to them in power and capable of limiting their expansion. This recognition, arising out of the political, military, and economic conditions of West Asia in the second millennium b.c.e., constitutes an excellent example of the multicentric world view prevalent in the ancient Near East. In this context, the fact that the majority of the ancient Near Eastern border descriptions that have survived come from the Hittite Empire is not surprising. The right of existence attributed to neighboring states pertained to the territories under their rule and to their borders. According to the multicentric world view, the stability of the boundaries dividing neighboring countries was guaranteed by a balance of power and/or mutual agreements. 50 This fact elucidates the Hittite constraint in adopting epithets reflecting their aspirations 46. Hayim Tadmor, “The Decline of Empires in Western Asia ca. 1200 b.c.e.,” in Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1975) (ed. Frank M. Cross; Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1979) 3–4. 47. Cord Kühne and Heinrich Otten, Der Šaušgamuwa-Vertrag (StBoT 16; Wiesba­ den: Harrassowitz, 1971) 14–15; rev. IV 1–3; Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (2nd ed.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 106, §11. 48. Itamar Singer, Hittite Prayers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2002) 58, §§4–5. For Götze’s previous translation, see ANET 395. 49.  “Plague Prayer,” §5. 50. See Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 79.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

25

toward world dominion. Only in the thirteen century b.c.e., toward the end of the Hittite Empire and apparently under Mesopotamian influence did one of the Hittites’ last kings, Tudḫaliya IV, appropriate to himself the title “king of the world.” 51 All political world views, whether monocentric or multicentric, relate to external sovereign powers and the degree to which they are considered legitimate, as well as to the relationship between the sovereign and the rulers under his/her governance. The multicentric political perspective acknowledges that sovereign states enjoy equal status and a reciprocal (if not equal) relationship with other subject states. Thus, for example, in Hittite contracts with the rulers of various vassal states, the Hittite king returns the lands of the latter in return for their recognition of his sovereignty and a pledge not to conduct any independent foreign policy. 52 Under the Hittite imperialist system, the king committed himself to defending the borders of the ruler subject to him against any aggressive neighbors. The king’s interest in the relations among the states under his control is expressed in his general instructions that they safeguard their borders and his painstaking attention to the details of border conflicts. He is responsible for determining the status of the kingdoms subject to him and the extent of their lands, and he possesses exclusive control over the relations among the states under his governance. His role as the judge and arbitrator in conflicts between the latter is evident from Muršili II’s proclamation to one of the kings of Arzawa: “[Or] if you have some legal dispute, you shall not act rashly. . . . I, My Majesty, can set you on the proper path by means of a judgment.” 53 In contrast, the distinctively monocentric international political policy adopted by Egypt in its international relations did not sanction the signing of treaties with vassal states; instead, Egypt required the vassal states to swear an oath of allegiance to the Egyptian overlord, who was not obligated to them in any reciprocal fashion. 54 Assyrian vassal contracts from the first millennium 51.  See von Schuler, “Grenze (B. Nach hethitischen Texten),” 641 and the bibliography cited therein; Marie-Joseph Seux, Épithètes Royales Akkadiennes et Sumériennes (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1967) 310. 52. See Albrecht Götze, “The Struggle for the Domination of Syria (1400–1300 b.c.),” in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 2/2: History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c.  1380–1000 b.c. (3rd ed.; ed. I.  E.  S. Edwards et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975) II/2:8. 53.  This appears in Muršili II’s contract with Targasnalli, king of Hapalla: see Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 72, §10; Johannes Friedrich, Staatsverträge des HattiReiches in hethitischer Sprache (MVAG 31/2; Leipzig, 1926) 1:63, §11, lines 16–20. 54.  See Hayim Tadmor (“Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East: An Historian’s Approach,” in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book [ed. D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker;

26

Chapter 1

b.c.e. are also unilateral. While the vassal king was obligated to express his unconditional allegiance to the Assyrian king, the Assyrian king gave no such assurance in exchange. 55 In this sense, the Assyrian model resembles the Egyptian monocentric policy rather than the Hittite multicentric world view. The multicentric perspective reflected in the biblical texts is apparently directly linked to the views expressed in the Bible regarding the Israelite right to the land. The ancient Israelite multicentric view was not that the right to possess the land was a consequence of an ancient natural claim belonging to an autochthonic people but that the land was a divine gift to a people who had migrated from a different location. The god justified their settlement in the “new” land, while simultaneously expelling or annihilating the native populace. Hellenistic traditions demonstrate a similar conception of the relation between land and people: Apollo granted the land and the right to seize it from its inhabitants to the founder of the settlement; the agreement was formulated in the language of a bequest: “Satyrion is my gift to thee wherein/ To dwell, and the fat land of Taras too,/ A bane to be to the Iapygian folk” (Diodorus 8.21 [Oldfather, LCL]). 56 Having discussed the idea of the border and the world views regarding territorial division associated with it, we may scrutinize the way in which borders are depicted in ancient Near Eastern literature. This analysis will serve as a starting point for the discussion of the border descriptions in the Hebrew Bible. The fact that the biblical descriptions reflect conditions in diverse regions and across wide spans of time, notwithstanding, they permit an investigation of the primary features, characteristics, and functions of the land divisions that existed in the biblical world.

The Umma-Lagash Border in Sumer The area between the city of Umma (which headed the city alliance between Umma and Zabala in northern Sumer) and the city of Lagash (which led the city alliance among Lagash, Girsu, and Nina in eastern Sumer) was the stage of a protracted border conflict, the first of its type documented in history. The border’s significance (and that of the ensuing conflict) is evidenced by the fact that the issue subsequently became the subject of a canonical literary tradition that is reflected in inscriptions from Umma and Lagash over a period of 150 Chico, CA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1982] 127–52), who draws on Liverani’s work in this respect. 55.  Tadmor, “Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East,” 142. 56.  See Irad Malkin, “Colonization, the Word of God and Founders of Colonies in Ancient Greece,” Zmanim 12 (1983) 42 [Hebrew].

“Border” versus “Frontier”

27

years (approximately 2500–2350 b.c.e.). 57 This tradition contained such recurrent motifs as Kish’s King Mesalim’s initial determination of the border and the restoration of the original stele by Eannatum, ruler of Lagash. The language of the texts and their content reflect an established literary tradition that the authors of the inscriptions drew on for their own formulations. 58 The fullest and most detailed depiction of the conflict is found in the Entemena inscription, discovered in several copies on a clay cone and pots from Girsu and its environs. According to Jerrold Cooper, the cone may have served as a boundary marker, being set up directly on the border. Entemena, ruler of Lagash (ca. 2430 b.c.e.), describes the historical background of the conflict as follows: 59 “Enlil, king of all the lands, father of all the gods, by his authoritative command, demarcated the border between Ningirsu and Shara. Mesalim, king of Kish, at the command of Ishtaran, measured it off and erected a monument there.” 60 This inscription indicates that the border was instituted by a third party who was the lugal (“overlord”)—Mesalim, king of Kish, the ruler of a Sumerian state north of Umma and Lagash, who lived more than a century earlier than the events memorialized in the inscription (ca. 2600). The inscription continues: Eanatum, ruler of Lagash, uncle of Enmetena ruler of Lagash, demarcated the border with Enakale, ruler of Umma. He extended the [boundary-]channel from the Nun-channel to Guʾedena, leaving a 215-nindan [= 1,290 meters] 57.  Jerrold S. Cooper, Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions: The LagashUmma Border Conflict (Sources from the Ancient Near East 2/1; Malibu, CA: Undena, 1983) 12. 58.  Cooper, The Lagash-Umma Border Conflict, 38. For example, three different texts describe the invasion by Uš, ruler of Umma, of his rival’s territory using the expression “He marched on the plain of Lagash” (ibid., 48–49, inscriptions #3 ii; #4 i; #6 i. Similarly, the invasion of Urlumma, ruler of Umma, is described twice by the expression “He transgressed the boundary-channel of Ningirsu” (ibid., 49–50, inscriptions #5 viii; #6 iii). 59.  For a transliteration and translation into German, see Francois Thureau-Dangin, Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften (Leipzig, 1907) 36; Horst Steible, Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien  5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1982) 230–45. See also the French translation in Edmond Sollberger and Jean-Robert Kupper, Inscriptions royales summériennes et akkadiennes (Paris: Cerf, 1971) 71–75. 60.  Cooper, The Lagash-Umma Border Conflict, 49–50. Ningirsu was the city-god of Lagash; Shara was the city-god of Umma. With their role as representatives of the disputing parties, compare Deut 32:8. Ishtaran was the city-god of Dēr, which was situated on the border between Elam and Sumer. He was regarded as the god of justice and judgment and the arbitrator of border conflicts.

28

Chapter 1 [strip] of Ningirsu’s land under Umma’s control, establishing a no-man’s land there. He inscribed [and erected] monuments at that [boundary-]channel, and restored the monument of Mesalim, but did not cross into the plain of Umma. (Cooper’s translation)

The border between the Sumerian city-states separated independent sovereign entities and was intended to limit each to its own territory. It thus constitutes a prominent example of both the qualitative and quantitative (line) concepts of the “border.” Although the above inscription speaks of a “no-man’s land,” this does not refer to an undefined and/or unmarked region but to a clearly demarcated area containing fields irrigated by the canals marking the border. The conflict between the parties erupted due to unlawful usage under the current accord and concurrent military action, the latter being regarded as a violation of the border agreement. The quantitative character of the Umma-Lagash border is also reflected in the schematic description given in the inscription of Lugalzagesi, king of Umma and Uruk from 2360 b.c.e. 61 Two copies of the inscription are extant, one written on a clay pot, the other engraved on a stone tablet. The stone tablet apparently was the actual border stele, the erection of which the text describes: This is the border according to the monument of Shara: fr[om] the Al . . . -canal [to] the Dua-canal is 45 nin[dan] (0.27 km). This is the border according to the monum[ent] of Shara: [from the Dua]cana[l to . . . is x nindan. This is the border according to the monument of Shara: from . . . to Haral is x nindan]. This is the border according to the monumen[t of Shara]: fr[om] Haral [to] the fortress . . . ra is 21,630 nindan (12.78 km). 62 This is the border according to the monument of Shara: from the fortress . . . ra to Nagnanshe is 636 nindan (3.816 km). This is the border according to the monument of Shara: from the Nagnanshe to the Gibil-canal is 1180 nindan (7.08 km). 61.  Lugalzagesi was a king who claimed control, prior to his defeat at the hands of Sargon, king of Akkad, over the whole of Sumer and the highways “from the lower sea [the Persian Gulf] to the Tigris and Euphrates to the upper sea [the Mediterranean]” (Steible, Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, 2:316–17). See Thorkild Jacobsen, “Early Political Development in Mesopotamia,” ZA 52 (1957) 135–36; Cooper, The Lagash-Umma Border Conflict, 94. 62.  This distance is exceptional in its length and is not feasible in light of the other distances noted in the text. According to Cooper, it should be amended to read 390 nindan (= 2.34 km; The Lagash-Umma Border Conflict, 53 n. 1).

“Border” versus “Frontier”

29

This is the border according to the monument of Shara: from the Gibil-canal to Edimgalabazu is 960 ninda[n] (5.76 km). [This is the] b[order according to the monument of Shara]: from E[di] mgalabaz[u] to Murgushara is 790 nindan (4.74 km). This is the [b]order according to the monument of Shara: from [Mur] gu to [. . .] Ishtaran is [. . .] nindan. This is [the border] according to [the mo]nument of Shara: [f]rom [. . .] Ishtaran to [Anza]gar is [12]80 nindan (7.68 km). This is [the border] according to [the m]onument of Shara: from [Anza]gar [to . . . is . . . nindan] He did not go beyo[nd] its boundary-levee. He restored its (former) monuments and, at Ishtaran’s command, erected a (new) monument on that spot. If another leader destroys it there or takes it away and makes off (with it), may [his] city, like a place (infested) with harmful snakes, not allow him to hold his head erect. 63

This schematic description depicts the border as a line that links two points along a canal system dug across fields. The distances between the various intervals (from 270 m to ca. 7 km; 4.5/5 km average) demonstrate that the description reflects real conditions. The Umma-Lagash border was intended to demarcate precisely which fields and canals belonged to each party, in a manner similar to the marking of private or temple/palatial agricultural plots and water canals. 64 63.  Cooper, The Lagash-Umma Border Conflict, 16. For a transliteration and translation into German, see Steible, Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, 2:325–33. Given the present endeavor to differentiate between “border” and “frontier,” Cooper’s usage of the latter term has been replaced with the former term here. 64.  For these two forms of land in Sumer, see Igor M. Diakonov, “On the Structure of Old Babylonian Society,” in Beiträge zur sozialen Struktur des alten Vorderasien (ed. H. Klengel; Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 1; Berlin: Akademie, 1971) 15–31. The economic documents attest the importance that was attached to measuring fields, marking the measurements on the ground, and keeping written records throughout the history of Mesopotamia. For the third millennium b.c.e., see Ignace J. Gelb, Piotr Steinkeller, and Robert M. Whiting Jr., Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus (OIP 104; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991). For the Old Babylonian period, see William W. Hallo, “The Road to Emar,” JCS 18 (1964) 57 nn. 11–13; Karen R. Nemet-Nejat, Late Babylonian Field Plans in the British Museum (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982) 14 n. 2. For the Middle Babylonian Kudurru stones—which Kathryn Slanski has suggested should be named narû (The Babylonian Entitlement Narus [Kudurrus]: A Study in Their Form and Function [Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2003), see, for example, Leonard W. King, Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1912) ##13, 15, 26. For records of fields from the Neo-Babylonian period, see Nemet-Nejat, Late Babylonian Field Plans in the British Museum.

30

Chapter 1

The border, under the topographical and agricultural circumstances of Sumer, thus served as an exact, quantitative line. 65 The features of the Umma-Lagash border correspond to the modern concept of the boundary: it was founded on agreements and clearly marked on the ground by steles and canals. Similar to contemporary borders, the fact that it and its markers were fixed by a third party, acceptable to both sides, did not prevent conflicts and claims from arising, leading to warfare—in the wake of which, the boundary between the two city-states of Umma and Lagash was moved.

The Border of the Hittite Kingdom of Tarḫuntašša A second territorial division, which corresponds to the qualitative definition of a border, appears in the demarcation of the borders of the Kingdom of Tarḫuntašša, part of the Hittite Empire in the thirteenth century b.c.e. As in the case of the Umma-Lagash border, the boundaries of the Kingdom of Tarḫuntašša were fixed and confirmed by a supreme political authority. In two documents, the contents of which partially overlap—the Ulmi-Teššub Treaty and the Bronze Tablet—the Hittite king fixed the borders of the land of Tarḫuntašša on behalf of its ruler, a scion of the royal Hittite dynasty. 66 The description notes the sites located along the length of the borders and indicates the ruler to which they are subject—the king of Tarḫuntašša or one of his neighbors. Thus, for example, it defines the border region of a neighboring kingdom, the Kingdom of Pitašša, in the following terms: 67 65.  The Sumerian city-state depended on a single central irrigation system (a river stream or central canal), which was the primary unifying factor among the inhabitants of the region. The city-states were contiguous with one another, virtually no land dividing or separating their territory. While some segments of the populace possessed ethnic or religious affinities, economic interests led neighboring city-states to forgo economic or political ties over long periods; the tense relationships were largely the result of land and water disputes: see Igor M. Diakonov, “Economy of the Ancient Oriental City (Western Asia 3rd–2nd Millennia b.c.),” in Fifth International Congress of Economic History: Leningrad, 1970 (ed. Herman van der Wee, Vladimir Aleksandrovich Vinogradov, and G. G. Kotovskiĭ; The Hague: Mouton, 1970) 3–5. 66.  For these two documents, see Theo P. J. van den Hout, Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag (StBoT 38; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995); Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy. For an English translation, see Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 109–24. For a discussion of the much-debated relationship between the two documents, see my “Tribal Boundaries in Light of Tarḫuntašša Border Descriptions,” 168. 67.  For the identification of Pitašša, see Susanne Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa (Texte der Hethiter 8; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1977) 355–77.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

31

In the direction of the land Pitassa, your border is Mount Hawa, the kantanna 68 of the city of Zarniya, and the city of Sanantarwa, but the kantanna of the city of Zarniya belongs to the Hulaya River Land [= a part of the Kingdom of Tarḫuntašša], 69 while Sanantarwa belongs to the land of Pitassa. 70

This text exhibits interest in places that possessed economic value. While the border is defined by reference to three sites, only two of these belonged to one of the parties—the kantanna of the city of Zarniya and the city of Sanantarwa. In contrast, Mount Hawa is not said to belong to either of the parties, and the other mountains marking the border similarly lack explicit attribution to either side. 71 Notations of the type “belonging to” do appear in relation to places on these mountains or their vicinity, however, when they are economically important. Thus, for example, a paragraph describing the border that divided Tarḫuntašša and Hittite territory states: And in the direction of the city of Šinuwanta, Mount Lula is its border, but the city of Ninainta belongs to the Hulaya River Land whereas all the fields of the ‘Golden Charioteer’ 72 behind it belong to My Majesty. 73

While the mountain serves as the boundary, the contract identifies the parties who own economically valuable places (cities or fields) located on the mountain. With the exception of these areas, the mountain itself is middle ground, not being allocated to either party. It thus appears that the description of the Tarḫuntašša border was not merely a theoretical literary document but was significant on a practical and legal level. Since it defined the places that lay under the administrative and judicial authority of the king of Tarḫuntašša, the borders mentioned fall under the qualitative and delimitating category of a “border.” From a quantitative perspective, on the other hand, the borders described are not “lines” in the modern sense. The border regions’ topography meant that, while the residents of the cities knew precisely under whose jurisdiction they and their fields fell and to whom they owed their taxes, the 68.  A territorial concept of some sort, identified as a foreign term: see Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy, 32; van den Hout, Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag, 54. 69.  See John D. Hawkins, The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (Südburg) (StBoT 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995) 50. 70.  Ulmi-Teššub Treaty, lines 16′–18′; Bronze Tablet i 18–21 (Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 109–10, §2; see also p. 114, §3). 71.  For example, Mount Lula (the Ulmi-Teššub Treaty, line 26′) or Mount Šarlaimi (line 28′). 72.  An epithet given to a noble in the royal Hittite court: see Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy, 35. 73.  Ulmi-Teššub Treaty, lines 26′–27′; Bronze Tablet i 43–45.

Chapter 1

32

mountains and other areas of no economic value that divided different territories remained “public property.” The above description demonstrates a typological affinity with the precise boundary depictions given in the Hebrew Bible: the descriptions of the borders of the Promised Land (Num 34:1–12), the tribal allotments (Joshua 15–19), and the future dimensions of the land (Ezek 47:14–48:35). The correspondence between the two sets of texts derives first and foremost from the multicentric world view they share: First, a sovereign overlord (in the extrabiblical sources, he is the Hittite king; in the biblical literature, he is God) delineates for his subjects the borders of the land that he is bestowing on them. Both sets of documents provide border descriptions that recognize the neighboring entities’ right to exist. Second, the perspective reflected in both is metaterritorial, explicit, and clearly defined on all four sides.

Borders Adduced from Nonspecific Descriptions Although the Sumerian and Hittite border descriptions examined above employ divergent methods of depiction, the picture they provide is full and accurate. However, there are also ancient Near Eastern documents that allude to boundaries without providing these detailed descriptions. Hittite diplomatic texts from the second half of the second millennium b.c.e. thus provide a defined and accurate concept of territory, whether as a geographical-political unit represented by name alone or defined in precise and explicit form in politicallegal contexts. I shall now discuss some characteristic examples of texts embodying this type of border concept. The Territory of Madduwatta The first case I examine dates to the period prior to the establishment of the Hittite Empire and attests the fact that the perspective reflected in texts from the imperial period is rooted in an earlier world view. At the end of the fifteenth century b.c.e., a Hittite king—probably Arnuwanda I—rebuked Madduwatta, a local ruler in southwestern Anatolia, 74 for having encroached on the border that the former had defined: The father of My Majesty repeatedly spoke as follows to you, Madduwatta: “Come, occupy the land of Mount Hariyati, so that you will be near Hatti.” Madduwatta refused to occupy the land of Mount Hariyati, so the father of My Majesty proceeded to say again as follows to Madduwatta: “I have now given you the land of Mount Zippasla, so occupy it alone. You shall not oc74.  For Madduwatta’s instructions, see Albrecht Götze, Madduwattaš (MVAG 32/1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1928).

“Border” versus “Frontier”

33

cupy another river valley or another land in addition on your own authority. [The land of Mount] Zippasla shall be your border district.” . . . You, Madduwatta, transgressed [the oaths] of the father of My Majesty. The father of My Majesty [gave] you the land of Zippasla to occupy. Then he made you swear an oath. . . . “I have now given you the land [of Mount] Zippasla, [so] occupy [it alone]. You shall not occupy another land of [another] river valley in addition [on your own authority].” 75

The lands mentioned in this admonition are referred to by name: “the land of Mount Hariyati,” “the land of Ḫatti,” “the land of Mount Zippasla.” Although the Hittite king does not define any borders, the context clearly indicates that Madduwatta and his neighbors were well aware of the dimensions of all the pieces of land and their respective borders, recognizing aggressive acts to constitute an unlawful encroachment. The fact that the Hittite king’s statement alludes to a relationship formed during his father’s reign suggests that the words may derive from an official document that explicitly defined the territory of “the land of Mount Zippasla.” It is also possible, however, that it refers to an unwritten historical division that was recognized by the two parties. Even though the Hittite king does not mention a written document in this particular instance, this does not preclude these facts: the territory granted to Madduwatta was a defined piece of land, it was surrounded by known borders, and trespass against it was liable to punishment. The Borders of the Land of Arzawa Similar claims and admonitions are found in the vassal treaties relating to the confederate kings of the lands of Arzawa in southwest Anatolia following their incorporation into the Hittite Empire (around 1300 b.c.e.). 76 Muršili II instituted a new relationship between the kings of Arzawa and between them 75.  Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 154, §4, 155–56, §8; Götze, Madduwattaš, 4–7, §4, lines 17–20; 10–11, §8, lines 42–44. 76.  These treaties were written following Muršili II’s defeat of Uhha-ziti of Arzawa, the most important state in the western Anatolian confederation, in the fourth year of Muršili II’s reign. Muršili reorganized Arzawa and its neighbors, Mira-Kuwaliya on the east and the land of the Šeha River and Appawiya on the north: see Beckman (Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 69) in his introductory remarks about the group of Hittite treaties with the kings from western Anatolia; Albrecht Götze, Die Annalen des Muršiliš (MVAG 38; Darmstadt, 1933) 33–77. For the conditions prevailing in the region of Arzawa following the period in which it came under the influence of the Hittite Empire, see further Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, 121–47; Itamar Singer, “Western Anatolia in the Thirteenth Century b.c. according to the Hittite Sources,” Anatolian Studies 33 (1983) 205–17.

34

Chapter 1

and Ḫatti, instructing the various rulers to refrain from trespassing upon their neighbors’ lands:   I have now given you the land of the Seha River and the land of [Appawiya]. This shall be your land—protect [it]! You shall not hereafter desire a Hittite person or a border district of Hatti. . . . 77   Furthermore, [I], My Majesty, [have] now [given] you, [ManapaTarhunta], the land of the Seha River and the land of Appawiya. This shall be your land—protect it! [And I have given] the land of Mira and the land of Kuwaliya to Mashuiluwa. [And] I have given the land of Hapalla to Targasnalli. This shall be your territory—protect it! 78

Although this treaty lacks detailed information about the territory acknowledged by the overlord, it does contain general descriptions, such as “the land of the Seha River” and “the land of Hapalla.” Apparently, the local rulers clearly understood the boundaries of the land they received. The general language and conventional terminology make it difficult to discern whether the local kingdoms within Anatolia possessed clear borders (linear or otherwise) or whether each local ruler governed the residents in his sphere of influence without any definition of explicit borders (either in literarylegal documents or in physical markers of some sort). It is thus best to assume that the lands were divided by means of a functional rather than a demarcated border. Since one of the Hittite vassal treaties with the Arzawa lands gives more-detailed information regarding the border, however, we may conclude that these kingdoms possessed clear and precise boundaries. In the treaty between Muršili II and Kupanta-Kurunta, king of the land of Mira-Kuwaliya (one of the kings of Arzawa in western Anatolia), the general statement “I have given you the land of X” is expanded in a brief description of the borders of the territory granted to the local ruler:   To you I have given the land of Mira and the land of Kuwaliya. Just as the borders were in the past in the days of Mashuiluwa, so they will be also now to you.

77. See Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 84, §5; Johannes Friedrich, Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache II (MVAG 34/1; Leipzig, 1930) 10–11, §5, lines 63–65. 78.  Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 84, §7; Friedrich, Staatsverträge des HattiReiches in hethitischer Sprache II, 12–15, §10, lines 15–19.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

35

  On this side [i.e., from the side facing Hatti], 79 in the direction of the city of Maddunassa, the fortified camp of Tudhaliya will be your border. 80   And on the other side [i.e., the side facing Mira-Kuwaliya], the sinkhole 81 of the city of Wiyanawanda will be your border. You shall not cross [the water] 82 beyond the city of Aura.   On this side, in the direction of the Astarpa River, the land of Kuwaliya will be your border. 83 This land shall be yours—protect it!   You shall not found a single city in the direction of the Astarpa River, or in that of the Siyanta River. 84 If you do found even a single city, you will have transgressed the oath and I will come as an enemy and attack it. . . .   Protect for yourself this land which I, My Majesty, have given to you. Furthermore, you shall not desire any border district of Hatti, [and] you shall not take for yourself any border district of Hatti. Or if because I, My Majesty, did not give you anything on this side, in the direction of the Astarpa River

79. See Friedrich, Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache I, 117 n. 2. 80.  A variant version: “The city Maddunassa [and] the fortified camp of Tudhaliya” (ibid., 117, §9, n. 3). Beckman translates “frontier” throughout this document—a rendering which, for reasons this chapter makes clear, I do not accept. 81.  According to Gordon, the Sumerogram dKASKAL.KUR (which literally signifies “way of the land”) indicates the limestone water sinkholes that are prevalent in Turkey (known as düden in Turkish), which are currents of water that disappear underground and resurface in a different location: Edmund I. Gordon, “The Meaning of the Ideogram d KASKAL.KUR = ‘Underground Water-Course,’ and Its Significance for Bronze Age Historical Geography,” JCS 21 (1967–69) 71–82. An identical sign was found in the hieroglyphic inscription from Hatušša (SÜDBURG) defining the consecrated artificial pool, the construction of which the inscription marks (Hawkins, The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa, 44–45). Since the sacred waters in this pool also possessed an underground source, the sign appears to denote the entrance to an underground passage—that is, pools of water, either natural or artificial, that disappear into the ground. See also van den Hout, Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag, 55. 82.  The Hittite verb zai serves, among other significations, as a semantic parallel to the Akkadian verb ebērum, which carries the sense of “to cross to the other side of a body of water”: see Gordon, “The Meaning of the Ideogram dKASKAL.KUR,” 70-88. 83. See Friedrich, Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache I, 116 n. 15. A variant version: “The Astarpa River [and] the land of Kuwaliya.” According to Heinhold-Krahmer (Arzawa, 201 n. 297), it is difficult to posit that the phrase “land of Kuwaliya” refers to a specific border. She therefore suggests that it should be translated here: “And on this side, the Astarpa River will be to you a border [of] the land of Kuwa­ liya.” The continuation of the text indicates that the river itself served as the boundary. 84.  In the original: URULUM-IA. The suffix IA is not a conjunctive particle (according to Friedrich, Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache I, 116, line 33) but an Akkadogram signifying the first-person possessive pronoun.

36

Chapter 1 and the Siyanta River, you cross the border and take something for yourself, you will have offended against the oath, and have transgressed the oath. . . . 85

It is worth considering why, in contrast to other regular vassal treaties, this treaty includes a detailed description of the boundaries, particularly where they border Muršili’s own kingdom. He is not satisfied with the names of the lands and his usual schematic commands to protect the borders. The boundaries are defined in relation to settlements (fortified camps) and bodies of water (a water course and two rivers). The terminology “and on this side”—that is, the side of Ḫatti—indicates that the settlement mentioned belonged to the territory of Ḫatti. Although similar phraseology appears to attribute the water sources to Mira-Kuwaliya, the king’s principal concern (repeatedly emphasized) is that the vassal king will neither cross the waters nor demand rights to the cities on the other side; he displays little interest in a legal definition of the ownership of the water sources themselves. 86 The depiction of the border is neither complete nor detailed. Its focus on multiple border locations and on prohibiting the crossing of water sources or settling of cities on the other side of the river (which will draw a Hittite military response: “and I will come as an enemy and attack it”), on the other hand, are evidence of the fact that the treaty’s primary concern was the issue of security. The lands of Arzawa, to which Mira-Kuwaliya belonged, had in the past been a particularly dangerous region for the Hittite Kingdom. In his annals, Muršili II himself describes how he went out to battle following an incident in which the enemy army crossed the Astarpa River near the land of Walma. 87 It is thus the sensitive security situation of the region (that includes Ḫatti’s common border with Mira-Kuwaliya) that seems to lie behind the Hittite king’s decision to deviate from the standard formula employed in vassal treaties with the lands west of Ḫatti. As in other Hittite vassal treaties, the border description in this alliance with the king of Mira-Kuwaliya appears in the context of the relations between two states and is closely linked to the concept that the king rules over all the lands and is responsible for their borders. The vassal king only exercises sovereignty over the territory granted to him by the Hittite king. The reiterated statement “from this direction” (that is, the side facing Ḫatti, or the land of Mira-Ku85. See Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 76, §§9–10; Friedrich, Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache I, 114–19, §§8–9, lines 26–32; §10, lines 19–25; Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, 201–2. 86.  For the role of water sources in general and rivers in particular in ancient border descriptions, see my “Water Division in Border Agreements,” SAAB 10 (1996) 55–66. 87.  Götze, Die Annalen des Muršiliš, 50–51, line 24.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

37

waliya) attests that the depiction, included for security reasons, applies solely to the boundary between Ḫatti and Mira-Kuwaliya rather than to all the borders of the vassal kingdom. At the same time, the lands of Mira-Kuwaliya itself, which the Hittite king “gives” to the vassal king, constitute a defined and delimited vassal state that borders on other territories. The opening statement in the boundary description of Mira-Kuwaliya indicates that this is an existing border, and the treaty is designed to confirm its validity: “Just as the borders were in the past in the days of Mashuiluwa, so they will be also now to you.” This dependence on existing agreed-upon boundaries, which may or may not be defined explicitly, appears to have been the regular practice of Hittite international relations. Moshe Weinfeld has demonstrated that the statements contained in these Hittite vassal treaties closely resemble the commands found in the historiographical preface to the book of Deuteronomy. 88 This introductory unit presents the book of Deuteronomy as Moses’ speech to the Israelites on the eve of their entrance into the land: “See, I place the land at your disposal. Go, take possession of the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to assign to them and to their heirs after them” (Deut 1:8). As they passed through the territories of Edom, Moab, and Ammon—Israel’s neighbors to the east, who were also family relatives—God cautioned the people against attempting to inherit these lands: “For I will not give you of their land so much as a foot can tread on; I have given the hill country of Seir as possession to Esau” (Deut 2:5); “For I will not give you any of their land as a possession; I have assigned Ar as a possession to the descendants of Lot” (2:9); “For I will not give any part of the land of the Ammonites to you as a possession; I have assigned it as a possession to the descendants of Lot” (2:19). As in the Hittite treaties, the biblical statements contain no details of the borders of the territories that the Supreme Ruler is bestowing on his people. The “imperative” language only employs general phrases: “the land (which the Lord swore to your fathers),” “the hill country of Seir,” “Ar,” and “the land of the Ammonites.” This usage corresponds to indicators such as “the land of the Seha River” and “the land of the Apawiya River” in the Hittite treaties and edicts. The Borders of the Kingdom of Amurru In 1258 b.c.e., Ḫattušili III, king of Ḫatti, made a vassal treaty with Benteshina, king of Amurru, the Syrian kingdom at the eastern reach of the Hittite 88. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972; repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 72.

Chapter 1

38

Empire. 89 Although the treaty contains no true border description, the Hittite king recalls the historical treaty which his grandfather, Suppiluliuma, had made with Aziru, king of Amurru, around a century earlier. From his comment that, “My grandfather . . . wrote out the borders of the land of Amurru of his [Aziru’s] ancestors and gave it [the tablet] to him,” 90 we learn that, when relations were established between the two kingdoms, the Hittite king ordered a document to be written in which he demarcated the borders of the land of Amurru. This document was given to Aziru, king of Amurru, a copy also being kept in the Hittite archive for future reference, although no border description exists in any of the extant versions of the treaty between Suppiluliuma and Aziru (three copies in Akkadian and one in Hittite). 91 According to the attestation provided by the Hittite king, we can conclude that “the land of Amurru” was a well-known geographical entity whose territory was identified in a binding document given to the ruler of Amurru. The Borders of Ugarit Northern Ugarit: The Border with Mukish.  In the fourteenth century b.c.e., Ugarit succumbed to Ḫatti and became a vassal kingdom. The king of Ugarit, Niqmaddu II, traveled to the city of Alalakh, the capital of Mukish, north of Ugarit, to meet with Suppiluliuma, demonstrate his loyalty to the Hittite king, and acknowledge the obligations of his new position (ca. 1340 b.c.e.). 92 In the vassal treaty concluded between them, Suppiluliuma lists a series of sites in northern Ugarit on the border with Mukish that appear to represent locations

89.  For a discussion of the date of this treaty, see Philo H.  J. Houwink ten Cate, “Urhi-Tessub Revisited,” BO 51 (1994) 233–48, especially p. 246. 90.  Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 101, §2; Ernst F. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien (Boghazköi Studien 8–9; Leipzig, 1923) 124, line 6. For the kingdom of Amurru and its relations with Ḫatti, see Itamar Singer, “A Concise History of Amurru,” in Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study (ed. Shlomo Izre'el; HSS 41; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 2:135–95. 91.  For the Akkadian version, see Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 36–41; Friedrich, Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache I, 76–79. It is possible that a border description appeared in the treaty in a fragmented section absent from all the versions—or that the borders were demarcated in a special edict appended to the treaty, such as the edicts presented to the king of Ugarit. See below. 92.  For the historical circumstances, see Horst Klengel, Syria 3000 to 300 b.c.: A Handbook of Political History (Berlin: Akademie, 1992) 133; Itamar Singer, “A Political History of Ugarit,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt; HO 39; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 632–36.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

39

transferred from Mukish to the sovereignty of the king of Ugarit. 93 As Itamar Singer notes, the multiple number of Akkadian copies of this document, together with the copy discovered in the Ugaritic archives, attest the fact that “all copies of important political documents were meticulously collected and kept for future generations.” 94 In the following generation, the residents of Mukish protested the annexation of these territories to Ugarit. The border conflict was brought before Muršili II, king of Ḫatti, who examined the case and determined in favor of Ugarit. 95 In his edict, written in Akkadian and sent to Niqmepa, king of Ugarit, which was preserved (in several copies) in the archives of Ugarit, the king confirmed the division of lands that his father, Suppiluliuma, had stipulated in the treaty he made with Niqmaddu II. In this document, he named the cities that had been annexed to Ugarit:   [Concerning] the cities of the border districts of the land of Mukish [that] Suppiluliuma deeded over to Niqmaddu, [king] of the land of Ugarit, in a treaty tablet—Now when Niqmepa, son of Niqmaddu, had approached the Great King, saying: “The people of the land of Mukish have sued me, Niqmepa, at law concerning these cities,” and when Mursili, Great King, investigated this case, he determined that these cities have belonged to the land 93.  PRU 4.51:1′–7′. See Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 35, §5; Einar von Schuler, “Staatsverträge mit dem Hethiterreich,” in Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden: Historischchronologische Texte (ed. O.  Kaiser; TUAT  1/2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1983) 131–32. The annexation of these cities from Mukish appears to have been a reward given to the king of Ugarit for his loyalty to the Hittite monarch. The historical introduction to the treaty indicates that the Syrian confederation of Mukish and Nuhašše-niya attempted to compel Niqmaddu to participate in a military operation against the Kingdom of Ḫatti (PRU 4.48–50:1–21). For a comparison of the roles of border transfers between kingdoms subject to the Hittite Empire in the second millennium b.c.e. and the vassal kingdoms of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the first millennium b.c.e., see my article “‘I Have Erased the Borders of Peoples’ (Isa. 10:13): Border Shifts as an Assyrian Power Tool in ‘The Land of Hatti,’” ErIsr 27 (Miriam and Hayim Tadmor Volume; 2003) esp. p. 115 [Hebrew]. 94.  Singer, “A Political History of Ugarit,” 634. 95.  Klengel, Syria 3000 to 300 b.c., 137. According to Astour, because Mukish was no longer an independent entity at this date, the name refers to all the lands that had once been under its control: Michael C.  Astour, “The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu,” UF 11 (1979) 18. In contrast, Liverani considers the Kingdom of Mukish to have been a vassal state loyal to Ḫatti; its king was seeking to reclaim the territory that had belonged to Mukish in the past. The extent of these lands, in Liverani’s opinion, was much smaller than supposed by Astour. Liverani also maintains that Muršili did in fact alter the boundaries in favor of Mukish: see Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 83–84, 91; Singer, “A Political History of Ugarit,” 640.

40

Chapter 1 of Ugarit since long ago. And now Mursili, Great King, has [accordingly (?)] given them to Niqmepa, king of the land of Ugarit.   [The text continues with an enumeration of the cities and their environs confirmed to Ugarit by Mursili.]   [Previously] Suppiluliuma, Great King, [King of Hatti, Hero], gave his border districts to Niqmaddu, [king of the land of Ugarit], together with their fields, [their mountains], and their [cities. Now] Mursili, [Great] King, has thus given them [to Niqmepa], king of the land of Ugarit, [and] to his sons [and grandsons forever]. In the future the people of Mukish shall not make a [legal] complaint against Niqmepa and his sons or grandsons [concerning] these [cities]. This tablet will answer whoever makes a complaint. 96

Muršili’s edict highlights the role played by the Hittite king in determining the borders of the kingdoms under his sovereignty, emphasizing the boundaries’ function as marking the division of territory between vassal states. The king serves here as the supreme arbitrator in border disputes. Since his decree constitutes a legal document, carefully preserved in the archives in order to prove sovereignty, it thus contains a detailed enumeration of the locations that had been annexed from Mukish by Ugarit and that the king had approved. Southern Ugarit: The border with the Kingdom of Siyannu.  Ugarit was involved in another border dispute with the Kingdom of Siyannu, on its southern boundary. When Ugarit became a Hittite vassal state, Siyannu was subject to Ugarit. Some 40 years later, during the reign of Muršili II, Siyannu was promoted to the rank of a vassal kingdom directly subject to Carchemish, the Hittite power center in Syria. 97 The change in status does not appear to have been a punishment of Ugarit; rather, it was instituted to prevent an increase in the king’s might or the establishment of too great a center of affluence and power in the region—along the lines of “divide and conquer.” 98 As might be expected, this decision greatly displeased the king of Ugarit. In contrast to the kingdom’s boundary with Mukish, which ran through mountainous terrain in northern Ugarit, its border with Siyannu in the south ran through a densely 96.  PRU 4.63–70; Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 74–75, §§2, 4. For a reconstruction of the Ugarit borders, see Michael C. Astour, “Les frontières et les districts du royaume d’Ugarit,” UF 13 (1981) 1–11, and the map on p. 12; Dennis Pardee and Pierre Bordreuil, “Ugarit: Texts and Literature,” ABD 6:715. 97.  PRU 4.71–72.3–8, 80.3–9. See Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 161, §1; Astour, “The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu,” 14. For the history of the Kingdom of Siyannu, see Astour, “Les frontières et les districts du royaume d’Ugarit,” 13–28. 98.  Singer, “A Political History of Ugarit,” 640. According to Bryce, one of the principal purposes of vassal treaties was to isolate the subject states politically and militarily and thus divide them: Trevor R. Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) 52.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

41

populated and fertile region, thus occasioning mutual territorial claims and frequent conflicts. As was customary, the two sides turned to the Hittite king to settle the dispute. Muršili transferred some of the cities to Ugaritic sovereignty and some to Siyannu, giving still others to the Kingdom of Ushnatu, a “sister” kingdom of Siyannu. 99 Muršili’s edict opens with the heading: “These cities, which from ancient times belonged to Ugarit.” It subsequently enumerates the cities in two parallel lists, separated by the stamp of Muršili II (lines 12–14), 100 determining that they will remain under Ugaritic sovereignty and that Abdi-Anati, king of Siyannu, and his sons will have no claim on them. The edict then proceeds to list the cities given to the Kingdom of Siyannu, which originally consisted of 16 names (lines 32–36). In a separate inventory, it names the cities granted to the Kingdom of Ushnatu (lines 37–39). The economic function of the border appears clearly in the final paragraph, which deals with the division of the salina (salt marsh) between Ugarit and Siyannu: And regarding the salt, [the king of] Ugarit and the king of Siya[nnu] have said thus: “The entire field of salt is 3 ikû.” I am granting to Niqmepa, king of Ugarit, 1 ikû of the salt field, 1 ikû of the salt field to Abdi-Anati, king of Siyannu, and from the third ikû I am granting two parts to the king of Ugarit and one part to the king of Siyannu. 101

The border demarcation was clearly intended to divide property and sources of income (in this case, salt) between the two kings. Since the salt marsh appears to have been located some distance from the boundary, Muršili gave sole rights to the enclave within Ugaritic territory to the king of Siyannu—due to the importance attributed to the salt. 102 In another document, Muršili II once again dealt with the Ugarit-SiyannuUshnatu border dispute, this time ruling on the question of the ownership of lands around the cities of Ḫarmana and Šuksi:   From this day, the case in regard to the fields of the city of Šuksi and the case in regard to the city of Ḫarmana have been brought for ruling before me, My Excellency. And now, let there be justice between them as in the days past. 99.  PRU 4.71–81, 230–31. For Siyannu and Ushnatu, see Astour, “The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu,” 18–19. 100.  PRU 4.72:14–21. Out of 16 names originally enumerated in this list, only 7 are extant, either in full or in part. For a reconstruction of these and their identification, see Astour, “The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu,” 18. 101.  PRU 4.74–75:57–64. See Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 91. 102.  Astour, “The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu,” 18.

42

Chapter 1   The fields of the king of Ugarit, which (have been) forever in Šuksi, (will remain) in the possession of the king of Ugarit. And the fields of the king of Ugarit, which (have been) forever in Ḫarmana, (will remain) in the possession of the king of Ugarit. The fields of Abdi-Ninurta, 103 which (have been) forever in Šuksi, (will remain) in the possession of Abdi-Ninurta. And the fields which (have been) forever in the possession of Abdi-Ninurta (will remain) in the possession of Abdi-Ninurta. 104

Since the edict makes it clear that each of the parties possessed lands in the cities of Šuksi and Ḫarmana, the king of Ḫatti was required to be competent in distributing local lands between the two kings. Moreover, in some cases, he not only ruled regarding the question of sovereignty in respect to the contentious kings but also dealt with the division of lands belonging to other people. Thus, for example, in one of his rulings Muršili allocated a vineyard belonging to a temple in the city of Šuksi partly to the priests of the city of Ari in Ugarit and partly to the priests of Siyannu. 105 Although the edict does not provide details about the distribution, it established that the fields would be distributed “between party A and party B.” It is reasonable to assume that the distribution between the two sides was equal. In another case, Muršili distinguished between lands within the territory of the city of Ḫarmana belonging to the king of Siyannu and lands belonging to the residents of other Ugaritic cities, who apparently possessed rights within Ḫarmana: [The lands of Ḫarmana, which have al]way[s] been in the possession of AbdiAna[ti] (will remain) in his possession. [And the lands of] Ḫarmana, [which have al]ways been in the possession of the residents of Mulukki, (will remain) in their possession. [And the lands of] Ḫarmana, [which have al]ways been in the possession of the residents of Galba, (will remain) in their possession. 106

This edict testifies that the Hittite king was required to distinguish between lands belonging to different entities within the Kingdom of Ugarit—whether 103. It is unclear whether “Abdi-Ninruta” is the son of Abdi-Anati or whether this is a variant orthographic spelling of the same name: see Astour, “The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu,” 21. 104.  PRU 4.230–231:1–23. 105.  PRU 4.230. The priests are identified by the term marziʾu, which only occurs in Akkadian texts from Ugarit and is associated with the Ugaritic word mrzḥ. They appear to have been a group of professional people or figures who held some sort of religious office: see CAD M/1 321. For the translation “priest,” see AHw 616. For the city of Ari, see Astour, “The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu,” 16. 106.  PRU 4.78:1′–11′.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

43

lands owned by the king himself or those jointly owned by the residents of the cities of Mulukki and Galba, the latter apparently being located within Ugaritic territory. 107 These rulings give no indication of the method used to affix the land distribution. The sole text in which any border marking is mentioned is another of Muršili II’s edicts that deals with the boundary between Ugarit and Siyannu. Following the division of cities between them, Muršili notes that the ruling was to be executed by the top-ranking Hittite priest (known in Hittite as uriyannu): The priest executed these rulings and divided the regions between the king of Ugarit and the king of Siyannu, setting up stones to mark the borders between them. 108

In this case, the city of Shamna had been granted to the king of Siyannu by an earlier edict 109 and was now being transferred to the king of Ugarit. Given such a fundamental alteration in status, the border required specific marking by means of stones. This text is the sole passage in which the method employed to execute the king’s ruling and mark the new division appears. The priest’s commission to determine the scope of the territory on the ground demonstrates that the land distribution was made via an inquiry of the gods. 110 The setting up of border stones appears to have been customary for fixing boundaries: neither the treaty writers nor the king who announced the edict itself normally perceived any need to describe the practice. 111 107.  For Mulukki, see Astour, “The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu,” 22; Pierre Bordreuil, “À propos de la topographìe économique de l’Ougarit: Jardins du midi et pâturages du nord,” Syria 66 (1989) 265–69. For the various types of land ownership in Ugarit, see Michael Heltzer, The Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976) 66–67. 108.  PRU 4.77:5′–8′. The list of cities is largely fragmented: see Astour, “The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu,” 23. 109.  PRU 4.73:35. 110. Mario Liverani, Storia di Ugarit nell’età degli archivi politici (Studi Semitici 6; Rome: Università di Roma–Centro di Studi Semitici, 1962) 73–75. In private communication, Itamar Singer suggested that the determination of the border by a priest of the uriyannu order may reflect the latter’s use of avian divination. This type of inquiry was selected due to the fact that birds see the fields from a “bird’s eye view.” 111.  Similar acts also characterize the determination of borders internal to Ḫatti. See one text, for instance, which confirms the granting of land to a temple in the area of Kizzuwatna (from the fourteenth century b.c.e.): Bo 4889. See Albrecht Götze, Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography (YOSR 22; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1940) 60–71. The territory transferred was apparently determined by means of divination (pp.  60–61, line 2). The king establishing the borders set up ḫuwaši stone

44

Chapter 1

The border disputes between Ugarit and Siyannu continued after the reign of Muršili II. Tudḫaliya IV was now arbitrator between the two kings regarding lands that belonged to the city of Šuksi and the salt marsh in the city of Attalig in the second half of the thirteenth century b.c.e. 112 Demarcating the border in this region was a difficult task: the absence of a straight line means that enclave territories were created. In practice, however, the economic distribution was relatively clear: each landowner recognized the tax authorities to whom he was responsible. 113 The economic interests that were the source of the conflict are manifest in the fact that the Hittite king was not satisfied with the general definition “land of Ugarit”; he detailed the property of the residents of specific cities, such as Mulukki and Galba, in the disputed area. These must have been decisions that were largely based on previous allotments. These imperial Hittite texts demonstrate the significance of precise borders in the ancient world. A detailed description of a boundary (in full or in part) most frequently appears in documents relating to cases in which the border had been altered (such as the border between Ugarit and Mukish), in cases in which the border was linked to security measures (such as the boundary between Ḫatti and Mira-Kuwaliya), and in border disputes based on economic interests (such as the Ugarit-Siyannu border). In some of these instances, it is clear that the border was marked on the ground, border stones being set up for this purpose. In other examples, the treaties speak of geo-political units by name only, without detailing their borders. In these cases, too, however, it is evident that defined territorial units were under discussion—their dimensions were already well known to all the recipients of the document.

pillars in the mountains: three stones in the initial stage (line 15) and subsequently, additional stones (line 37). Whole villages with their lands, included in the grant, were enumerated by name, but without any description of their borders. The depiction details the precise contents of each village: “The village X together with [the Akkadiogram iš-tu is interpreted here as meaning “including”] its cultivated (and) uncultivated territory, the threshing floor, (and) the garden land” (pp. 62–65, lines 25–32, 43). Occasionally, the phrase “the vineyards” is added to this list (lines 29, 31), with “the olive grove” replacing the garden (line 47), suggesting that we are not dealing here with a fixed text. The document summarizes the details of the bequest: the sum total of the territory deeded (measured in ikû), the vineyards, and even the number of olive trees (lines 35–36, 43–44, 48–49). The language indicates that the lands granted to the temple priests were not contiguous but were scattered over a wide area (p. 68). 112.  PRU 4.291. See Astour, “The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu,” 23. 113. See Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 91.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

45

The “Frontier” and the Monocentric World View in the Ancient Near East The monocentric world view is evidenced by the titles borne by kings in the ancient Near East, by their royal inscriptions, and by their deeds. The kings who fulfilled their aspirations and extended their power to the far compasses of the globe—the great seas, the broad rivers, and the elevated mountainous regions—memorialized their achievements in monuments set up in the places that they reached. 114 Although the monuments were intended to recall the border stones placed at the edges of delimited territories, they were principally symbolic and did not serve as real borders. Instead, the bounds of the world were marked by natural phenomena. The monuments’ primary purpose was therefore to embody the royal accomplishment and to memorialize it in the eyes of the gods and later generations. The border stones—in the strict sense— that have been discovered in the ancient Near East lay on borders between vassal states 115 or between private allotments. 116 The custom of erecting monuments can be compared with the use of border stones in the Roman Empire. No border stones marking the limits of the Empire have survived. However, some of the border stones that divided the Roman provinces from one another have been preserved, but they are rare. The most common border stones are those dividing administrative units from one another within a particular province. The reason for this phenomenon appears to be the border’s function with respect to tax collection. 117 Like central cities and temples, the Empire’s frontier was in no need of physical demarcation: the setting up of monuments at the edges of the world was intended to serve ideological and political-propagandist rather than administrative-governmental purposes. Monuments also were set up to mark the great conquests of the two ancient imperial powers in the ancient Near East—Mesopotamia and Egypt. The Mesopotamian kings who reached the Mediterranean or prominent mountains, such as the Amanus and Lebanon ranges in the west, memorialized 114.  See in depth, Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 59–65. 115.  Two border stones from the Neo-Assyrian Empire have survived: the Antakya and Pazarcik steles: see Veysel Donbaz, “Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae in the Antakya and Kahramanmaraš Museums,” Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project 8 (1990) 5–24. 116.  For the marking of private allotments in Mesopotamia, see above, n. 64. For Hittite marking practices, see n. 111. 117.  Isaac, The Limits of Empire, 397.

46

Chapter 1

their achievements in inscriptions that they ordered to be engraved either on monuments or in the mountainous rock itself (if possible). This tradition, introduced during the reign of Sargon, king of Akkad (twenty-fourth century b.c.e.), is mentioned in the inscriptions of Yaḫdunlim of Mari (eighteenth century b.c.e.). Yaḫdunlim boasted of being the first Mari king to reach the sea, celebrating his feat by setting up a monument in the mountains. 118 Several years later, Shamshi-Adad I, king of Assyria, also reached the Mediterranean. 119 The Assyrian kings of the first millennium b.c.e. similarly set up memorial monuments on the distant fringes of their empire. One such monarch was Shalmaneser III (858–824 b.c.e.), who erected monuments on the shoreline and on Mount Lebanon. 120 The Egyptian kings who fulfilled the expectations of their office according to custom also found their way to the “ends of the earth,” setting up memorial monuments of their victories in the farthest places they had reached. 121 Thus, for example, Thutmose III (1479–1425 b.c.e.), founder of the Egyptian Empire, erected a stele in Naharin near the Euphrates in the 33rd year of his reign, alongside the stele of his grandfather, Thutmose I, 122 and another in Nubia in southern Egypt, thereby memorializing his achievements at the two outer lim118.  For the text of the inscriptions, see Douglas R. Frayne, Old Babylonian Period: 2003–1595 b.c. (RIME 4; Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1990), 605–8, which includes a description of Yaḫdunlim’s westward campaign (pp. 605–6). See also Abraham Malamat, Mari and Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991) 165–79. 119.  Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia bc (RIMA 1; Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1987) 20–21. A modern analogy to this symbolic act can be found in the raising of national flags over vanquished territory and uninhabited regions, such the North Pole or space. 120.  Daniel D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926–27) 1:214–28, §§598, 600, 618. See Abraham Malamat, “Campaigns to the Mediterranean by Iahdunlim and other Early Mesopotamian Rulers,” in Studies in Honor of B. Landsberger (AS 16; ed. H. Güterbock and T. Jacobsen; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965) 371–72. 121. See Galán, Victory and Border, 146–53. In Galán’s opinion, the royal monuments were not border stones but victory monuments, since they do not define territory but mark imperial triumphs (p. 153). Their location on the fringes of the empire suggests, however, that this is not a satisfactory explanation. According to the distinction proposed in this book, we are not speaking of border monuments but of frontier monuments intended to memorialize the expansion of the king’s imperial power in having reached the edge of the globe. 122.  This incident is mentioned in three different inscriptions of Thutmose III: the annals of Karnak (for Wilson’s translation, see ANET 239); the Jabal Barkal stele (p. 240); and the Armant stele (p. 240). See Galán, Victory and Border, 148–49.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

47

its of the territory that he reached. 123 These extremities were linked to prominent topographical features representing cosmic limits—the Euphrates (known by the Egyptians as “the river that runs backwards” 124) and huge deserts. The Barkal stele summarizes Thutmose III’s territorial accomplishments in the following words: “His southern frontier is to the horns of the earth, to the southern limit of this land; (his) northern to the marshes of Asia, to the supporting pillars of heaven.” 125 In the monocentric world view, the area of control exercised by a great nation, its extent, and the alterations that occurred in it were the function of the power and capacity wielded by that kingdom: expansion in periods of strength or shrinking in times of feebleness. Leo Oppenheim succinctly describes this phenomenon in his depiction of the Assyrian Empire: Without natural frontiers, Assyria was engaged in a constant process of expansion and retraction, expanding from a region along the middle course of the Tigris further east towards the piedmont, into the fertile valleys upstream and downstream along the Tigris, and to the southwest, across Upper Mesopotamia, as far as the large bend of the Euphrates, the gateway to the riches and the marvels of the west. As quickly as Assyria was able, at times, to expand in these three directions, as suddenly could it retract back to its heartland. 126

In practice, the frontier regions of the empires were areas fraught with security threats and thus witness to numerous incursions and counterattacks. The territory of these regions was neither fixed nor defined. The level of security that they experienced was affected by the balance of power between the imperial armies and the enemies of the empire. Although the various empires solved their security problems in diverse ways over the course of time, similar typological elements exist in the diverse systems they employed to protect their chaotic frontier regions across the centuries. 123.  Galán correctly rejects Redford’s suggestion that the erecting of the stele in Naharin is evidence of Egyptian interest in the permanent conquest of the region (Victory and Border, 150 n. 766): see Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992) 154. 124.  This name in itself witnesses the centralized nature of the Egyptian world view: see Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 28–39. 125.  ANET 240. Compare with the language of the inscription erected by Amenhotep III on the island of Knossos to memorialize his first military campaign to Ethiopia, which states that he expanded his border “to the four pillars of the heavens” (Galán, Victory and Border, 150). 126. A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964) 38–40.

48

Chapter 1

The Wall on the Sumerian Frontier Evidence from the end of the third millennium b.c.e. points to the existence of a border defense wall in Sumer thousands of years earlier than the Chinese and Roman walls. 127 Shulgi, king of Ur (2093–2046 b.c.e.), characterizes two of the last years of his reign as “the year of/after the erection of the wall of the land.” 128 A letter written to Shulgi reports that the wall was around 63 km in length, in the most dismal state, and in need of repair in numerous places. 129 The wall is mentioned again around 15 years later, in the reign of King ShuSin (2036–2028 b.c.e.), as “the wall that wards off the Tidnum” (an appellation referring to western tribes). King Shu-Sin’s 4th year of reign is also called “the year of the wall of the Amurru.” 130 On this occasion, the wall is described as approximately 280 km in length, linking the Euphrates and Tigris from the northwest to the region of present-day Baghdad. 131 To these attributions, we can add details from the sparse knowledge we possess concerning the status of the city-states at the perimeter of the area dominated by the third dynasty of Ur. They appear to have marked the end of the kingdom, as well as the beginning point for military campaigns against the enemy. 132 The sociologist Robert Adams describes the Sumerian frontier as a region located between the city (the economic, political, and ideological center) on the one hand and the area of agricultural settlement on the other. 133 The inhabitants of the Sumerian frontier combined an agricultural with a pastoral and nomadic lifestyle similar to that of the tribes who bordered them. Their 127.  For a comparison of the Sumerian and Chinese walls, see Robert Adams, “The Mesopotamian Social Landscape: A View from the Frontier,” in Reconstructing Complex Societies (ed. C. B. Moore; BASORSup 20; Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1974) 1–2. According to a divergent opinion, the Sumerian wall was not a defense line like the limes but a single fortified location: see Ernst E. Herzfeld, The Persian Empire (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1968) 138–39. 128.  Cyril J. Gadd, “Babylonia, c. 2120–1800 b.c.,” in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 1/2: Early History of the Middle East (ed. I .E. S. Edwards et al.; 3rd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971) 603. 129. Claus Wilcke, “Zur Geschichte der Amurriter in der Ur-III-Zeit,” WO 5 (1969– 70) 3–6; Piotr Michalowski, The Royal Correspondence of Ur (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1976) 200–213. 130.  Gadd, “Babylonia, c. 2120–1800 b.c.,” 609. See Ignace J. Gelb, “The Early History of the West Semitic People,” JCS 15 (1961) 30. 131.  Gadd, “Babylonia, c. 2120–1800 b.c.,” 610. 132.  In his analysis of the frontier cities as reflected in the special payment made to the center, Michalowski calls them “limes cities”: Piotr Michalowski, “Foreign Tribute to Sumer during the Ur III Period,” ZA 67 (1977) 37–49. 133.  Adams, “The Mesopotamian Social Landscape: A View from the Frontier.”

“Border” versus “Frontier”

49

loyalty to the central power was not absolutely guaranteed; on occasion, they allied themselves with the leaders of the surrounding tribes. Like the Chinese and Roman walls, the Sumerian wall consequently served domestic as well as “international” purposes, being designed to demarcate a clear division between the “insiders” and the “outsiders” of the kingdom. 134 In the analogy between the Chinese, Roman, and Byzantine empires and the west side of the Sumerian kingdom—a frontier region bordering territories that threatened the center—the circumstances produced similar solutions. While the Chinese and Roman walls survived for many years, however, the Sumerian wall has disappeared. The lack of natural fortifications appears to have meant that the wall’s effectiveness was insufficient to justify the large investment necessary to maintain it. Thus, later Mesopotamian kings did not attempt to repeat this experimental method of defending their territory.

Hittite Frontier Regions On its northern side, the Hittite Kingdom was bordered by the Pontus mountains, an area inhabited by the hostile Kaška tribes. A fragile balance of power existed between the Hittite defense system and the repeated incursions of the surrounding tribes. 135 In a document known as the “Deeds of Suppiluliuma,” Muršili II describes the battle his father Suppiluliuma fought against these tribes in northern Anatolia, and the toll taken on the local inhabitants: Si[nce] my father had built fortifications behind empty towns of the whole land which had been emptied by the enemy, he brought the population back, everyone to his own town, and they occupied the towns of the population again (var.: the population occupied their towns again). . . . The Kaška enemy took up arms again; and the enemy for a second time destroyed the empty towns behind which my father had built fortifications. 136

This quotation is a description of a typical frontier region—a strip of territory containing cities and fortified defenses in proximity, the population of which was forcibly allied with whatever authority controlled the current security situation. Another document known as “Instructions to the Commander of the Border Guards” (bēl-madgalti) informs us of the Hittite response to external threats, which was similar to the building of wall defenses by the Sumerians, 134.  Adams, “The Mesopotamian Social Landscape: A View from the Frontier,” 2. 135.  See von Schuler, “Grenze (B. Nach hethitischen Texten),” 61–66, 146–48. 136.  Hans G. Güterbock, “The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by His Son, Mursili II,” JCS 10 (1956) 65–66. For Hoffner’s translation, see COS 1:186–87.

50

Chapter 1

Chinese, and Romans. 137 This text details the functions exercised by the Hittite military commander in the region, including patrolling the roads, closing the city gates at night, maintaining the fortifications, and providing food supplies, water, and wood for heating, and so forth. In similar fashion to the walls erected on the imperial frontier, the system in the Hittite frontier region played an explicitly defensive role. Simultaneously, it served as a line that separated the kingdom’s well-ordered cultural center from the wild, uncivilized, anarchical extremities. 138 A similar security situation existed in southwestern Anatolia in the region of Arzawa, which was annexed during the reign of Muršili II. This area, known as “the lower country,” was exposed to nomadic incursions on the one hand and Hittite military patrols on the other. 139 A fragment from the annals of Ḫattušili III describes the conquests of an anonymous enemy in southern and southwestern Anatolia, enumerating the places that the enemy reached (lines 5–10), and his destruction of the settlements therein (line 11). 140 Ḫattušili summarizes his enemy’s achievements and the lands he vanquished in the following words: “The land of Zallara became his border, the lower country became his border, the land of Harziuna became his border” (lines 12–14). Although the continuation of the text is missing, we can assume that Ḫattušili proceeded to describe his own victories in these regions and their restoration to Hittite control. 141 The nature of the frontier in this area consequently depended on the strength of the central Hittite power. In periods when the central authority was weak, these states became sites of disturbances; when the central power was robust, they served as the basis for the Hittite army’s westward campaigns. 142

137.  See von Schuler, “Grenze (B. Nach hethitischen Texten),” 41–57. For Götze’s English translation of the section dealing with the religious functions and the legal authority of the Lord of the Watch-Tower, see ANET 210–11. 138.  Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 41–42. 139.  Thus, for example, the Hittite king Muršili II reported a Hittite military patrol in the region of the “lower country” in his 2nd year. Its purpose was to observe the military movements of the king of Arzawa (KUB 14.16 i 23). See Götze, Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography, 23. 140.  Emil Forrer, “Die Arzaova-Länder,” Forschungen (Berlin: published by the author, 1926) 30. 141. See Heinhold-Krahmer, Arzawa, 246. 142.  See Elizabeth R. Jewell, The Archaeology and History of Western Anatolia during the Second Millennium b.c. (Ph.D. Diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1974) 226.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

51

Egyptian Frontier Regions The Egyptian world view was distinctly monocentric, due in large part to the country’s geographical isolation. 143 Egyptian inscriptions describe the right (in effect, the duty) of the Egyptian kings “to expand the borders of Egypt” 144—the principle lying behind their conquering forays into neighboring countries. 145 As in other imperialistic regimes, the Egyptian king’s goal was to become “the ruler of all the territory encompassed by the sun.” 146 In practical terms, Egypt’s reach was limited to the fertile Nile Valley, because the surrounding sea and deserts were natural, fixed, clear boundaries. 147 The Egyptians gave borders of this sort a special name that was distinct from the designation that usually served to define the areas that the king reached in his campaigns. This specific terminology appears in a description of the victories of Thutmose I: “Who brings in the limits [ḏrw] of the Two Lands bowing down; who protects Egypt; who extends its [Egypt’s] boundaries [tꜢšw].” 148 This defined region of “the land of Egypt” was elegantly described many years later by the prophet Ezekiel in the meristic phrase “from Migdol to Syene” (Ezek 29:10, 30:6)—that is, from the fortified area in the northeastern delta to the Aswan region in the south. 149 Beyond the northeastern region of Egypt lived nomadic tribes whom the Egyptians considered to be strangers and culturally inferior, as reflected in The Instruction for Merikare (ca. 2050 b.c.e.): “Lo, the miserable Asiatic, he is wretched because of the place he is in: short of water, bare of wood, its paths are many and painful because of mountains. He does not dwell in one place, food propels his legs.” 150 The threat of tribes descending into Egypt or 143.  This is Liverani’s analysis: Prestige and Interest, 35–36, 66; idem, International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600–1100 bc, 9. 144.  This was a prominently used expression of the expansive imperialistic perspective: see Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, 148; idem, “A Gate Inscription from Karnak and Egyptian Involvement in Western Asia during the Early 18th Dynasty,” JAOS 99 (1979) 273–74. For the texts of the royal Egyptian inscriptions, see Galán, Victory and Border, 117–18. 145.  Galán, Victory and Border, 119–20. 146. As expressed in one of Ramesses III’s titles: see Juergen von Beckerath, Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen (Münchner ägyptologische Studien  20; Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1984) 93, 244, title #4H. 147.  Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 35. 148.  The Hatshepsut inscription at Karnak (Galán, Victory and Border, 115, §c). 149.  See George A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936) 327–28. 150.  Following Lichtheim’s translation: see COS 1:64. See also James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) 55, lines 91–93.

52

Chapter 1

invading the delta in years of drought recurs repeatedly in Egyptian sources; 151 it is also manifest in the patriarchal narratives in Genesis. 152 Egypt preserved and defended its borders by means of fortresses, canals, military patrols, frontier settlements, and the arming of local residents. The king was responsible for maintaining these measures and preventing the enemy from invading the country. As The Instruction for Merikare admonishes the ruler: “Respect the nobles, sustain your people, strengthen you borders, your frontier patrols; it is good to work for the future.” 153 At the beginning of the second millennium b.c.e., fortifications were erected on Egypt’s eastern border area, along the line of today’s Suez Canal. The Story of Sinuhe and the Prophecy of Neferti refer to these defenses as “the Walls of the Ruler,” 154 because they were intended to prevent barbarian tribes from transmigrating into Egypt (Prophecy of Neferti, line 66) and to “repel the Asiatics and to crush the Sand-farers” (Story of Sinuhe, line 17). During the second millennium b.c.e., Egypt’s eastern border was the eastern Nile canal, and a border post was situated at Sile. 155 The canal, described on reliefs in the Amon Temple in Karnak from the period of Seti I (ca. 1300 b.c.e.) as “the dividing waters” (tꜢ-dnit), flows into the sea from south to north. 156 An inscription accompanying the relief states that, in the first year of his reign, Seti smote the “Shasu” (= ‫ שוסים‬in 151.  Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 53–62. For example, the “Prophecy of Neferti” from the beginning of the second millennium b.c.e. describes how, in their descent into Egypt, the Asiatic tribes destroyed the fortifications and disturbed the harvesters and tax collectors (lines 19, 33). For Shupak’s translation, see COS 1:107, 108. 152.  Gen 12:10–20, 26:2, 42:1–5, 43:1–2, 47:1–11. 153.  Following Lichtheim’s translation: see COS 1:62. 154.  For Wilson’s translations, see ANET 19, 446. For Lichtheim’s translation of the Story of Sinuhe, see COS 1:77. For Shupak’s translation of the Prophecy of Neferti, see COS 1:110. See also Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 59. 155.  For the sources, see Yehoshua Grintz, “The Southwestern Border of the Promised Land,” in Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and Religion Dedicated to Yehezkel Kaufmann on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. M. Haran; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960) 7–13 [Hebrew]; Shmuel Aḥituv, The Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to the History of Palestine in the Biblical Period (Ph.D. Diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1979) 117 [Hebrew]; Nadav Naʾaman, “The Brook of Egypt and the Assyrian Policy on the Egyptian Border,” Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction. Collected Essays, vol. 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005) 245, and the bibliography cited there. 156.  Eliezer D. Oren, “The ‘Ways of Horus’ in North Sinai,” in Egypt, Israel, Sinai (ed. A. F. Rainey; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1987) 71–72. In Oren’s opinion, the remnants of the canal have been discovered between the Pelusic mouth of the Nile and Kantara above the Suez Canal (p. 70; map on p. 74). See also Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 164–69.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

53

the biblical texts) “from Sile until the city of Canaan [= Gaza]” 157—that is, the stretch linking Egypt and Canaan, which was properly speaking, non-Egyptian territory. 158 The Egyptian texts demonstrate that the role played by the fortified line was not limited to defense—that is, to preventing invasion by the Shasu and their flocks—but also served domestic Egyptian needs by precluding the flight of slaves and providing oversight of the populace. The author of the Story of Sinuhe tells how he was compelled to hide between the bushes along the wall for a day in order to escape discovery by the guards, only being able to flee under the cover of darkness (lines 18–20). 159 A report by an Egyptian captain at the end of the thirteenth century b.c.e. includes a description of the pursuit of two fugitive slaves who crossed the fortification line (Papyrus Anastasi V). 160 The biblical story of the exodus may also reflect similar circumstances. 161 This function notwithstanding, the Egyptian walls did not differ fundamentally from the defensive walls erected in the frontier regions of other empires—such as the Sumerian wall or the Hittite line of watchtowers. As clauses in ancient Near East international treaties dealing with the handing over of fugitive slaves demonstrate, slaves were deprived of the freedom of transition from one authority to another in the ancient world, suggesting that borders entities such as walls also supervised population movement(s) to and from their realms. The Egyptian concept of a single center and the repeated emphasis on the protective character of “the walls of the ruler” attest the fact that the wall formed part of the Egyptian frontier on the outward-facing side. While other frontier regions were territories without fixed dimensions, the locations of which were determined by political and economic circumstances, the nature of the Egyptian frontiers was dictated by the existing physical conditions, which 157. For Wilson’s translation, see ANET 254. For identification of “the city of Canaan” with Gaza, see Hans J. Katzenstein, “Gaza in the Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdoms,” JAOS 102 (1982) 111–13. 158. See Naʾaman, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography (Jerusalem: Simor, 1986) 239–41; Oren, “The ‘Ways of Horus’ in North Sinai,” 71. 159.  For Lichtheim’s translation, see COS 1:78. 160.  For Wilson’s translation, see ANET 259. 161. See Abraham Malamat, “The Exodus: Egyptian Analogies,” in Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence (ed. E. S. Frerichs and L. H. Lesko; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997) 20–22. Malamat identifies the border between Egypt and Sinai as an “iron curtain,” comparing the situation existent in thirteenth-century b.c.e. Egypt with the Berlin and Chinese walls. As I have noted above, however (p. 16), the two types of wall must be distinguished: despite its function in overseeing entrance to and exit from Egypt, the Egyptian wall more closely resembles the Great Wall of China than an “iron curtain.”

54

Chapter 1

were immutable. The Egyptian frontier region therefore was a clear line rather than an area of variable proportions and should be regarded as a “frontier” in terms of the second (more significant) characteristic of “frontier” (as dividing between controlled, inner spaces and external, chaotic regions) and a “border” in terms of the spatial aspect of that concept.

The Frontier Region of the Assyrian Empire Like the Egyptian perspective, the Assyrian world view was also monocentric, promoting the idea that the king should rightly aspire to exert his control over the whole world. This ideology is evidenced by the titles held by the Assyrian kings—such as “king of the world” (šar kiššati) or “king of the four corners [of the land]” (šar kibrāt arbaʿim/erbettim). 162 The Assyrian kings also appropriated such grand titles as “the enlarger of borders and regions” (murappiš miṣri u kudurri), 163 comparing themselves to the world-encompassing sun, each attempting to outdo the feats of his predecessor. 164 The conclusions drawn from the literary evidence, which identifies the fringes of the Assyrian Empire as a typical “frontier,” are confirmed by archaeological findings, which provide additional details. The discoveries at the Tell Sabi Abyad excavations and the results of the survey conducted in the area of the Balikh Valley (the Balikh being one of the tributaries of the Euphrates in northern Syria) evidence the existence of typical frontier conditions in this region following Shalmaneser I’s annexation of the land of Mitanni, after which it became an Assyrian province (thirteenth century b.c.e.). The description of these findings in the summary given by the Dutch team who excavated the site between 1986 and 1992 paints the characteristic picture of a frontier settlement faced with unstable security and population shifts: “It was found that the Assyrian presence (at least at this site) was fluctuating and intermittent in 162. See Seux, Épithètes Royales Akkadiennes et Sumériennes, 305–14; Herzfeld, The Persian Empire, 204–6; Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 44–50, and the bibliography cited there. 163.  Examples of such titles occur in the inscriptions of Adad-nirari I (1305–1274 b.c.e.). See Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia bc, 131, line 15; 132, line 24. 164. Hayim Tadmor, “World Dominion: The Expanding Horizon of the Assyrian Empire,” in Landscapes, Territories, Frontiers and Horizons (Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale 44; ed. L. Milano et al.; Padova, 1999). Cf. Augustus’ (34 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) statements concerning the Roman Empire: “I extended the borders of all the provinces of the Roman people which neighbored nations not subject to our rule” (Res Gestae Divi Augusti 26; Bushnell translation).

“Border” versus “Frontier”

55

character . . . each enforced desertion of the site was followed by a return of its residents . . . after some time.” 165 The Assyrian attitude toward buffer states reveals its specific frontier policy. These states were permitted independent status—albeit under Assyrian supervision and direction—in the areas in which the Assyrian Empire was bordered by other powers. Thus, for example, the kingdoms of Ukku and Šubriya separated the Assyrian Empire from the Kingdom of Urarṭu in the Upper Euphrates region, 166 and Judah and the Kingdom of Philistia separated the Assyrian Empire from Egypt. 167 The monocentric ideology perceived acts of imperial conquest and expansion as a means of restoring to the crown its rightful glory and is expressed in these terms in the imperial rhetoric of the Neo-Assyrian period. Similarly to the Hittite king Muršili II—who included among his father’s activities on the northern frontier the return of residents to their abandoned cities—the Assyrian king Ashur-dan II (934–912 b.c.e.) initiated organized military campaigns against the Arameans and then declared that his deeds included restoration of the local inhabitants to Assyria who had fled due to hunger and shortages, thus repopulating the deserted cities. 168 A similar pronouncement is found in the annals of Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 b.c.e.). 169

The Azatiwada Inscription The imperial terminology that characterized the monocentric world view also appears in the inscriptions of local kings. The topics they addressed appear to have represented some of the most important royal functions: the expansion of the border, the restoration of peace and order to the dangerous frontier regions by way of effective fortification systems, and the establishment of settlements inhabited by citizens loyal to the ruler of these areas. Such deeds are included in the list of the feats of the Cilician king Azatiwada (middle of the eighth century b.c.e.), enumerated in his inscription: 165. P. M. Akkermans, J. Limpens, and R. H. Spoor, “On the Frontier of Assyria: Excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad, 1991,” Akkadica 84–85 (1993) 32. 166.  Parker, The Mechanics of Empire, 94–98, 242, 251. 167. Benedikt Otzen, “Israel under the Assyrians,” in Power and Propaganda (ed. M.  T. Larsen; Copenhagen, 1979) 251–61; Hayim Tadmor, “Philistia Under Assyrian Rule,” Biblical Archaeologist 29 (1966) 97. 168.  Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (Records of the Ancient Near East 2; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976) 77, §368. 169.  Ibid., 127, §550.

56

Chapter 1 I have expanded the land of the Plain of Adana from the rising of the sun to its setting.  . . . I have built strongholds in all the outposts at the border in places where there were evil men, gang-leaders. . . . I, Azatiwada, placed them under my feet. I have brought them (their inhabitants) down and established them as the eastern end of my borders, and I have established Danunians there (in the west). In my days, there was [peaceful activity] within all the borders of the Plain of Adana, from the rising of the sun to its setting, even in places which had formerly been feared, where a man was afraid to walk on the road. 170

This inscription demonstrates that the frontier concept and the desire to expand were not unique to the imperial rulers. Rulers of local kingdoms without any imperial history also boasted to their subjects of having enlarged the territory of their land “from the rising of the sun to its setting.” In this period, the Cilician king was acquainted with Assyrian summary inscriptions, which were replete with allusions to these subjects. The well-established tradition of Mesopotamian historiography was evidently responsible for influencing both the form and the content of inscriptions of this sort.

Conclusion The application of the terms border and frontier—as they are employed in modern border theory—to territorial divisions in the ancient Near East and the link between the character of such land divisions (the definition of independent sovereign units) and the world views of their rulers shed light on the physical and ideological aspects of the border as it was conceived in the ancient world. These investigations provide us with a valuable starting point from which to commence our discussion of the borders of the Promised Land. It should be stressed once again here that the premise that the ancient world was completely unacquainted with the idea of precise borders is no longer tenable. Exact border lines, marked physically and literarily, are documented virtually from the beginning of history, a fact that is evident as early as the descriptions of the ancient border conflict between the Sumerian city-states of Umma and Lagash. In light of the character of these ancient land divisions, each case must be examined in its own right, without the bias of unwarranted presuppositions. Moreover, just as the term “frontier” represents the hostile perimeters of a sovereign entity (especially the perimeters of an empire), the territorial divisions made in a coordinated fashion and through agreements 170.  Azatiwada Inscription col. I 4–5, 13; col. II 5 (KAI 6–7, #26; ANET 653–54). See K. Lawson Younger Jr., “The Phoenician Inscription of Azatiwada: An Integrated Reading,” JSS 43 (1998) 11–47.

“Border” versus “Frontier”

57

(frequently also based on the decision of a third, meta-party) define the ancient “border,” especially its delimiting character. The quantitative nature of ancient Near Eastern land division (a line or region whose breadth fluctuated) varied according to the topographical circumstances and economical-agricultural conditions specific to each case: when the division passed through cultivated regions, the territorial distribution was demarcated by a precise line of very narrow width—as, for example, the border between Umma and Lagash. When it related to uncultivated or mountainous areas, it was not linear but followed the sovereign territories of villages and local settlements—as in the case of the borders of the Hittite Kingdom of Tarḫuntašša. While the quantitative aspect thus indicates the nature of the territory, it does not determine whether we are speaking of a “border” or a “frontier.” The character of the border concept is evident from detailed descriptions employing diverse methods. It is further reflected in texts that do not signify a border either in its full length or in part. It characterizes political entities established and existent in a multipolar reality and embodies a recognition of the right to exist possessed by other powers. The latter is evidenced in the mention of the name of the sovereign entity, whose dimensions and borders were known in ancient times. In practice, clear border demarcations appear to have existed on the ground, principally with respect to territory possessing economic or military significance. While the terms border and frontier therefore represent two divergent world views—one monocentric, the other multicentric—the two concepts in fact existed side by side occasionally and in the same period—even within a single political unit—as attested by the documents that have survived from the Hittite Empire. These concepts and conclusions will guide the discussion as I examine the descriptions of the Promised Land in the Hebrew Bible.

Chapter 2

Spatial Merisms The geographical descriptions that appear most widely through the various strata of the Hebrew Bible and are also prevalent in ancient Near Eastern literature are constructed in a “formula of extremities”: a combination of the two prepositions “from . . . (and) to . . .” 1 and variations. The recurrent expression “from Dan to Beer-sheba” is the preeminent example of this linguistic phenomenon in the Hebrew texts. 2 The same literary figure appears in Akkadian (ištu/ultu . . . adi . . .), Aramaic, 3 and other languages both ancient and modern. Understanding the literary framework in which the biblical territorial descriptions occur is essential to comprehending them properly. Thus, I am devoting this chapter to an examination of the general literary form of this formula and to its significance in geographical descriptions. While I adduce biblical verses merely as examples, without engaging in detailed exegesis, the conclusions they permit me to draw enable us to interpret the expressions in the passages that are relevant to the discussion in the chapters to come.

The “Extremities Formula” and Spatial Merisms The prepositions “from” and “up to/until” mark the perimeters of various phenomena in the context of location, space, time, number, size, and purpose. “From” signifies a terminus a quo—the initial point—while “to” signifies a terminus ad quem—the entity farthest from the first point of reference. The “extremities formula” “from . . . to . . .” thus signals the two farthest points of a continuum. For example, in the description of Solomon’s Temple: “Twenty 1.  In some cases in English, the meaning is better rendered “up to/until.” For the sake of brevity, I shall use “from . . . to” as including these alternatives. 2.  See Judg 20:1; 1 Sam 3:20; 2 Sam 3:10; 17:11; 24:2, 16; 1 Kgs 5:5. In reverse order: 1 Chr 21:2; 2 Chr 30:5. For the concept of the diachronic chiasm that occurs in the reversed merisms, see Avi Hurvitz, “‘Diachronic Chiasm’ in Biblical Hebrew,” in Studies in Bible and Jewish History (ed. B. Uffenheimer; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1972) 248–55 [Hebrew]. 3.  For Akkadian, see CAD A/1 116, s.v. adi 1f. For Aramaic, see, for example, the language of the Babylonian Talmud: Moshe Kosovsky, Concordance to the Talmud Bavli (Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture, 1972) 218–24 [Hebrew].

58

Spatial Merisms

59

cubits from the rear of the House, he built [a partition] of cedar planks from the floor to the walls” (1 Kgs 6:16; see also v. 15). 4 When this phrase appears in a geographical context, it has customarily been understood to depict places located at the perimeter of a specific territory or its border, without taking into account the significance that the formula carries in other, non-geographical settings. The “extremities formula” also functions in general-category expressions that focus on subjects in their entirety rather than on their particulars. The latter are known in literary studies as “merisms”—elliptical phrases that define a totality by way of its parts. 5 Thus, for example, imperial inscriptions speak of the construction or renovation of an edifice “from its foundation to its eaves” 6—or in the language of the Hebrew Bible, “from foundation to coping” (1 Kgs 7:9). 7 The principal purpose of the formula in this case is not to define the Temple’s dimensions but to accentuate its completeness: its termini represent a merism that signifies “all the Temple in its entirety.” As the examples I have adduced above clearly demonstrate, no inherent conflict exists between interpreting the extremities formula either literally or idiomatically, since in its meristic form the literary feature expands the focus from the representative members to the whole. I define merisms of the type denoting geographical space as “spatial merisms.” The “members” of spatial merisms include geographical concepts of various types: general terms (e.g., sea, mountain, river, desert, etc.), regions (e.g., the Judean hills, the western sea, etc.), settlements (e.g., Dan and Beer-sheba), and other geographical sites (e.g., “Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir” or the 4.  For similar examples, see Ezekiel’s description of the future Temple (Ezek 41:20) and the restoration of the wall in Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah (Neh 3:20, 21, 24, 27). See also the addition to the building known as the ‫גג =( אגרא‬, “roof ”: see Jastrow, s.v. ‫ )איגרא‬in the Mibtahiah papyrus from Elephantine (417 b.c.e.): “That wall is yours— (the wall) which adjoins my house at its upper corner. That wall shall adjoin the side of my house from the ground upwards, from the upper corner of my house to the House of Zechariah” (TAD B2.1:5; italics added). 5.  See Watson’s definition: “Merismus, then, is an abbreviated way of expressing a totality” (Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry [JSOTSup 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1984] 321). The term “merism” derives from the Greek term μέρος, which denotes part of a whole: see Joze Krašovec, Der Merismus (BiOr 33; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1977) 1, 3. In the present examples and those I shall discuss in subsequent chapters, the totality is indicated in bold lettering; the meristic “extremities formula” appears in italics. 6.  For examples, see AHw 1422, s.v. uššu I 3; CAD G 1, s.v. gabadibbû; Š/1 486, s.v. šaptu 3a. 7. See HALOT 378, s.v. ‫ טפח‬II.

60

Chapter 2

Wadi of Egypt). Such phrases feature prominently in the biblical texts, as well as in extrabiblical literature. The uniqueness of the extremities formula “from . . . to . . .” that appears so frequently in biblical border descriptions has gone largely unnoticed by biblical scholars. 8 Even writers who have paid attention to the literary figure have failed to recognize the importance of the relationship between these geographical depictions and literary meristic forms. In order to understand the characteristics of spatial merisms properly, we must investigate them in light of the general meristic concept. Before we can adequately assess the geographical significance of each biblical description, we must therefore analyze its unique features as part of a broader literary phenomenon. In this chapter, I shall thus discuss the characteristics of the general literary merism and then proceed to examine spatial merisms in particular.

“Selective Lists” and Antithetical Phrases In his classic study of biblical merisms, Alexander Honeyman distinguishes two types of merism. Given the seminal nature of this article, I shall quote his words directly: Merismus, which is a figure of speech akin in some respects to synecdoche, consists in detailing the individual members, or some of them—usually the first and last, or the more prominent—of a series, and thereby indicating either the genus of which those members are species or the abstract quality which characterises the genus and which the species have in common. Symbolically expressed, merismus is the brachylogous use of A + Y or A + B + Y or A + X + Y in place of the complete series A + B + C . . . + X + Y to represent the collective Z of which the individuals A to Y are members or the abstract z which is their common characteristic, and the terms selected for mention are commonly joined to each other by the copula. A particular type 8.  The few scholars who have examined this literary device include: Magne Sæbø, “Grenzbeschreibung und Landideal im Alten Testament mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der min-ʿad-Formel,” ZDPV 90 (1974) ) 14–37; Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 86–87. Zecharia Kallai has examined the geographical patterns reflected in the recurrent formulae which, in his opinion, constitute “permanent and fixed territorial representations which functioned wherever Israelite historiography had need of defining these areas”: Zecharia Kallai, “The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible,” ErIsr 12 (Glueck Volume; 1975) 27 [Hebrew]. Although Kallai cites the borders of Canaan, the boundaries of the land of Israel, and the territory inherited by the whole of Israel as examples, these—together with other descriptions in which geographical features are undefined and nonrecurrent—belong to an established literary form, the rules and significance of which require independent investigation.

Spatial Merisms

61

of merismus is that in which the two named species exhaust the whole genus, and the merismus assumes the form of a polar expression; in this case if Z = A + Y, Z may also be expressed by A + non-A. 9

In his study of Classical Hebrew poetry, Watson terms the first type of merism (A + Y), which contains two (or more) representative members from within a comprehensive list of elements belonging to the same conceptual field, a “selective listing.” 10 The majority of spatial merisms belong to this category. 11 Honeyman’s second type of merism (A + not-A) is composed of antithetical (polar) expressions that contain pairs of contrasts which, taken together, form a whole. Thus, for example, we find the phrase “anyone with an eruption or a discharge and anyone defiled by a corpse. Remove male and female alike [lit.: from male to female]” (Num 5:2–3). Or, “But God appeared to Laban the Aramean in a dream by night and said to him, ‘Beware of attempting anything with Jacob, good or bad [lit.: from good to bad]” (Gen 31:24). The pairings “male and female” and “good and bad” are not representative members of a larger genus and do not possess any “middle ground” between them. 12 Rather, they are the 9.  Alexander M. Honeyman, “Merismus in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 7 (1952) 13–14. Many of the scholars who write on the subject cite this definition verbatim: see Hendrik A. Brongers, “Merismus, Synekdoche und Hendiadys in der Bibel-Hebräischen Sprache,” in Kaf-Hē: 1940–1965—Jubilee Volume, Published on the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Dutch O.T. Society (ed. P. A. H. de Boer; OtSt 14; Leiden: Brill, 1965) 100; Krašovec, Der Merismus, 3 n. 1; Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 322. 10.  Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 321–22. 11.  Since the members of a merism are frequently conjoined by the conjunctive “and” (or another conjunctive particle), the list of nations or geographical locations in a particular region may also be considered to comprise “selective listings.” These figures nonetheless constitute two distinct literary forms, on occasion paralleling and sometimes complementing one another (cf. Josh 11:16–17). I define merisms that contain the extremities formula as “spatial merisms,” in distinction from the lists of nations, geographical locations, and cites, which I refer to as “listings.” Understanding the lists of nations as “selective listings” sheds new light on the great variety of their number and order in the numerous biblical texts and the translated versions. For an attempt to classify these rosters according to the number and order of the parts mentioned, see Tomoo Ishida, “The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations,” Bib 60 (1979) 461–90. 12.  For this phrase, see Uriel Simon (Time and Space in Biblical Thinking [Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1961] Hebrew), who discusses the main types of merism without mentioning the term itself, speaking of antithetical phrases as “the expression of totality via the meeting of contrasts” (p. 162). Nathan Wasserman suggests calling merisms “polarity”: “Merismus (hereafter M.) is a widespread stylistic device, whereby a conceptual totality is expressed, concretum pro abstracta, by the use of two antipodal terms. These extremes encompass and define a conceptual totality. . . . [T]he

62

Chapter 2

contents of the inclusive “everyone” or “everything.” 13 Several spatial merisms, including geo-political units that consist of two complementary members, belong to this category. Thus, for example, Aram is designated “all of Upper and Lower Aram,” 14 while the king of Egypt is described as “the king of Upper and Lower Egypt.” 15 In the historiographical books of Samuel and Kings, the Israelites are frequently identified by their complementary regions “Israel” and “Judah”: “The anger of the Lord again flared up against Israel; and He incited two types of the M. are polar extremities of an abstract entity, which is constructed exclusively of these two opposite terms” (Nathan Wasserman, Style and Form in OldBabylonian Literary Texts [Leiden: Brill, 2003] 61). While this definition corresponds to antithetical (polar) merisms, it does not cover any of the other types of merism. For a discussion of some of the antithetical merisms in Mesopotamian literature, see ibid., 61–98. 13.  Philologists of ancient Greek have identified this type of merism as “polare ausdrucksweise”: see Wilhelm Havers, Handbuch der erklarenden Syntax (Heidelberg: Carl Winters, 1931) 131–49; Johann B. Hofmann, “Zum Wesen der sog. polaren Ausdruckweise,” Glotta 15 (1927) 45–53; Michael P. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980) 377–78. For polar merisms in Arabic, see August Fischer, “Ausdrücke per Merismum im Arabischen,” in Streitberg Festgabe (ed. W. Streitberg; Leipzig: Markert and Petters, 1924) 46–58. Despite the fact that such pairings frequently occur in both literary forms, polar merisms are not proper antitheses. Thus, for example, the verse “I mused, ‘God will doom both righteous and wicked’” (Qoh 3:17) contains a merism signifying “every person”; the choice of the “righteous/wicked” pair stresses God’s reward/punishment of each individual according to what s/he deserves. In contrast, in the verse “For the Lord cherishes the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked is doomed” (Ps 1:6), the same pair consitutes an example of antithetical parallelism: see Krašovec, Der Merismus, 135, §205; idem, Antithetic Structure in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (Leiden: Brill, 1984) 6 n. 26. The hermeneutical decision whether a specific text contains a literal expression or a merism is consequently determined by the context. The antithetical pairing “innocent/guilty” in the verse “Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that innocent and guilty fare alike” (Gen 18:25) may be interpreted as a merism signifying “everyone” (as per Krašovec [Der Merismus, 135, §205]). Yet the context in which this phrase appears—Abraham’s attempt to rescue Sodom from its fate—demands a literal reading of an emphatic remark: see Honeyman, “Merismus in Biblical Hebrew,” 15 n. 22. As I have remarked above, however, the two exegetical methods are not mutually exclusive since merisms serve to elaborate the meaning of the formula “from the representative members to the whole”—that is, they use the representative members to express the whole. 14.  ‫כל עלי ארם ותחתה‬: see KAI 41, #222, line 6. 15.  See Mario Liverani, Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100 b.c. (HANE/S 1; Padua: Sargon, 1990) 45. Compare Shalmaneser I’s title, “capturer of enemy districts above and below” (ṣabit miṣrat nakiri eliš u šapliš): see Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia bc (to 1115 bc) (RIMA 1; Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1987) 183, lines 18–19.

Spatial Merisms

63

David against them, saying, ‘Go and number Israel and Judah’” (2 Sam 24:1). 16 While not constituting a literal polar expression, the two terms “Israel and Judah” connote “all Israel.” 17 In employing this figure of speech here, the biblical author may have been alluding to a theological-ideological split between the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah).

The Number of Meristic Members and Their Linkage Two prominent meristic features in particular contribute to our understanding of spatial merisms. First, merisms are frequently composed of more than two representative members. Thus, for example, in the story of the flood, the living world is represented by four categories: “All existence on earth was blotted out—man, cattle, creeping things, and birds of the sky [lit.: from man to cattle to creeping things to birds of the sky]” (Gen 7:23; cf. Gen 6:7). Meristic expressions may also consist of several complementary formulas, as can be seen in the various stylistic phrases concerning bans. The description of the anathema imposed at Jericho states that, “They exterminated everything in the city with the sword: man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and ass [lit.: from man to woman, from young to old, and to ox and sheep and ass]” (Josh 6:21). Second, the link between the members of the merism is not confined to use of the extremities formula alone. Thus, for example, the representative members in the phrase “But if what he stole—whether ox or ass or sheep [lit.: from ox to ass to sheep]—is found alive in his possession, he shall pay double” (Exod 22:3) are joined elsewhere with the conjunctive “and”: “He put Nob, the town of the priests, to the sword: man and women, children and infants, oxen, asses, and sheep [lit.: and ox and ass and sheep]—[all] to the sword” (1 Sam 22:19; cf. Josh 6:21: “ox and sheep and ass [lit.: and to ox and sheep and ass]”). Other verses in the same section of Exodus employ the same members with other grammatical forms: “In all charges of misappropriation—pertaining to an ox, an ass, a

16.  The book of Chronicles (1 Chr 21:1) omits this antithetical merism in accord with the author’s view that “Israel” constitutes a single unified entity: see Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (trans. A. Barber; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997) 275; idem, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1993) 375. 17. In Grosby’s opinion, the phrase “all Israel” reflects the qualities characteristically attributed to modern “nations”: a group of people with a common history and a founding father who inhabit a delimited territory: Steven Grosby, Biblical Ideas of Nationality (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002) 27.

64

Chapter 2

garment, or any other loss . . .” (Exod 22:8); 18 “When a man gives to another an ass, an ox, a sheep or any other animal [lit.: an ass or an ox or a sheep and any animal] to guard . . .” (Exod 22:9). In all these examples, the triplet “ox, ass, sheep” is a merism that signifies “all domestic livestock.” The form of linkage adopted is determined by the syntactical function that the expression serves in the sentence. The meaning remains inclusive whether the link is made via an extremities formula or via conjunctions. 19 An analogous literary form is found in the descriptions of the conquests made by the Assyrian kings. Parallel summaries of Shalmaneser III’s victories refer to the same locations. At times, the conquests are enumerated serially, with an “extremities formula” heading the list and another one concluding it: “I conquered from the land Enzi, the lands Suḫni, Melid, Tummu, Daiēnu, Urarṭu, as far as Arṣaškun, the royal city of Aramu, the Urarṭian.” 20 On other occasions, the king lists his victories by repeatedly using the extremities formula: “I annihilated like a flood from the land Enzi to the land Suḫni, from the land Suḫni to the land Melid, from the land Melid to the land Daiēnu, from the land Daiēnu to the city Arṣaškun.” 21 This instructive comparison demonstrates that, while the place-names appear twice in the second system (once with the preposition ištu, “from,” and once with the preposition adi, “to”), the resulting description does not demarcate a line. In spatial merisms, the prepositions “from” and “to” that constitute the extremities formula thus connect two representative members that define a specific territorial expanse. 22 18.  In this instance, the express merism defines the totality of “anything lost”— which, since it includes the more limited group of “all domestic livestock,” adds a further element (garment), which represents another group of lost items: personal property. 19.  Brongers proposes a distinction between phrases that employ extremities formulas (which he characterizes as einwandfrei or “indisputable”) and meristic expressions, the character of which is doubtful due to their use of divergent conjunctive forms that cast their nature into doubt (“Merismus, Synekdoche und Hendiadys in der BibelHebräischen Sprache”). The examples adduced here, however, attest that this differentiation is untenable. 20.  Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium bc II (858– 745 bc) (RIMA 3; Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1996) 60, lines 15–17. 21.  Ibid., 41, lines 30–36; 44, lines 28–40. 22. David Yellin argues that, occasionally, the preposition “to” does not mark the perimeter or direction of the movement depicted but the proximity of one place to another, in the sense of “at, next to”: David Yellin, “Horaot nishkachot le-shorashim ivriyim [Forgotten Meanings of Hebrew Roots],” Leš 1 (1929) 18; cf. Harold L. Ginsberg, “A Preposition of Interest to Historical Geographers,” BASOR 122 (1951) 12–14; idem, “Postscript,” BASOR 124 (1951) 29–30. From the examples adduced above, however, neither preposition (from/to) possesses any geographical reference in merisms.

Spatial Merisms

65

Spatial merisms employing “extremities formulae” constitute the most prevalent form of this type of merism. Thus, for example, the spies are said to explore the land “from the Wilderness of Zin to Rehob, at Lebo-hamath” (Num 13:21), while the Israelites vanquish the territory east of the Jordan “from the Wadi Arnon to Mount Hermon” (Josh 12:1). Occasionally, however, the formula is deficient or defective: “Now Heshbon was the city of Sihon king of the Amorites, who had fought against a former king of Moab and taken all his land from him as far as the Arnon [lit.: to the Arnon]” (Num 21:26). Here, no full “extremities formula” occurs after the general designation. The starting point is omitted, perhaps because the indirect object “from him (mi-yado)” commences with the preposition “from” (min), which in this case replaces the more-common opening phrase of the formula. Perhaps the author’s apologetic purpose was not to define the land belonging to Sihon but to justify the conquest of the plain north of the Arnon River. This land was a bone of contention between Israel and Moab, and thus the author felt required to stress the river, as it is also stressed in the neighboring verse: “for the Arnon is the boundary of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites” (Num 21:13; cf. 22:36). Frequently, spatial merisms contain more than two members: the prepositions “from” and “to” and the conjunction “and” are combined, although without necessarily creating a complete extremities formula. Thus, for example, Hazael, king of Aram, attacked Israel “throughout the territory of Israel east of the Jordan [lit.: from the east Jordan], all the land of Gilead—the Gadites, the Reubenites, and the Manassites—from Aroer, by the Wadi Arnon, up to Gilead and Bashan [lit.: from Aroer . . . and Gilead and Bashan]” (2 Kgs 10:32– 33). Likewise, in describing the Promised Land to Joshua, God says, “Your territory shall extend from the wilderness and this Lebanon to the Great River, the River Euphrates—the whole Hittite country—and up to the Great Sea on the west” (Josh 1:4). Similar accounts appear in the various depictions of Shalmaneser III’s conquests: “Conqueror from the upper and lower seas to the land Nairi and the great sea of the west as far as the Amanus range: I gained dominion over the entire land Ḫatti.” 23 An analysis of these descriptions and a comparison of them with the literary meristic form demonstrate that the various conjunctions have lost their literary significance, all serving the same syntactical purpose. It is therefore unnecessary to emend the text whenever an extremities formula is deficient or lacking—in the manner frequently proposed regarding verses such as “Every 23.  Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium bc II (858–745 bc), 41, lines 26–28; 44, lines 24–27.

66

Chapter 2

spot on which your foot treads shall be yours; your territory shall extend from the wilderness the Lebanon [and] from the River [lit.: from the wilderness and the Lebanon]—the Euphrates—to the Western Sea” (Deut 11:24). 24

The Relation between Merisms and Genera Because merisms constitute a genus by referring to (some of) their representative members (species), they correspond closely to genera. When they occur in conjunction with and exemplify genera, they can be termed express merisms. 25 Express merisms are frequently composed of ordinary, commonplace expressions—such as in the verse, “For that night I will go through the land of Egypt and strike down every first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast [lit.: from man to beast]” (Exod 12:12; cf. Num 3:13; Ps 135:8). On occasion, they consist of an unusual expression that has been coined to suit a specific narrative context: “In the middle of the night the Lord struck down all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on the throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of the cattle” (Exod 12:29; cf. 11:5). While the merism is linked to the same genus (“all the first-born in the land of Egypt”) in both of these verses, the first phrase (“from man to beast”) is a figure of speech that is prevalent in the Hebrew Bible in other contexts as well, especially in descriptions of destruction and renewal. 26 The second merism in the second verse was specifically created 24.  According to BHS and numerous commentators, such as Dillmann and Sæbø: August Dillmann, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua (KEHAT 13; Leipzig, 1886) on this verse; Sæbø, “Grenzbeschreibung und Landideal,“ 19. Diepold, however, suggests that the text should be read as indicating three eastern locations (the desert, Lebanon, and the Euphrates) opposite one western site (the sea): Peter Diepold, Israels Land (Beiträge zur WANT 5/15; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972) 32. Cf. Weinfeld’s view that the text requires no emendation because “the Lebanon” lies in the middle not at an extremity: Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 (AB; NY: Anchor Books, 1991) 450. Similar revisions of other meristic expressions containing more than two members have been proposed: see, for example, Meyer’s claim that the redundancy “to Aphek to the Amorite border” (Josh 13:4) attests to the fact that the latter constitutes a later interpolation: Eduard Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme (Halle, 1906) 133. See also the emendations recommended regarding Josh 1:4: J. Alberto Soggin, Joshua: A Commentary (OTL; London: Westminster Press, 1972) 26. 25.  For the distinction between express and implied merisms, see Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 324. 26.  See, for example, Gen 6:7, 7:23 (the flood); Exod 9:25 (the plague of hail); Jer 50:3 (the destruction of Babylon). Even more commonplace is the pairing “man and beast” (cf. Ezek 14:13, 17, 19, 21—the annihilation of the sinful land); Ezek 36:11 (the renewal of the Land); Zech 2:8 (Jerusalem repopulated), etc.

Spatial Merisms

67

for its immediate context and is only appropriate therein. In both cases, the genus and its meristic elaboration enable the reader to interpret the other, because the meaning of the express merism is adduced from the totality. In contrast, when a merism stands alone, the genus to which it points is understood from the context and may be variously interpreted, thereby justifying its definition as an “implied merism.” Thus, for example, the description of Hezekiah’s victories in Philistia—“He overran Philistia as far as Gaza and its border areas, from watchtower to fortified town” (2 Kgs 18:8; cf. 17:9)—functions as a merism illustrating the genus “every strategic place.” Both these types of merism—express and implied—occur in spatial merisms. The phrase “from India to Ethiopia” (Esth 1:1), for example, expresses the genus “Ahasuerus’s kingdom”; India and Ethiopia represent all 127 of the provinces contained in “Ahasuerus’s kingdom.” Generally speaking, however, spatial merisms are express merisms, and the “extremities formula” and its members appear alongside the genus. Let us take as an example the summation of the conquest in the book of Joshua:   Joshua conquered the whole of this land:   the hill country, the Negeb and the whole land of Goshen, the Shephelah, the Arabah, and the hill country and coastal plain of Israel—  [everything] from Mount Halak, which ascends Seir, all the way to Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon at the foot of Mount Hermon. (Josh 11:16–17)

This summation comprises three parallel members: it opens with a general statement (the genus—“the whole of this land”), continues with an enumeration of the geographical locations contained within it (the hill country, the Negeb, etc.), and concludes with a spatial merism (from Mount Halak . . . to Baal-gad . . .). 27 The combination genus, spatial merism, and selective listing is a characteristic of the conquest summaries and the descriptions of “the land that yet remains” in the book of Joshua (Josh 10:40–41, 11:16–17, 12:7–8, 13:2– 6), as well as the account of the allotments east of the Jordan (Josh 13:9–13 [general depiction], 16–23 [Reuben’s allotment], 25–27 [Gad’s allotment], 30– 31 [half-Manasseh’s allotment]). The assertion that spatial merisms constitute the passage’s original core, while the general statements and selective listings are secondary elaborations, is therefore untenable. 28 27.  For a discussion of this text and other conquest summations in the book of Joshua, see chap. 7. 28.  See, for example, Martin Noth’s comment about the complex description “the land that yet remains” (Josh 13:2–5), suggesting that it is a secondary collection of

68

Chapter 2

In interpreting meristic expressions such as these, we must take into account all the accompanying forms of genera and the explicit lists. Any analysis of the complex geographical summations must first clarify the relationship between the language employed in the general statements and the language expressed in the merisms. In the above example, the three members of the description—the genus, list, and merism—parallel one another and depict the same region, each using its own literary technique. In other cases, however, each element may refer to a separate region. Thus, for example, the account of the Israelite conquests east of the Jordan in Deuteronomy states that:   They had taken possession of his country and that of King Og of Bashan— the two kings of the Amorites—which were on the east side of the Jordan   from Aroer on the banks of the wadi Arnon, as far as Mount Sion, that is, Hermon;   also the whole Arabah on the east side of the Jordan, as far as the Sea of the Arabah, at the foot of the slopes of Pisgah. (Deut 4:47–49)

This passage deals in general with the lands belonging to Sihon, king of the Amorites and Og, king of Bashan (v. 47). The territory is identified by means of a complex spatial merism that includes a city (Aroer), a mountain (Mount Sion), a generally defined region (“the whole Arabah”), and an additional representative extremity (“the Sea of the Arabah”). In this instance, however, the genus “the whole of the Arabah on the east side of the Jordan” neither parallels nor elaborates the merism. However, as a geographical region belonging to the genus “the lands of the kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan,” it is part of the merism and is defined by an additional representative member—namely, “as far as the Sea of the Arabah.” Spatial merisms conjoined with genera and detailed rosters also appear in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions. Thus, for example, King Ashurnasirpal  II (883–859 b.c.e.) summarizes the extent of his conquests in the following words: The king who subdued (the territory stretching) from the opposite bank of the Tigris to Mount Lebanon and the Great Sea, the entire land Laqû, (and) the land Suḫnu including the city Rapiqu: he conquered from the source of the river Subnat to the interior of the land Nirbu. I brought within the boundaries of my land (the territory stretching) from the passes of Mount Kirruru to the land Gilzānu, from the opposite bank of the Lower Zab to the city Tīl-Bāri which is upstream from the land Zaban, to the cities Tīl-šacomponents from three different strata (Das Buch Josua [2nd ed.; HAT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953] 75–76).

Spatial Merisms

69

Zabdāni and Tīl-ša-Abtāni, the cities Ḫirimu, Ḫarutu, (which are) fortresses of Karduniaš. I accounted (the people) from the pass of the city Babitu to Mount Ḫašmar as people of my land. 29

Ashurnasirpal II’s son, Shalmaneser III (858–824 b.c.e.), employs similar language in describing his conquests: . . . conqueror from the upper sea to the lower sea of the land Nairi, of the great sea of the west, from Mount Amanus, as far as Mount Lebanon, I gained dominion over all the land Ḫatti. I conquered from the source of the Tigris to the source of the Euphrates. I conquered from the land Enzi, the lands Suḫni, Melid, Tummu, Daiēnu, Urarṭu, as far as Arṣaškun, the royal city of Aramu, the Urarṭian. I overwhelmed like a flood the lands Gilzānu (and) Ḫubuškia. I raged like fire from Mount Kullar as far as the lands Munna, Parsua, Allabria, Abdadānu, Namri, Ḫaban, as far as the land Tugliaš. 30

In order to understand the meaning of these territorial descriptions properly, we must recognize that summaries combining spatial merisms, genera, and listings in diverse variations are the customary literary style used for conquestand-domination descriptions in Neo-Assyrian imperial inscriptions—and is apparently also used in similar biblical texts. The meaning of each depiction must be adduced based on the function of its general-category statement and based on the members of the merism and the list that it contains.

Meristic Functions Merisms are not the only literary form by which genera are expressed in Biblical Hebrew. A term that denotes the totality of the whole (which in the majority of cases is an abstract or collective concept) can stand on its own, with or without the general particle “all.” Thus, for example, the genus “(all) the trees” recurs several times in Jotham’s parable (Judges 9) without the use of any meristic forms: “Once the trees went to anoint a king over themselves” (Judg 9:8; cf. vv. 9, 11, 12, 13, 15); “then all the trees said to the thornbush . . .”

29.  Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium bc I (1114– 859 bc) (RIMA 2; Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1991) 221–22, lines 121–25. The list, with minor alterations, recurs several times in Ashurnasirpal’s inscriptions: see pp. 221 and note; 212, lines 128–31 and note. 30.  Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium bc II (858–745 bc), 59– 60, lines 11–20. For similar summaries containing a slightly divergent roster, see pp. 44, lines 24b–40; 41, lines iv 26–36.

70

Chapter 2

(v. 14). 31 These instances make it clear that Biblical Hebrew is familiar with the generality “(all) the trees” even when it does not express this idea meristically. 32 In the description of Solomon’s wisdom, a merism is conjoined with the explicit genus: “He discoursed about the trees, from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall; and he discoursed about beasts, birds, creeping things, and fishes” (1 Kgs 5:13). The addition of details to the expressed general statement via a merism appears to serve a specific(ally) literary function. In this instance, the continuation of the passage is formulated via a four-member merism representing the genus “all the animals”: “about beasts, birds, creeping things, and fishes.” Since each of the four species is a collective and general term in its own right, the combination of the four suggests that Solomon’s wisdom encompassed “everything about everything.” In this example, the merism stresses the totality in order to impress on the reader the breadth of Solomon’s knowledge. The merism “from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall” also intimates the possibility that, in the author’s view, Solomon was acquainted with a floral lexical list of the type found in Egyptian and Mesopotamian literature. 33 The merism functions to elucidate and exemplify the genus. An example of this function appears after the general description in Numbers, “Throughout his term as a nazirite, he may not eat anything that is obtained from the grapevine.” The text adds a merism after this sentence that explains that anything from the grapevine includes “even seeds or skin [lit.: from seeds to skin]” (Num 6:4). Occasionally, a merism is also appended in order to emphasize a specific aspect of the genus. When speaking to the king of Sodom, Abraham says, “I will not take so much as a thread or a sandal strap [lit.: from a thread to 31.  Since the particle “all” only becomes part of the concept when the trees turn to the thornbush, its usage appears to be a literary technique that stresses the unity of the group of trees in their collective appeal to the thornbush. 32.  The biblical evidence raises doubts about Honeyman’s assertion that all the biblical meristic forms derive from a thought process that prefers concrete over general abstract terms (“Merismus in Biblical Hebrew,” 17). Honeyman’s endeavor to identify the merism as a stage in the development of Hebrew thought is an artificial attempt to impose a developmental process running from the primitive to the abstract on a literary device. Compare James Barr’s reservations about ascribing the term “primitive” to Israelite concepts of time: James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967) 109. 33.  For this possibility, see Albrecht Alt, “Die Weisheit Salomos,” TLZ 76 (1951) 139–44 [= “Solomonic Wisdom,” in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom (ed. J. C. Crenshaw; New York: Ktav, 1976) 102–12].

Spatial Merisms

71

a sandal strap] of what is yours; you shall not say, ‘It is I who made Abraham rich’” (Gen 14:23). Here, the merism “so much as a thread or a sandal strap” is added to the general category “what is yours” in order to highlight precisely the small and insignificant particulars of the genus “all the property of the king of Sodom.” 34 The stress in this case relates to Abraham’s righteousness in an a fortiori fashion: a person who was unwilling to accept trivial and negligible items (represented by the thread and sandal strap) proffered by the king of Sodom would be all the more unwilling to accept valuable property. 35 Frequently, merisms serve to emphasize the totality and intensity of the genus. Thus, for example, a quadruple merism is attached to the general ordinance commanding Saul to destroy all of Amalek’s property: “Now, go, attack Amalek, and proscribe all that belongs to him. Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses [lit.: from men to women, from sucklings to infants, from oxen to sheep, from camels to asses]!” (1 Sam 15:3). 36 Similar language appears in the description of the ban on the city of Nebo in the Mesha Stele (king of Moab, ca. 850 b.c.e.): “taking it 34. In his commentary on this verse, Samuel David Luzzatto suggests that the “thread” is a ribbon with which to tie hair: “As it says in [Babylonian Talmud tractate] Sabbath 57a, wool and linen threads in the young girls’ hair, and according to this it refers to the smallest and lightest part on a person, from head to toe” (Perush shadal al chamisha chumshei torah [SDL’s Commentary on the Pentateuch] [Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1966] 67). This explanation recalls another biblical merism: “from foot to head ” (Isa 1:6; in the reverse order in Lev 13:12); “from the sole of your foot to the top of your head” (Deut 28:35, 2 Sam 14:25, Job 2:7). A similar merism in the Mibtahiah document from Elephantine preserves the effect of assonance: a divorced woman is obligated to return to her husband everything he had given her, ‫מן חם עד חוט‬, “from straw to string’ (TAD B2.6:25, 28). See Ephraim A. Speiser, “A Figurative Equivalent for Totality in Akkadian and West Semitic,” JAOS 54 (1934) 200–203; idem, Genesis (AB 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964) 105. Note the comparable Akkadian expression, ḫāmu u ḫuṣābu, “a stalk of straw and splinter,” which may have served in diplomatic circles in similar fashion to the expression in Genesis: see Yochanan Muffs, Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995) 69–72. 35.  For Abraham’s righteousness as portrayed in this verse, see John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (2nd ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930) 271. This issue is also brought out in the contrast between Abraham’s willingness to forego his share of the spoil and his generosity of spirit with regard to his companions, his servants, and “Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre—let them take their share” (v. 24). 36.  In contrast to his partial execution of the command with regard to the Amalekites, Saul implemented total destruction in Nob: “He put Nob, the town of the priests, to the sword: men and women, children and infants, oxen, asses, and sheep—[all] to the sword” (1 Sam 22:19).

72

Chapter 2

and slaying all: seven thousand, men and boys, women, girls, and maidens, for I had devoted it to Ashtar-Chemosh” (lines 15–17). The detailed description of the dead—men, male children, women, female children, and maidens—highlights the totality and intensity of the destruction executed in Israel and Moab. Likewise, in the description of the plague of the firstborn, the general statement “and every first-born in the land of Egypt shall die” is expanded by the merism “from the first-born of Pharaoh who sits on his throne to the first-born of the slave-girl who is behind the mill-stones” (Exod 11:5; cf. 12:29) in order to highlight the plague’s potency. 37 The stress laid on totality is linked to the character typically possessed by genera in Biblical Hebrew. The idea “all” can denote “the whole of ” with respect to quality as well as quantity (that is, the complete collection of individual species belonging to a certain genus). 38 Thus, for example, the noun “all” in the general statement “all the earth” (Gen 1:29) does not signify quantity but totality—“completely.” 39 The addition of a merism to these general statements forms a literary device designed to emphasize and exemplify the wholeness/ completeness ascribed to the phenomenon. Spatial merisms appear to reflect the same intention, in this case with respect to the territory they describe: their purpose is to define the territory and elucidate it from an additional perspective. Consequently, each individual case demands that the spatial merism’s objective be examined together with the aspect it is designed to stress. Thus, for example, while the genus “all Israel/all the Israelites” frequently appears in the biblical text, it is accompanied by the phrase “from Dan to Beer-sheba” only on a limited number of occasions. In these instances, a special purpose is undoubtedly the reason.

Merisms and Literal Expressions Because merisms are interpreted by applying exegetical principles, their significance is likely to be debated. As a typical example, let us look at a series of commands in Deut 6:7–9: “(7) Impress them upon your children. Recite them 37. See Simon, “Time and Space in Biblical Thinking,” 164. 38. Thorleif Boman, Das hebräische Denken im Vergleich mit dem grieschen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954) 146. For this meaning, see BDB 481, s.v. ‫כל‬. 39. Rachel Machlin, “Ha-milah ‘kol’: mashmaʿuta u-nigudeiha [The Word ‘All’: Its Significance and Antitheses],” in Hagut ivrit bi-vrit ha-moʿazot (ed. M. Zohori, A. Tartakover, and M. Zand; Jerusalem: Biblos, 1976) 36. This rule must exclude instances in which the word “all” occurs in conjunction with a singular noun, since the latter may be a collective noun—such as the general statement “every seed-bearing plant” or “every tree that has seed-bearing fruit” (Gen 1:29).

Spatial Merisms

73

when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up. (8) Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol [frontlet] on your forehead; (9) inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” Honeyman considers v. 7 to be constructed in the form of a merism: “a free and pictorial way of saying ‘at work and at rest, by day and by night,’ i.e., ‘in all circumstances and at all times.’” 40 Comparison with other Deuteronomistic sources demonstrates that this conclusion is indeed plausible, since “teaching the Torah and reading in it continually” appears both as a general category alone (cf. Deut 17:19: “Let it remain with him and let him read in it all his life”) and as an antithetical merism carrying the sense of “continually” (cf. Josh 1:8: “Let not this Book of the Teaching cease from you lips, but recite it day and night”). In contrast, the command to inscribe the words of the Torah on the doorposts (mezuzot) and gates (v. 9) is understood literally (cf. Deut 27:3, 8). This raises the question of how the command in v. 8 should be interpreted: “Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol [frontlet] on your forehead.” Is this a literal commandment, signifying physical signs (“frontlets”), or should it be understood metaphorically, as a meristic indicator of “constant awareness”? This issue is debated among ancient and modern commentators alike, because the decision between the alternative interpretations of v. 8—as a literal description or a merism—is an exegetical decision. 41 The disparity between the two options is not, in fact, substantial: in some cases, indeed, the options are not mutually exclusive but function in a statement to stress different aspects or even to complement one another. Thus, for example, the verse “I will wreck the winter palace together with the summer palace; the ivory palaces shall be demolished, and the great houses shall be destroyed—declares the Lord” (Amos 3:15) combines a literal meaning (the winter and summer palaces) with the genus “all the palaces,” which is inferred if the verse is understood as a merism. 42 While the phrase “You shall cease from your labor even at plowing time and harvest time” (Exod 34:21) constitutes a 40.  Honeyman, “Merismus in Biblical Hebrew,” 11. 41.  In his medieval commentary on Exod 13:9, Rashbam (R. Samuel ben Meir) interprets the verse metaphorically. For this issue and the various factors to be taken into consideration, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 341–43. 42. Shalom Paul thinks that the “winter palace” and “summer palace” meristically represent the genus “all the mansions of the ruling classes,” to which the prophet is referring: Shalom Paul, Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 125 n. 24. This is a more limited group in the category “all the residences” than is implied by the merism, the members of which are the “great house” and the “little house” (Amos 6:11).

74

Chapter 2

merism signifying “all the agricultural seasons” (cf. Gen 45:6), it also carries a literal meaning, since plowing and harvest time represent the hectic work seasons in which farmers are liable to forget the prohibition against working on the Sabbath. 43 Since merisms seek to stress the general category by way of its representative members, attention must be paid both to the genus and to the emphasis achieved by selecting precisely these items out of other possible choices. Two literary figures must be distinguished from one another in spatial merisms: figures that contain expressions relating to territory, and literal extremities formulas that demarcate a route (such as the description of a journey or transit across consecutive points). The account of Sheba son of Bichri’s rebellion states: “All the men of Israel left Sheba son of Bichri; but the men of Judah accompanied their king from the Jordan to Jerusalem” (2 Sam 20:2). The depiction of the two locations—“from the Jordan to Jerusalem”—delineates the route taken by the Judahites as they escorted David back to Jerusalem rather than describing the territory in which they resided. A similar situation obtains in the section dealing with the concubine in Gibeah. The Levite informs the old man of his journey in the form of a literal extremities formula: “He replied, ‘We are traveling from Bethlehem in Judah to the other end of the hill country of Ephraim’” (Judg 19:18). 44 Although these expressions are identical in form to spatial merisms, they describe the initial and concluding points of the route rather than the perimeters of the territory itself. 43.  Honeyman, “Merismus in Biblical Hebrew,” 15 n. 18. The inscription of Azatiwada, king of the Danunians (= Que, ca. 700 b.c.e.), contains the same pairing: “wbʿt ḥrš š wbʿt qṣr š [and at the time (season) of plowing, a sheep; and the time (season) of harvesting, a sheep” (KAI 6–7, #26 III 1–2; IV 4–5)—a text that Honeyman also suggests may be interpreted meristically and/or literally: Alexander Honeyman, “Epigraphic Discoveries at Karatepe,” PEQ 81 (1949) 34 n. 1. It is more likely, however, that the king is referring here to the cultic innovations he introduced—namely, the establishment of seasonal sacrifices. The sentence is thus better understood literally than meristically: see K. Lawson Younger Jr., “The Phoenician Inscription of Azatiwada: An Integrated Reading,” JSS 434 (1988) 19. 44.  Compare Judg 17:8: “This man had left the town of Bethlehem of Judah to take up residence wherever he could find a place. On his way, he came to the house of Micah in the hill country of Ephraim.” Shemaryahu Talmon suggests that “Mount Ephraim” should be identified here with Beth-el: Shemaryahu Talmon, “Shoftim 1 [Judges 1],” in Iyunim be-sepher shophtim (Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1966) 24–26. If this proposal also applies to the Levite’s statement in chap. 19 (which occurs in proximity to the mention of Micah’s statue: see the MT in the continuation of the verse: “I am on my way to the House of the Lord”), it explicitly signifies his journey’s starting point and destination: Bethlehem and Bethel.

Spatial Merisms

75

The examples of this literal usage of the extremities formula are exceptional literary devices in Biblical Hebrew. In the majority of instances in which the author seeks to stress a journey’s starting point and destination, he conveys his intention by separating the two members and attaching a verb to each—as, for example, in Josh 3:1: “Early next morning, Joshua and all the Israelites set out from Shittim and marched to the Jordan.” Occasionally, descriptions of this sort include additional points along the way: “[T]hey set out together from Ur of the Chaldeans for the land of Canaan; but when they had come as far as Haran, they settled there” (Gen 11:31). The account of Joshua’s pursuit of those fighting on behalf of the coalition of the kings of the south is a similar example: “Joshua took them by surprise, marching all night from Gilgal. The Lord threw them into a panic before Israel: [Joshua] inflicted a crushing defeat on them at Gibeon, pursued them in the direction of the Beth-horon ascent, and harried them all the way to Azekah and Makkedah” (Josh 10:9–10). At other times, only the destination is indicated: “and they went to Egypt . . . they arrived at Tahpanhes” (Jer 43:7). In these descriptions of journeys or pursuits, the biblical authors frequently choose alternative prepositions to indicate the location, such as “to (el)”—as in God’s command to Abraham: “The Lord said to Abram, ‘Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you’” (Gen 12:1). Literal usage of the extremities formula can also be found in border descriptions in which the boundary (or part of it) is said to pass through consecutive points. Ezekiel depicts the southern border of the ideal land in his prophecy thus, for example: “The southern limit shall run: A line from Tamar to the waters of Meriboth-kadesh, along the Wadi [of Egypt and] the Great Sea. That is the southern limit” (Ezek 47:19). As in accounts of journeys, so border descriptions also speak of interlinking points along a linear continuum by use of the locative hĕh, indicating direction toward a place 45 or via the preposition “to (el).” The continuation of Ezekiel’s description is striking in its repetitive use of the extremities formula “the eastern limit to the western limit” to demarcate the ideal future tribal borders—lines that cross the land breadthwise (cf. Ezek 48:2–8). Extrabiblical sources also contain linear-border descriptions that employ extremities formulas. Thus, for example, the Lugalzagesi tablet depicts the length of the boundary between the Sumerian cities Umma and Lagash via a recurrent extremities formula alongside an indicator of the distance between 45.  See GKC 249, §90a.

76

Chapter 2

the points: “This is the border according to the monument of Shara: from the Gibil-canal to Edimgalabazu is 960 nindan [= 5.76 km]” (see above, p. 29). In contrast to literal extremities formulas, which denote a line—whether describing a journey or a part of a boundary division—spatial merisms signify an expanse of territory. The two literary expressions are indistinguishable in form, and the distinction between them is purely exegetical. In some instances, it is clear that the figure of speech relates to a piece of land. Thus, for example, the phrase “from Dan to Beer-sheba” does not demarcate a line commencing at Dan and concluding in Beer-sheba but designates all the territory of Israel—everywhere inhabited by the Israelites. This is demonstrated by the general statement prefacing one of this phrase’s occurrences: “All Israel, from Dan to Beer-sheba, knew that Samuel was trustworthy as a prophet of the Lord” (1 Sam 3:20). On other occasions, however, both forms (the “linear” and the “territorial”) are possible. One example is the description of Abraham’s sojournings in the land: “And he proceeded in his wanderings [‫ ]למסעיו‬from the Negeb as far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been formerly, between Bethel and Ai” (Gen 13:3). In this instance, it is difficult to discern whether the text is depicting the literal, linear route that Abraham followed or whether it is signifying that Abraham’s wanderings took him, in broad form, through the central mountain region—the Negeb and Bethel simply representing the most prominent locations through which he passed. 46 Likewise, it must be determined whether the extremities formulas in the descriptions of “the land that yet remains”—such as “(and the land of the Gebalites, with the whole Lebanon), from Baal-gad at the foot of Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath on the east” (Josh 13:5) or “(with all the inhabitants of the hill country) from the Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim (namely, all the Sidonians)” (Josh 13:6)—designate a line or a piece of territory. 47 Remember that, as I have noted in respect to merisms in general, spatial merisms may have two alterna46.  In the following episode, of the quarrel between Abraham’s and Lot’s shepherds and the two men’s decision to part (Gen 13:5–12), the designations “land (areṣ)” (vv. 6, 7) and “all the land (kol ha-areṣ)” (v. 9) occur repeatedly, attesting that the conflict was a general one over the central mountain region as a whole. Likewise, in the account of their separation, the area in which each man lived is formulated in broad terms: “Abram remained in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled in the cities of the Plain, pitching his tents near Sodom [lit.: to Sodom]” (v. 12). It may thus be preferable to adopt a non-literal interpretation in the description of Abraham’s journey as well; this is further suggested by the plural “wanderings [‫]למסעיו‬.” For an alternative view, see Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Commentary (trans. J. J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984–46) 175. 47. Oded Tammuz interprets these phrases literally, understanding them to denote “A line from Baal-Gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo-Hamath”: Oded Tammuz,

Spatial Merisms

77

tive—and frequently complementary—exegetical possibilities. The relationship between a spatial merism that indicates territory and an extremities formula that designates a line would thus appear to correspond to the relationship between the two senses of the border terminology characteristic of Biblical Hebrew and other ancient languages. Just as the word gĕbūl can either denote a linear border or a section of territory (both meanings suiting the context on occasion) so also expressions that employ an extremities formula can denote a linear border and a section of territory.

Spatial Merisms and Border Descriptions The qualities attributed above to spatial merisms call for an examination of the relationship between spatial merisms and territorial perimeters. Earlier studies of spatial merisms relied on a number of “intuitive” presuppositions, the careful inspection of which has so far been neglected. One premise of this sort undergirds Honeyman’s seminal article. It is the assumption that merisms relating to space (as well as to time) always denote the borders of a piece of territory. 48 Honeyman asserts that merisms in fact initially originated in expressions demarcating space and/or time: “It is instructive to trace the origin of the idiom. ‫ ועד‬. . . ‫ מן‬is used, quite naturally and regularly, to express the limits of time or place within which something exists or happens.” 49 This contention cannot be corroborated in all the cases of spatial merisms: while border sites frequently represent territorial entities in geographical meristic descriptions, the meristic members do not always “quite naturally and regularly” denote the actual boundary(ies). This fact becomes even clearer in a comparison with merisms in general. Meristic expressions whose members belong to the “select lists” type may often indeed denote the perimeters of the genus as a whole. Whether they are classified according to ascending or descending order, the representative items customarily reflect the first and last articles, thereby defining the genus as a whole. Thus, for example, in the verse “They had not yet lain down, when the townspeople, the men of Sodom, young and old [lit.: from young to old]—all the people to the last man—gathered about the house” (Gen 19:4), the meristic elements “young” and “old” constitute the lower and upper limits of “all the adult males in Sodom.” Likewise, the expressions “from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head” (Deut 28:35; cf. 2 Sam 14:25, Job 2:7) and “from foot “Canaan: A Land without Limits,” UF 33 (2001) 524. For an analysis of the “the land that yet remains,” see chap. 8 below. 48.  Honeyman himself indicates that his statement refers to select lists. 49.  Honeyman, “Merismus in Biblical Hebrew,” 11.

78

Chapter 2

to head” (Isa 1:6; 50 in reverse order, Lev 13:12)—and the Akkadian equivalent (ultu qaqqadišu adi [kibis] šēpēšu)—are merisms signifying “the whole body”; 51 their individual parts represent the upper and lower extremities of the human “corpus.” Other expressions, however, lack any such ascending or descending order but instead contain items of equal status. Samson’s foxes, for example, set fire to the Philistines’ “stacked grain, standing grain, vineyards, [and] olive trees [lit.: from stacked grain and up to standing grain and up to vineyard (and) olive]” (Judg 15:5). The items enumerated here are not “first and last” members. The merism signifies “all the agricultural fields and crops” 52 rather than the dimensions of the genus. Comparison with general merisms thus reveals that spatial merisms should not be peremptorily presumed to represent the perimeters of a piece of territory. The sites cited must therefore be understood as expressing an alternative quality. Were Dan and Beer-sheba—the elements defining “all of Israel”—border cities? In his examination of the expression “from Dan to Beer-sheba,” Zecharia Kallai argues that “it goes without saying that this is not to be taken as an indication of the boundaries of Israel’s territories. Dan and Beer-sheba are sacred centers in the north and south of the country respectively, and the borders are, 50. In this metaphor, the people themselves are those who are sick. The noun “head,” which also designates their “leaders,” is thus more apt than the term “crown.” This word also links the verse to the end of the previous verse: “Every head is ailing, and every heart is sick.” 51.  The relevant biblical texts depict the spreading of disease throughout the body (Lev 13:12, Deut 28:35, Isa 1:6, Job 2:7) Compare the description of Absalom’s “wholesome beauty”: “from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head he was without blemish” (2 Sam 14:25). Similar expressions are also documented in Akkadian medical texts (see CAD A/1 116, s.v. adi) or in the context of beating or purifying the body (see CAD Q 104–5, s.v. qaqqadu). 52.  This appears to be a four-member merism: stacked grain, standing grain, vineyards, and olive trees (the latter in a collective sense—an olive grove: see BDB 268, s.v. ‫זית‬, 1). This is a preferable interpretation of the unique construct “vineyard olive” since, in all the other passages in which the two terms occur together, they are separated from one another (cf. Exod 23:11, Deut 6:11). It thus appears to be necessary to insert the conjunction “and” before the word “olive”—as in fact the LXX and Vulgate do: see BDB 501. Alternatively, the phrase “and to (‫ ”)ועד‬may be added, as in Targum Jonathan (see BHS). The proposed text thus reads: “setting fire to the stacked grain, to the standing grain and to the vineyards and (to) the olive trees.” The expression as a whole should be compared with the ordinance in the Book of the Covenant: “When a fire is started and spreads to thorns, so that stacked, standing, or growing grain is consumed, he who started the fire must make restitution” (Exod 22:5).

Spatial Merisms

79

of course, beyond them.” 53 Other examples demonstrate that the answer to this question is neither simple nor obvious. The spatial merism depicting the scope of Josiah’s reform is a case in point: “He brought all the priests from the towns of Judah [to Jerusalem] and defiled the shrines where the priests had been making offerings—from Geba to Beer-sheba” (2 Kgs 23:8). Geba and Beer-sheba are two representative cities from the broader genus “the Judean cultic cities.” Although these two particular places may have been selected as prominent, representative cities because they both lie on the border, it is also possible that they were chosen to represent the group by virtue of another striking quality, such as: their importance, 54 their affinity with the more common phrase “from Dan to Beer-sheba,” or even due to the rhyming of the names. 55 Knowledge of the characteristic qualities of spatial merisms consequently gives us no license to assume a priori that the phrase “from Geba to Beer-sheba” signifies the perimeters of the area under discussion. 56 Furthermore, even in cases where the members of a spatial merism do in fact lie on the boundaries of the territory, they cannot automatically be considered “border descriptions.” One such example occurs in the meristic expression “from India to Ethiopia” (Esth 1:1), which marks the immense scope of Ahasuerus’s kingdom, which included “a hundred and twenty-seven provinces” 53. Zecharia Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986) 309. This conclusion is derived from an analysis of this specific example of the expression rather than from the formula’s literary form. 54.  This possibility is consistent with the attempts to identify Geba with Gibeon, an important cultic city: see Aaron Demsky, “Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon: An HistoricoGeographic Riddle,” BASOR 212 (1973) 26–31. 55.  For rhyming, compare the modern expression “from Gedera to Hadera”—denoting the densely populated center of modern-day Israel. Although it is difficult to find parallels to this phenomenon in ancient meristic expressions, a possible example is the Akkadian phrase “from the city Taidu to the city Irridu (ištu URUTaidi adi URUIrridi)” which occurs in the summation of the territorial conquests of Adad-nirari I (1305–1274 b.c.e.): see Grayson, Third and Second Millennia bc (to 1115 bc), 136, line 37. A virtually identical passage appears in his son Shalmaneser I’s inscription (1274–1245 b.c.e.): see ibid., 184, lines 81–82. 56.  This is in contradistinction to Benjamin Mazar’s statement, “It is quite clear that Geba and Beer-sheba represent the two extreme points on Judah’s northern and southern border in this source”; or Gershon Galil’s slightly different conclusion, “In contrast to Beer-sheba, Dan was undoubtedly very close to Israel’s northern border. On the premise that the phrase ‘from Geba to Beer-sheba’ is analogous to ‘from Dan to Beer-sheba,’ it is plausible to assume that Geba lay close to Judah’s northern border during Josiah’s time”: see Benjamin Mazar, “Topographical Studies I: From Geba to Beer-sheba,” Yediot 8 (1941) 35 [Hebrew]; Gershon Galil, “Gebaʿ-Ephraim and the Northern Boundary of Judah in the Days of Josiah,” Tarbiz 61/3–4 (1991–92) 5 n. 15 [Hebrew].

80

Chapter 2

(1:1). Although India and Ethiopia do in fact lie at the extremities of the Persian Empire, constituting the “first and last” in this lengthy list—India on the east and Ethiopia (Upper Egypt) on the southwestern boundary—this spatial merism gives us only the vaguest details about the borders of the Persian Empire. It fails to indicate any parts of Ahasuerus’s rule in the north or the west. A map drawn on the basis of the information given by the merism would be seriously deficient. In his portrayal of the king as the ruler of such provinces, the author would thus in fact appear to be stressing the notion that Ahasuerus’s power reached far-flung and exotic lands—the perimeter of the civilized world and beyond—in other words, to represent Ahasuerus as the ruler of all the provinces. 57 Although India and Ethiopia did border the Persian Empire, the reference to these two specific countries should consequently not be understood as a description of its boundaries. In addition to the assumption that spatial merisms necessarily represent a territory’s perimeter, two other common presuppositions characterize the literature devoted to spatial merisms: (1) that the parts of a merism reflect geographical directions (north, south, east, and west); (2) that these directions are antitheses—north versus south, east versus west. Again, we must recognize that both these premises are only partially correct. Directions of this sort are only rarely cited explicitly. While in some instances the four locations mentioned in a meristic phrase can represent the genus “the four corners of the earth,” this cannot be taken as proof that the sites themselves actually symbolize the “four winds of heaven.” Nor are meristic elements necessarily antithetical. Examination of the order of the various directions in passages that speak explicitly of the four winds of heaven demonstrates that they are at times presented as opposites: “For not from the east or the west nor from the wilderness (and the) mountains” (Ps 75:7; cf. Zech 8:7). 58 On other occasions, however, the directions are not oppositional—as, for example, in the description of the gathering of the exiles “from the north and the west” (Isa 49:12; cf. Ps 107:3). A special case appears in the depiction of the search of those hungry for God’s word, expressed in meristic 57.  Sandra B. Berg, The Book of Esther (SBLDS 44; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979) 33. 58.  Talmon thinks that in this merism the wilderness represents the south and the mountains the north, thus reconstructing all four compass points in the verse: Shemaryahu Talmon, “‫ ִמ ְדּבָר‬midbār,” TDOT 8:98. Two pairings can be discerned in the verse, however: although the first contains two opposite directions (east and west), the second is reminiscent of the use of striking topographical elements that characterize the perimeters of the world but do not necessarily denote directions (wilderness, mountains).

Spatial Merisms

81

form in the words of Amos: “Men shall wander from sea to sea and from north to east to seek the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it” (Amos 8:12). The merism “from north to east” refutes the assumption that geographical directions must be antithetical. In this unique spatial merism, the prophet combines a topographical feature (the “sea,” mentioned twice) with the winds of heaven (“north” and “east”). Although the term “sea” can signify a westerly direction (cf. Gen 12:8, Exod 27:12, Josh 19:34, etc.), and the mention of the four poles very likely reflects the notion of the four winds, it does not necessarily follow that the two parts of the verse are an absolute parallel. We are consequently not forced into seeking a southern sea to complete the missing fourth member/ direction. 59 It is probably preferable to understand the passage as containing two parallel merisms: the first, “from sea to sea,” intimates a description of world dominion (cf. Zech 9:1, Ps 72:8); in its wake is a second merism: “from north to east,” signifying “all the winds of heaven.” 60 The verse from Amos thus proves that spatial merisms possess a labile form and serve various literary functions. The elements that they comprise do not necessarily denote border locations, nor do they always represent the four compass directions—which themselves are not perforce antithetical. These three assumptions consequently cannot serve as a starting point for discussions of these texts. Each passage requires analysis in its own right and context in order to arrive at a proper understanding of its meaning. 59.  Medieval Jewish commentators (Ibn Ezra, Radak, Metzudat David) attempt to identify the expression “from sea to sea” with the Red Sea in the south and the Great Sea in the west. Compare this with the njps note: “Emendation yields ‘from south to west.’” Modern commentators opine that the text reflects a wandering from the eastern to the western edge of the country—that is, from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean (or vice versa); for this and other alternatives, see Paul, Amos, 266; Meir Weiss, The Book of Amos (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992) 2:479–80 nn. 48, 51 [Hebrew]. 60.  It is possible that the choice of north and east—two non-antithetical winds—is intended to stress precisely these two elements. Weiss suggests that these are the last wind (north) and first wind (east). Since the Hebrew Bible employs no fixed order for the four winds, however (see, for example, Gen 13:14–15, Deut 3:27), it is difficult to determine which the “first” and “last” winds are: see Weiss, Amos, 1:259. According to Paul, the prophet Amos, who was a Judean, may not have mentioned the south because the Temple was located in that region, and it was thus impossible that people would not find God’s word there (Amos, 266). I suggest that the two adjunct directions—north and east—reflect the concept of the wind blowing throughout the earth, as expressed, for example, in Qoh 1:6: “Southward blowing, turning northward, every turning blows the wind; on its rounds the wind returns.” Thus, the two proximate directions constitute the extreme components of the wind’s passage, thus symbolizing the ceaseless and aimless wanderings of those who are seeking God’s word.

82

Chapter 2

In light of the attributes of the general class of merisms and the characteristics of spatial merisms in particular, we must reexamine conventional presuppositions in elucidating the meaning of these expressions when they occur in geographical contexts. The form itself is insufficient to exemplify its character. On the one hand, not every geographical extremities formula (“from . . . to . . .”) is a spatial merism. Since some descriptions are literal-linear, merisms must be interpreted according to their context and any accompanying expression to determine whether their representative members refer to territory or define a line that separates two lands/countries or joins two points. On the other hand, not all spatial merisms employ an extremities formula: the representative members may well be linked by “and” or another conjunction in combination with a (full or partial) extremities formula. The piece of territory may possess clear borders or be a section of territory, the fringes of which consitute a frontier region. While the members of the merism may identify the territory, they are likely to do so by relating to its borders or representing the territory in other ways. Each case must thus be examined individually in order to ascertain whether the locations mentioned constitute the boundaries of a delimited area or were selected due to an alternative representative attribute. Even if the representative members are located on a territorial perimeter, one must remember that spatial merisms constitute an independent literary form that does not automatically or a priori correspond to a border description.

Chapter 3

The Land Promised to the Patriarchs The first 11 chapters of the Pentateuch constitute, in effect, a preface to the history of the people of Israel. These texts contain the description of the creation of the world, humanity’s development from its first common ancestor, and humanity’s expansion and division into linguistic, ethnic, and geographical groups. The beginning chapters of Genesis thus set the scene against which the central hero in the Hebrew Bible, the people of Israel, emerge on the stage of history. Thus, Genesis 1–11 forms the framework for the central issue around which the Pentateuch and the Former and Latter Prophets revolve: the triadic relationship between God, the People, and the Promised Land. 1 In these introductory chapters, the term ‫הארץ‬, ha-ʾareṣ, signifies “earth” (in practical terms, the “world”), as the first verses of the first book, Genesis, indicate: “When God began to create heaven and earth (ha-ʾareṣ)—earth (ha-ʾareṣ) being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep” (Gen 1:1–2a). 2 1. Harry Orlinsky, “The Biblical Concept of the Land of Israel: Cornerstone of the Covenant between God and Israel,” in The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspectives (ed. L. A. Hoffman; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986) 27–64; Moshe Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies 3; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 183–84. 2.  In the continuation of the Priestly version (P) of the creation, the term ʾereṣ represents the residence of human beings and animals—in contrast to the sea, which constitutes a delimited residue of the chaotic and stormy foundations: “God called the dry land Earth (ʾereṣ), and the gathering of waters He called Seas” (Gen 1:10). For ʾereṣ as signifying “earth” and “dry land” in these contiguous verses in Genesis 1, see Isaac Leo Seeligman, “Zur Terminologie für das Gerichtsverfahren im Wortschatz des biblischen Hebräisch,” in Hebräisch Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburstag von W. Baumgartner (VTSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1967) 254 n. 2. With the flourishing of humanity before the flood and the dispersion following the construction of the tower of Babel, the term is conjoined with the definite article (‫הארץ‬, ha-ʾareṣ) and comes to signify the world and its inhabitants: “The earth (ha-ʾareṣ) became corrupt before God; the earth (ha-ʾareṣ) was filled with lawlessness. When God saw how corrupt the earth (ha-ʾareṣ) was, for all flesh had corrupted its ways on earth (ha-ʾareṣ)” (Gen 6:11–12). “Everyone on earth (haʾareṣ) had the same language and the same words” (Gen 11:1; cf. v. 9). In Genesis 1–11,

85

86

Chapter 3

In Genesis 12, the breadth of the biblical scope narrows substantially. Its initial universal and pan-human perspective condenses to focus on the national history of Israel—in the figure of its first representative, Abraham (as he will later be known)—and on the land to which the patriarch’s destiny is tied. In this context, the significance of the term ha-ʾareṣ becomes more restricted and specific. God does not promise the “land” to Abraham in the meaning of “the whole world” but commands him to leave one “country” (ʾereṣ), that of his birth, and travel as a stranger to another ʾereṣ—a country that is already defined and populated (Gen 12:6: “The Canaanites were then in the land”). The definite form ha-ʾareṣ, which is characteristic of the language in which the promise of the land is given and which appears most frequently together with the demonstrative “this” (‫הארץ הזאת‬, ha-ʾareṣ ha-zot), henceforth serves as a standard designation in passages describing the promised territory that God is bestowing on the people of Israel. Abraham himself enters world history virtually ex nihilo. According to the Priestly account (P), Abraham sets out to complete the journey begun by his father, Terah. Taking his wife and possessions with him, he directs his steps toward the destination that his father was seeking: “and they set out for the land of Canaan” (Gen 12:5; compare Terah’s intention to “set out . . . for the land of Canaan” [Gen 11:51]). 3 Apart from the general family background presented

the form ha-ʾareṣ consequently signifies the entire inhabited world in the texts that belong to P—such as God’s blessing of Adam and Eve: “And God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fertile and increase, fill the earth (ha-ʾareṣ)’” (Gen 1:28). This blessing by God is repeated to Noah (Gen 9:1). The form ha-ʾareṣ also refers to the entire inhabited world in the texts attributed to J (cf. Gen 11:1): see Samuel Rolles Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (6th ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897) 11, 14. 3.  Gen 12:4b–5 is generally regarded as belonging to P: see, for example, Ephraim Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964) 85–88. For the various biblical accounts of Abraham’s journey, see Yair Zakovitch, “The Exodus from Ur of the Chaldeans: A Chapter in Literary Archaeology,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine (ed. R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo, and L. H. Schiffman; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 429–30. For the ambiguity of ʾereṣ as cosmos and Promised Land in P, see Suzanne Boorer, “The Earth/Land (‫)ארץ‬ in the Priestly Material: The Preservation of the ‘Good’ Earth and the Promised Land of Canaan throughout the Generations,” Australian Biblical Review 49 (2001) 19–33. The word also signifies both the “world” and a specific territory in other languages, such as Egyptian: see Ogden Goelet, “Kemet and Other Egyptian Terms for Their Land,” in Ki Baruch Hu, 27.

The Land Promised to the Patriarchs

87

in the Priestly genealogical list (Gen 11:10–26), 4 we lack any information about the story’s hero. His birth, childhood, and “occupation” before he began his journey lie buried in obscurity. In the text attributed to J, the narrative spotlight only shines on Abraham when he receives the divine command to “Go forth” (Gen 12:1), leaving us once again bereft of any details about his youth or upbringing. 5 Abraham’s first appearance as an independent actor is bound up with the destiny of the land, pointing to the land as the true (and unconcealed) protagonist of this section of the book. Despite the centrality of the land in the biblical texts, its substance remains indistinct. In God’s initial revelation to Abraham, he provides no indication of its boundaries; the territory is not even named. This obscurity might be explained as a deliberate ploy to test Abraham’s faith—as indeed an ancient Jewish midrashic tradition interprets the passage when it presents Abraham’s migration as one of ten tests that God posed to him. This sort of explanation is supported by the vagueness of the divine instruction and the stylistic affinity of this text with the language of another trial, the binding of Isaac (Gen 22:2: ‫לךָ אל ארץ המֹריה‬-‫לֶך‬, lek leka el ʾereṣ ha-Moriah). 6 If this were the case, however, 4.  For the expository function of this text, see John Goldingay, “The Patriarchs in Scripture and History,” in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (ed. A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 2. The genealogical passages also serve to create a framework for the patriarchal narratives by interposing themselves between the story’s secondary sections. According to George Nicol, the material presented in Gen 11:10–26, 28–32 was intended to separate the commencement of the patriarchal narratives from the account of the origin of the world in chaps. 1–11: see George Nicol, “The Chronology of Genesis xxvi, 1–33 as ‘Flashback,’” VT 46 (1996) 332. 5.  Second Temple and mishnaic traditions fill in the gaps, providing details about Abraham’s wisdom, his religious enlightenment, and his role in disseminating faith in God among the peoples of the ancient world: see Jubilees 11; Josephus, Ant. 1.154–60 (citing Berossus and Hecataeus); Philo, Abr. 17; Gen. Rab. 38:13, 42:4, 43:5, 49:2, 55:2–3, 56:11, 95:3; Tana deBei El. 2:25. See Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1947) 1:185–217, 5:209–18. These traditions highlight the absence of information in the biblical text regarding Abraham’s early life. According to Zakovitch, traces of the tradition that Abraham burned idols in Ur—known to us from extrabiblical sources—can already be found in the Hebrew Bible itself (“The Exodus from Ur of the Chaldeans”). Zakovitch considers the erasure of these hints to derive from a desire to suppress the traditions of the idolatry practiced by the patriarchs of the nation prior to their entrance into the Promised Land (cf. Josh 24:2). This presentation may also reflect a wish to emphasize the status and significance of the Promised Land in the nation’s history, thus ignoring the patriarch’s existence outside the land. 6.  The midrashic tradition understood the command to “Go forth” as the first in a series of tests of Abraham’s faith, culminating in the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22)—

88

Chapter 3

we might rightfully expect to find an unambiguous definition of the land and its dimensions on the occasion of its first explicit promise, after Abraham has passed the test, entered the land, and even built an altar and called on God’s name. Perhaps the name and dimensions could be combined with a comprehensive geographical description. This anticipation is not met, however. Even when God unequivocally announces the bequest to Abraham’s descendants, the Promised Land is only identified by means of a demonstrative pronoun, “this land” (‫הארץ הזאת‬, ha-ʾareṣ ha-zot; Gen 12:7), without specification(s). The significance so clearly ascribed to the concept of the Promised Land and the central place it occupies in the patriarchal narratives and the account of the nation’s establishment serve to highlight this anomaly. These facts combined with the theme’s role as the key motif linking together the various stories reflect the desire to create a national ethos and validate the people’s connection with and right to the land. 7 This sort of association would logically appear to require an explicit designation of the nature of “this land”—the scope of its territory and the lines of its borders. Precisely this kind of definition is absent from the promissory texts, however. Surprisingly, despite the fact that the command “Go forth” contains no unambiguous geographical identification or detailed instruction(s), Abraham correctly deciphers God’s intention and directs his steps toward the destined land. This move creates the impression that ha-ʾareṣ was a defined geographical unit well known to all concerned—the writer, his the sole event actually presented as a divine trial of Abraham in the Bible (Jacob Licht, Testing in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Postbiblical Judaism [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973] 13–29 [Hebrew]). The tradition originated in the Second Temple period (cf. Jub. 17:17; Heb 11:8; m. ʾAbot 5:3 [and Maimonides’ comment there]; ʾAbot R. Nat. A 33, B 36; Pirqe R. El. 26–30). Tests (in the plural) are also mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sanh. 89b). In his commentary on Genesis, Cassuto suggests that the ten trials represent a literal interpretation; the Bible itself identifies ten generations from Adam to Noah and ten more from Noah to Abraham (Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis [trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984] 2:294–96). The details of the tests, according to his exegesis, diverge from the lists given in rabbinic literature, however—which, as Licht points out, also evidence variations (Testing, 80). 7.  This narrative approach is independent of any possible ideological, religious, or economic motives exhibited by the biblical authors responsible for these texts. Nor is the tendency towards shaping a national ethos necessarily linked to the question of the dating of the texts—irrespective of whether the patriarchal narratives (according to their accepted ascription to J, E, the Deuteronomistic source, or P [or its presumed sources]) reflect the period of the United Monarchy, the first Temple, or the post-exilic period (as claimed by scholars belonging to the so-called “minimalist school”: see, for example, Keith W. Whitelam, “Israel’s Traditions of Origins: Reclaiming the Land,” JSOT 44 [1989] 19–42).

The Land Promised to the Patriarchs

89

readers, and the patriarch—thus precluding any need to specify its location, span, or borders. This conclusion is confirmed by an analysis of the (ten) places in Genesis in which the patriarchal promises occur, which contain additional descriptions laying stress on various aspects of its nature:

A.  The promise of the land to Abraham A1.  In God’s statements: 1. The Lord appeared to Abram and said, “I will assign this land to your offspring.” And he built an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to him (Gen 12:7). 2.  And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had parted from him, “Raise your eyes and look out from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west, for I give all the land that you see to you and your offspring forever. I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one can count the dust of the earth, then your offspring too can be counted. Up, walk about the land, through its length and its breadth, for I give it to you” (Gen 13:14–17). 3.  Then He said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to assign this land to you as a possession” (Gen 15:7). 4.  On that day, the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I assign this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates: the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and Jebusites” (Gen 15:18–21). 5.  I assign the land you sojourn in to you and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding. I will be their God (Gen 17:8).

A2. In Abraham’s statement to his servant: 6. The Lord, the God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house and from my native land, who promised me on oath, saying, “I will assign this land to your offspring”—He will send His angel before you (Gen 24:7).

B.  The promise of the land to Jacob 8 B1.  In God’s statements: 7.  May He grant the blessing of Abraham to you and to your offspring, that you may possess the land where you are sojourning, which God assigned to Abraham (Gen 28:4).  8. And the Lord was standing beside him and He said, “I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac: the land on which you are lying I will assign to you and to your offspring” (Gen 28:13). 8.  God’s declaration to Isaac, “I will assign all these lands to you and to your offspring” (Gen 26:3) is not a territorial bequest but a promise of imperial power, as I hope to discuss elsewhere.

90

Chapter 3  9. The land that I assigned to Abraham and Isaac I assign to you; and to your offspring to come will I assign the land (Gen 35:12).

B2.  In Jacob’s statements to Joseph: 10.  [El Shaddai] . . . said to me, “I will make you fertile and numerous, making of you a community of peoples; and I will assign this land to your offspring to come for an everlasting possession” (Gen 48:4).

While the promissory texts containing descriptions of the Promised Land can be categorized according to the documentary source theory, a classification of that sort provides no conclusive evidence regarding their dating. The fact that the motif of the “patriarchal promise” links all the stories together—including its various elements (such as the pledge of the land, the assurance of offspring, and the guarantee of dominion)—indicates that it belongs to a relatively late literary stratum—both regarding each individual possible source and regarding the final text. 9 Seven distinct designations can be identified in the patriarchal promissory texts: “all the land of Canaan” (P—#5); “this land” (J—#1, #6; P—#10; and #3 10); “this land from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates” (#4 11); “the land that I assigned to Abraham and Isaac” (P—#9); “the land on which you are lying” (J—#8); “all the land that you see” (J—#2); and “the land you sojourn in” (P—#5, #7). Some of these are characteristic of a specific source. Thus, “the land you sojourn in” (#5, #7) and “all the land of Canaan” (#5), for example, only appear in P. Some—such as “the land on which you are lying” (#8) and “all the land that you see” (#2)—are legal in nature, being assigned to J (see also God’s initial statement to Abraham, “[Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house] to the land that I will show you” [Gen 12:1], at9.  See John A. Emerton, “The Origin of the Promises to the Patriarchs in the Older Sources of the Book of Genesis,” VT 32 (1982) 14–32, and the bibliography cited there. 10.  The source to which this verse should be ascribed is a matter of scholarly debate. The form “as a possession (‫ ”)לרשתה‬is characteristic of the Deuteronomic passages describing the entrance into the land (“the land that you are about to cross into/you are crossing to possess”: Deut 4:14, 26; 6:1; 11:8, 11; 30:18; 31:13; 32:47; cf. Josh 1:11). See Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 342. Since it does not occur in the parallel texts in P (Num 33:51, 35:10), the context of the expression “as a possession (‫”)לרשתה‬ indicates the verse’s possible link with D: see John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930) 283. See, however, Lev 20:24 (H), and Joosten’s claim that it existed as an independent legal term: Jan Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code (VTSup 47; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 187–89. 11.  In my opinion, Gen 15:18–21 is a later Deuteronomistic elaboration inserted into the narrative of the Covenant between the Pieces: see below, pp. 99–102.

The Land Promised to the Patriarchs

91

tributed to J). Alongside these occurs the description most prevalent in all the strata, “this land”—composed of the definite article, noun, and demonstrative pronoun. This expression also appears in other passages, such as Moses’ speech following the sin of the golden calf, ascribed to E: “Remember Your servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, how You swore to them by Your Self and said to them: I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven, and I will give to your offspring this whole land ‫ תאזה ץראה לכ‬of which I spoke, to possess forever” (Exod 32:13). Does the recurrence of this phrase in various passages indicate that it denotes an identical conception of a specific territory? Since this designation’s demonstrative and general character permits the authors who use it to harness it for their peculiar purpose, we must examine it in the various contexts in which it appears. Thus, for example, God reveals Himself to Jacob in Aram and commands him to return to Canaan in a directive that is inversely parallel to the instruction initially given to Abraham: “Now, arise and leave this land and return to your native land” (Gen 31:13); “this land” here refers to Aram. The use of the phrase “this land” in Joseph’s will on the eve of his death likewise alludes to Egypt, with which Canaan is contrasted: “At length, Joseph said to his brothers, ‘I am about to die. God will surely take notice of you and bring you up from this land to the land that He promised on oath to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob’” (Gen 50:24). The “tribal allotments” (clan inheritances) east of the Jordan are similarly identified by the phrase (Num 32:5, 22; Deut 3:12; Josh 1:13). Consequently, the appearance of “this land” in various passages does not provide any evidence per se about the essence of the entity described. This fact notwithstanding, the phrase does exemplify a particular perspective: its character and location in contexts reflecting separate territorial units bespeaks the existence of a limited territorial concept and a multicentric world view. 12 This conclusion is corroborated by the fact that, as David Daube has pointed out, the promissory texts contain language characteristic of ancient legal documents that treat the transfer of ownership of real estate. 13 Thus, for example, 12.  For the latter notion, see chap. 1. 13. David Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947) 26–39. Daube discusses symbolic acts such as “walking” and “lying upon” that are representative of the transfer of ownership in the biblical texts in light of Roman law. In his view, the act of seeing is what is known as fines demonstrabat—that is, the demarcation of borders—opining that this custom is also reflected in Moses’ “observation” of the land from Mount Pisgah before his death: “The Lord showed him the whole land . . . ‘This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I will assign it to your offspring. I have let you see it with your own eyes, but you shall not cross there’” (Deut 34:1–4). In Hebrew, the verbs “show” and “see” derive from the same root (‫)ראה‬.

92

Chapter 3

when Abraham parts ways with his nephew Lot, God instructs him to “raise your eyes and look out from where you are, to the north and south, the east and west, for I give all the land that you see to you and your offspring forever” (Gen 13:14–15; above #2). The act of “seeing” symbolizes receipt of the inheritance and confirmation of its valid possession. God’s earlier command—“Go forth . . . to the land that I will show you” (Gen 12:1)—falls in the same category: the “land that I will show you” is the land that Abraham “sees” and thus “the land I will give you.” In such contexts, the Akkadian verbs dagālu and naṭālu, which denote “seeing/looking,” likewise serve to indicate ownership in general and the purchase/possession of fields and pieces of land in particular. 14 A similar symbolic significance is reflected in the custom of “walking” through the length and breadth of the land (#2; cf. also Josh 24:3), as PseudoJonathan already observed: “Arise, walk about in the land, and take possession of it” (Gen 13:17). 15 Walking through the land is an act that symbolizes taking possession. A parallel practice can be seen in the notation “lifting up the foot and laying it down,” which appears in legal documents from Nuzi (fifteenth century b.c.e.). In these texts, the transfer of immovable property is concluded by the adopted heir’s placing his foot into the adoptive owner’s footprint. 16 The phrase “the land on which you are lying” (#8) similarly attests a symbolic custom that was used for validating claims to territory in ancient legal frameworks. 17 Other frequent expressions characteristic of the promissory 14.  For Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian texts, see CAD D 25, s.v. dagālu 5d (in particular, the phrase šudgulu pān, which appears in the context of the transfer of ownership of land). For texts from Susa, see CAD N/2 125, s.v. naṭālu 2h. 15.  ‫קום טייל בארעא ועבד בה חזקתה‬. Compare R. Eliezer’s statement in b. Baba Batra 100a. See also Arnold B. Ehrlich, Mikra kiphshuto [Literal Exegesis of the Bible] (Berlin, 1899–1901) 1:35 [Hebrew]; idem, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel (Leipzig, 1908) 1:53; Meir Malul, “ʿĀQĒB ‘Heel’ and ʿĀQAB ‘to Supplant’ and the Concept of Succession in the Jacob-Esau Narratives,” VT 46 (1996) 203. A similar legal practice is reflected in the description of the tribal allotments: see Josh 18:4. 16. See Meir Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism (AOAT 221; Ke­ velaer: Butzon and Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988) 381–91; idem, “ʿĀQĒB ‘Heel’ and ʿĀQAB ‘to Supplant’ and the Concept of Succession,” 197–98; idem, “Towards a Holistic-Integrative Investigation of Culture: A Case Study—The Motif of Spying and Conquering a Territory in the Bible,” Shnaton 14 (2004) 146 [Hebrew]. “Foot” and “hand” often symbolized power and sovereignty in the legal terminology: see Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 404–5. 17. See Daube, Studies in Biblical Law 26–39. Daube correctly distinguishes between legal motifs reflected in literary texts (such as the patriarchal narratives) and texts that deal with specific legal issues and possibly even legal documents (such as the record of Jeremiah’s purchase of ancestral land in Anathoth in Jer 32:6–12). Malul thinks that a

The Land Promised to the Patriarchs

93

texts also suggest that the expressions have legal connotations. Thus, for example, the root ‫“( נתן‬to assign/give”) appears in each of the passages. 18 The allocation is stated as being “forever” (J—#2) or “for/as an everlasting holding/possession” (P—#5, #10). 19 The legal nuances of the terminology and the judicial context of all these sources indicate that the territory they refer to is a delimited and defined “parcel of land.” Thus, they are reflecting a distinctly multicentric world view. In contrast to texts dealing with the concrete transfer of land, the numerous judicial intimations that appear in the promissory texts are not accompanied by either accurate demarcation descriptions or legal or geographical definitions. A sole text in the collection of patriarchal promises—appearing at the conclusion of the Covenant of the Pieces (#4)—provides the one detailed elucidation of the general phrase “(this) land” via a spatial merism (“from . . . to . . .”), followed by a list of ten peoples (“the Kenites . . . and the Jebusites”). 20 Although this passage contains geographical notations, it fails to supply a clear picture of the precise borders of the Promised Land. Its explicit and unusual detail thus appears to be adding fresh significance to an already-existing expression. It may even have been part of a group of polemical texts about the specific meaning of “this land.” Although this distinctive literary description is unique among the patriarchal promises, similar depictions occur in the pledge of the land to the Israelites in the epilogue to the Book of the Covenant (Exod 23:28–31), Deut 1:7 and 11:24, and the prologue to the book of Joshua (1:4). All of these texts reflect a divergent world view, the nature of which I shall discuss in depth in chap. 4. cultural connection exists between the concept of territorial possession expressed by lying on the ground and the sexual semantic field, pointing primarily to the link between ownership via conquest and the idea of “cohabitation” with (of) the land (Malul, “Towards a Holistic-Integrative Investigation of Culture,” 148–55). The sexual motif appears less frequently within the context of the legal transfer of land (in contradistinction to conquest), however. Note that the phrase “to see + the nakedness of the land” appears in the context of spying (cf. Gen 42:9, 12) as a way of “preparing the ground” for military conquest. 18.  See Claus Westermann, “Promise to the Patriarchs,” IDBSup, 692a; idem, The Promises to the Fathers: Studies on the Patriarchal Narratives (trans. D. E. Green; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 146–47; Orlinsky, “The Biblical Concept of the Land of Israel,” 31–32. 19.  Jacob J. Rabinowitz, “The Susa Tablets,” VT 11 (1961) 61–63; Moshe Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in Old Testament and Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970) 199–200. 20.  For spatial merisms, see chap. 2.

94

Chapter 3

The multicentric worldview—characteristic of nine of the ten patriarchal promises—is exemplified in additional biblical texts and constitutes a hallmark of biblical thought. According to their own self-image, the Israelites were one of a number of peoples—the Aramaeans, the Philistines, and the nations east of the Jordan (the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites)—inhabiting the region towards the end of the second millennium b.c.e. These nations occupied the expanse of Syrian-Israel territory up until the Assyrian conquest in the eighth– seventh centuries. The complex relationship which the biblical texts describe between the Israelites and their neighbors—comprised of diplomatic contacts, peace treaties, wars, and conquests—clearly reflects a multicentric perspective. A typical example of this worldview can be found in the apologetic exchange between Jepthah and the king of Ammon. When Jephtah “again sent messengers to the king of the Ammonites,” he said to the latter, “Thus said Jephtah: ‘Israel did not seize the land of Moab or the land of the Ammonites’” (Judg 11:14–15). While, as this incident implies, quarrels may have existed over the extent of the territory belonging to each of the neighboring nations, this text (and others) betray Israelite acknowledgment of other countries’ right of existence and sovereignty over their own land(s). It may be surmised that this multicentric worldview continued to inform Israelite thought, and perhaps that of Israel’s neighbors, throughout the existence of the latter kingdoms—up until their destruction by the Assyrian empire and its successors, with the attendant exile of their inhabitants and transformation of their governmental and cultural institutions. The concept of a (de)limited Promised Land finds peculiar expression in the Priestly source, which contains a quasi-diplomatic document designed to define the precise boundaries of the Israelites’ land (Num 34:1–12; see Chapter Five). This view is also reflected in the Deuteronomistic literature, as the preface to the book of Deuteronomy, with its prohibition against conquering territories east of the Jordan (Deuteronomy 2), indicates. The fact that the majority of the patriarchal promises embody a multicentric worldview notwithstanding, it is still necessary to inquire whether the designations “this land” and “the land of Canaan” denote a piece of land defined by clear and recognizable borders. Do these designations allude elliptically to the perimeters detailed on the verbal map outlined in the Priestly document “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” (Num 34:1–12)—or do they not necessarily constitute an “exact representation”? This discussion recalls the modern usage of accepted terminology symbolizing an area whose borders are generally recognized—the most prominent examples being, of course, the designations “Eretz Israel” (the Land of Israel) and “Palestine” (the latter name

The Land Promised to the Patriarchs

95

being prevalent in contemporary biblical studies), which denote a generallyacknowledged geographic entity extending over the territory ascribed by the scriptural texts to the kingdoms of Judah and Israel during the biblical period. 21 Likewise, the designation “Ugarit”—which refers in ancient sources to a defined and recognized geo-political unit, whether or not inclusive of the territories of Mukish in the north and Siyannu in the south. 22 If indeed no precise representation is intended, the demonstrative phrase “this land” and allusion to the territorial entity “the land of Canaan” should be understood as denoting a geographic unit reflective of processes which, while culturally and politically dynamic, were also delimited. The borders of the Land were not fixed, but expanded and shrank in accord with prevailing political and historical circumstances. 23 It thus contained an acknowledged core region and recognized peripheral areas, the latter sometimes falling within, and at other times lying outside, the territorial unit. 24 The concept of the dimensions of the Promised Land as expressed in the patriarchal promises can be summed up under three characteristics. Firstly, the essence of the biblical border descriptions is conveyed in the language of a bequest: all the texts speak—in quasi-legal terminology linked to the transfer of ownership of estate performed by means of “seeing” or “walking” its length and 21.  Cf. the title of Aharoni’s book in Hebrew: The Land of the Bible [Eretz Israel] in Biblical Times. See also, for example, the following citation from an encyclopaedia entry for “Palestine”: “‘Palestine’ here will be understood essentially as the territories comprising the biblical Israel and Judah” (Peter Machinist, “Palestine,” ABD 5:69). The designation “Eretz Israel” occurs ten times in the Hebrew Bible, four in Chronicles, although without a consistent meaning there. For the distribution of the term and its significance, see Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (trans. A. Barber; Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1997) 362. The title “Palestine” is derived from the name “Philistine,” Herodotus being the earliest extant source to use it, denoting thereby the territory of “Syro-Palestine” (Histories 1.105; 2.104, 106; 3.5, 91; 4.39; 7.89). Discussions intended to accurately determine the geographical borders of the territory underlying the epithet “Canaan”—both “minimalist” (e.g., Lemche) and counter-minimalist—consequently miss the point: see Niels P. Lemche, The Canaanites and their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites (JSOT Supp. 110; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1991); Nadav Naʾaman, “The Canaanites and their Land: A Rejoinder,” UF 26 (1994) 397–418; Anson F. Rainey, “Who is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence,” BASOR 304 (1996) 1–15; Oded Tammuz, “Canaan: A Land Without Limits,” UF 33 (2001) 501–43. 22.  For Ugarit’s borders, see above, pp. 38–44. 23.  See Chapter One. 24.  Cf. Schmitz’s assertion: “The boundaries of the region called ‘Canaan’ undoubtedly changed over time” (Philip C. Schmitz, “Canaan,” ABD 1:829–30).

96

Chapter 3

breadth, or lying upon it—as that which God “assigns” to the patriarchs and/or their offspring. 25 Secondly, the reference to “this land” (or “the land of Canaan,” as P commonly alludes to it) denotes a defined geographic unit. While it is possible that the intention here is to a territory whose full dimensions were supplied in the description of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” (Num 34:1–12), it is more plausible to assume that, in practice, the term relates to a piece of land whose parameters diverged to a greater or lesser extent from this precise demarcation. However this issue is resolved, the texts clearly evidence a multicentric worldview which portrays countries bounded by borders. Thirdly, despite the legal language, all the texts share a lack of precise geographic definition. The former two features—the stress on the Land as a divine endowment and its intimation as delimited—are consistent with one another, both reflecting the concept that God’s relations with the Israelites are modeled on those of a monarch and his subjects, the latter receiving a land bequest from the former. It is precisely this context, however, which raises questions in light of the third characteristic. Why do the majority of the promissory texts—in both P and J (as commonly accepted)—persistently refrain from giving any indication of the Land’s dimensions? The lack of any border specifications in the patriarchal narrative texts appears to constitute a deliberate and intentional ploy. The disjunction between the legal connotations these passages carry and the absence of precise border descriptions leaves the issue of the Land’s proportions undetermined. The validity of the promise consequently pertains to a land comprised of a delimited—but unspecified—area. Both Abraham and the reader/ listener who considers him/herself one of Abraham’s offspring and thus an heir to the land—whether resident in it or an “expatriate”—are likely to interpret the oath in reference to their own land, the terms “this land” and/or “the land of Canaan” representing in their eyes a delimited geographic unit whose territorial dimensions and precise parameters have undergone various changes over the course of centuries and through numerous historical vicissitudes. 25.  Weinfeld concludes from this circumstance that the promise of the land to the patriarchs (and in particular to Abraham) did not take the form of a political vassal treaty but constituted a unilateral royal land-endowment, bestowed in reward for past services rendered and thus not dependent upon the fulfillment of any conditions. This inference is untenable with regard to the initial promise, since, as I have remarked, we possess no details concerning Abraham prior to his obedience to the divine instruction to “Go forth . . . to the land that I will show you”—i.e., the land which God intends to grant him: see Moshe Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in Old Testament and Ancient Near East,” 184–293; idem, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 74; idem, The Promise of the Land, 222–64.

Chapter 4

The Promise of World Dominion The dimensions or borders of “this land” are not explicitly defined in any of the patriarchal promises that appear in Genesis. The single direct reference to the scope of the Promised Land appears at the conclusion of the Covenant between the Pieces. This text, which employs a spatial merism plus a list of peoples to elucidate the phrase “this land,” forms the ground on which the concept of “greater Israel” is based and thus plays a significant role in all discussions of the borders of the Promised Land. In this chapter, I devote my attention to this passage, together with additional promissory texts from the Pentateuch and Joshua that are similar to Gen 15:18–21 in context and literary structure. Since these passages are all characterized by use of the same literary formula, I refer to them as “promissory texts containing spatial merisms.” I first cite the five literary units that the group comprises and then analyze their character, their relationship to the pentateuchal sources, and their significance. 1. At the conclusion of the Covenant between the Pieces (Gen 15:18–21): (18) On that day, the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I assign this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates: (19) the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, (20) the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, (21) the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

2. In the epilogue to the Book of the Covenant (Exod 23:28–31): (28) I will send the hornet ahead of you, and it shall drive out before you the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites. (29) I will not drive them out before you in a single year, lest the land become desolate and the wild beasts multiply to your hurt. (30) I will drive them out before you little by little, until you have increased and possess the land. (31) I will set your borders from the Sea of Reeds to the Sea of Philistia, and from the wilderness to the River; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hands, and you will drive them out before you.

3. In the preface to Deuteronomy (Deut 1:7–8): (7) Start out and make your way to the hill country of the Amorites and to all their neighbors in the Arabah, the hill country, the Shephelah, the

97

98

Chapter 4 Negeb, the sea coast, the land of the Canaanites, and the Lebanon, as far as the Great River, the river Euphrates. (8) See, I place the land at your disposal. Go, enter the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to assign to them and to their offspring after them.

4. Within the book of Deuteronomy (Deut 11:24): Every spot on which your foot treads shall be yours; your territory shall extend from the wilderness and the Lebanon, from the River—the Euphrates—to the Western Sea.

5. In the preface to Joshua (Josh 1:3–4, a Deuteronomistic paraphrase of Deut 11:24): (3) Every spot on which your foot treads I give to you, as I promised Moses. (4) Your territory shall extend from the wilderness and this Lebanon to the Great River, the Euphrates—the whole Hittite country—and up to the Great Sea on the west.

Promissory Texts Containing Spatial Merisms and the Deuteronomistic Literature It is immediately apparent that three of the above list of texts share an affinity with the Deuteronomistic literature: one of the texts appears in Deuteronomy itself (11:24; no. 4 in list above), then recurs in slightly modified form in God’s exhortation to Joshua following Moses’ death (Josh 1:4; no. 5 in list above). 1 The third passage appears in the preface to Deuteronomy (1:7; no. 3 in the list above). Two others also demonstrate links to the Deuteronomistic literature and its world view: Exod 23:28–31 (no. 2 in the list above), which appears in the epilogue to the Book of the Covenant (Exod 23:20–33), seems not to match its literary setting. Its hortative style and rhetorical nature differ from the remainder 1.  As a whole, Joshua 1 exhibits conceptual, stylistic, and linguistic affinities with Deuteronomy. Thus, for example, God’s heartening of Joshua (Josh 1:5–9) resembles Moses’ words of encouragement to the people and God’s exhortation to Joshua (Deut 1:21, 29; 31:6, 8). Likewise, it describes the Promised Land in terms familiar from Deuteronomy: “the land that I am giving to the Israelites/the land that the Lord your God is giving you as a possession” (Josh 1:2, 11—see also v. 15; cf. Deut 4:14, 22, 26; 6:1; 9:1; 11:8, 11, 31; 30:18; 31:13; 32:47), “the land that I swore to their fathers to assign to them” (Josh 1:6; cf. Deut 1:8, 6, 10, 18, 23; 8:1; 9:5; 26:3; 31:7; et al.), and the phrase “the land that I/God swore” (Deut 7:13; 11:9, 21; 28:11; 30:20). Joshua 1 also reflects the Deuteronomistic historiographical view about the realization of God’s word in history: see Gerhard von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; London: SCM, 1953) 78; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 15.

The Promise of World Dominion

99

of the Book of the Covenant. 2 The numerous stylistic and conceptual parallels it exhibits to Deuteronomy (primarily Deuteronomy 7) indicate its affinities with the Deuteronomistic literature: 3 the act of covenant-making combined with a geographical description of the Promised Land (via spatial merisms and a list of nations) in themselves constitute a Deuteronomistic motif. 4 The first text in the list (Gen 15:18–21), which appears at the end of the Covenant between the Pieces, is the sole passage in the patriarchal narratives to describe the Promised Land by means of a spatial merism (“from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates”) plus a list of nations. Its character and content both attest its secondary status in its extant context, 5 which

486.

2.  Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974)

3.  Thus, for example: (1) The motif of the hornet that drives out the nations (Exod 23:28; cf. Josh 24:12) and leads to their destruction (Deut 7:20); (2) the explanation of the conquest “little by little” lest the “wild beasts” multiply (Exod 23:29–30; in Deut 7:22, the root employed in reference to the enemy is ‫נשל‬, followed immediately by ‫;)כלֹתם‬ (3) the “panicking” of the enemy (Exod 23:27, Deut 7:23: “until they are wiped out”); (4) the list of nations (six in Exod 23:23; three in Exod 23:28; seven in Deut 7:1); (5) the prohibition against serving the gods of the nations lest they become a “snare” (Exod 23:33, Deut 7:16; see also Josh 23:13, Judg 2:3). In addition to these clear parallels, however, tendentious alterations are also visible in Deuteronomy 7. As Weinfeld has noted, Deuteronomy deals far more stringently with the nations—commanding their total anathema and extermination—than does the epilogue to the Book of the Covenant, which calls only for their expulsion: see Moshe Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies 3; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 76–99. Contra Weinfeld (p. 79), who insists that these verses (Exod 23:20–33) belong to the Book of the Covenant, I think these parallels indicate that both strata reflect the influence of Deuteronomistic ideology. While the epilogue to the Book of the Covenant predates Deuteronomy 7, it should not be associated with the Book of the Covenant as a whole (Exodus 21–23), which is a still earlier composition. 4. Lothar Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969) 71–72 n. 9. Perlitt identifies the epilogue as a whole (Exod 23:20–33) as Deuteronomistic, due to the presence of the theme of the Promised Land (p. 157 n. 6). According to Hölscher, the very determination of the land’s borders indicates this text’s link (cf. also Gen 15:18) with the Deuteronomistic literature: Gustav Hölscher, Geschichtsschreibung in Israel (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1952) 279. In the absence of additional support, however, this claim remains tautological. 5.  The question of the date and composition of Genesis 15 is still fiercely debated. For a literary analysis of the sources embedded in the chapter, see the bibliography cited in John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1975) 249 n. 1; and Ha’s bibliographical survey: John Ha, Genesis 15 (BZAW 181; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989) 30–38. Some scholars contend that Genesis 15 in its entirety

100

Chapter 4

is further evidenced by the opening temporal notation “on that day,” a phrase that is commonly used to link independent pericopes. 6 The secondary nature of the list of nations in this passage is evidenced by the fact that v. 21 classifies the “Amorites” with the nations of Canaan, while in v. 16 the “Amorites” is used as a general term. 7 The affinity of this passage with the Deuteronomistic school is expressed by the fact that God’s relationship with Abraham is defined under the rubric of “the Lord made a covenant with x,” which is a characteristically Deuteronomistic phrase. 8 As Skinner notes, the list of nations is also “one of was composed under Deuteronomistic influence: see Rolf Rentdorff, “Genesis 15 im Rahmen der theologischen Bearbeitung der Vätergeschichten,” in Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Claus Westermann zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. R. Albertz et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) 74–81. Others argue for the secondary nature of the passage under discussion, either in full or in part: see Otto Kaiser, “Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Genesis 15,” ZAW 70 (1958) 109; John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930) 283. Still others consider this pericope to form an integral part of the chapter: see Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, 76–77; Moshe Anbar, “Genesis 15: A Conflation of Two Deuteronomic Narratives,” JBL 101 (1982) 39–55. While the exegesis I am proposing closely corresponds to Skinner’s analysis, Skinner views the textual expansion as commencing in the middle of v. 18 rather than from its beginning. 6. For this and other temporal notations such as “and afterward,” “after these things,” “at that time,” and “in his/those days” as well as editorial insertions characteristic of verses linking separate literary units, see Isaac Leo Seeligman, Gesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 124–25. Tadmor and Cogan point to the role that such formulas play in historiographical texts in introducing a citation from an earlier source: Hayim Tadmor and Mordechai Cogan, “Ahaz and TiglathPileser in the Book of Kings: Historiographic Considerations,” Bib 60 (1979) 493–99. Even more directly apropos of the current discussion is Loewenstamm’s suggestion that the notation “in that time” is a complementary or a corrective insertion in the style of the opening speeches of Deuteronomy: Samuel Loewenstamm, “The Formula ‘In That Time’ in the Opening Speeches of Deuteronomy,” in From Babylon to Canaan (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992) 42–50. Although the notation “on that day” recurs frequently in the biblical texts (principally in eschatological passages in prophetic literature), it rarely begins a sentence or independent paragraph (such as Josh 4:14, Isa 2:20, Amos 9:11), and it does not even appear on one other occasion in the pentateuchal prose. 7.  On the double function of the term “Amorite” in the Hebrew Bible, see Mario Liverani, “The Amorites,” in Peoples of Old Testament Times (ed. D. J. Wiseman; Oxford: Clarendon, 1973) 124–26. For its general signification, see Josh 24:18, Judg 6:10, 1 Sam 7:14, 1 Kgs 21:26, Amos 2:9. 8.  Most of the occurrences of this expression that relate to a religious covenant are in the Deuteronomistic literature: see Hallvard Hagelia, Numbering the Stars (ConBOT 39; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994) 157.

The Promise of World Dominion

101

the characteristics of Dt. and the Dtnic. expansion of JE.” 9 Although listing the nations residing in Canaan is not necessarily a Deuteronomistic device, the explicit heading “(the) seven nations” (Deut 7:1; cf. Josh 3:10, 24:11; Neh 9:8) and the roster of nations derive from Deuteronomy and are especially prevalent in that book. The list of ten nations inhabiting the land that concludes this promissory text is exceptional in its scope and components in comparison with other enumerations of this type in the Hebrew Bible. In addition to mentioning five of the six nations that regularly appear, 10 it also includes the Girgashites (known from the list of seven in Deut 7:1; see also Josh 3:10, 24:11; Neh 9:8) and four other nations. These four nations include the triplet with which the list begins (the Kenites, the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites), which are associated through assonance (k-n-i) and listed in ascending order based on the number of syllables in the words. The fourth people mentioned is the Rephaim. Both the unusual form of this name (lacking the gentilic ending “ite”) and its chthonic overtones (Rephaim = “shades/ghosts of Sheol”: Isa 26:19, Prov 21:16) 11 attest its secondary status in these sorts of rosters. 12 No benefit is served by searching for the 9.  Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, 284. 10.  The six regularly cited nations are: the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. This list appears in ten biblical texts: Exod 3:8, 17; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Deut 20:17; Josh 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; Judg 3:5. Its elements are divided into two fixed groups of three, apparently for mnemonic purposes: see Wolfgang Richter, Die Bearbeitungen des “Retterbuches” in der deuteronomischen Epoche (Bonn: Hanstein, 1964) 42. According to Ishida, the first three (Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites) are well-known names in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near East, while the second group (Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites) are nations about which little was known: Tomoo Ishida. “The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations,” Bib 60 (1979) 464–65. Our passage omits the Hivites, replacing them with the “Rephaim.” The Samaritan Pentateuch and LXX both add the Hivites, thus giving a list of eleven nations. 11.  This meaning is earlier than the usage of the noun as a gentilic name designating an ancient race of giants: see Michael C. Astour, “A North Mesopotamian Locale of the Keret Epic?” UF 5 (1973) 35 n. 74. 12.  Lohfink thinks that the divergences between the enumeration in Gen 15:19–21 and the Deuteronomistic lists—ten rather than six or seven nations, the different order, and the omission of the Hivites (who appear in all the Deuteronomistic rosters)—indicate the list’s early date: Norbert Lohfink, Das Landverheissung als Eid: Eine Studie zu Gen 15 (Stuttgart Bibel Studien 28; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967) 66. In my opinion, these features point precisely to its late date. See the list (exceptional in both content and scope) of eight nations in Ezra 9:1, a text that forms part of a “halakic midrash”: see Yehezkel Kaufmann, Toldot ha-emuna ha-israelit [The History of Israelite Religion] (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute-Dvir, 1976) 4:293 [Hebrew]; Sara Japhet, “Law and

102

Chapter 4

real-life location of these nations or for any geographical order in the list. 13 The hapax legomenon “Kadmonites,” together with the mythic association of the “Rephaim,” rather suggest that the list is merely intended to constitute a list of “everything that was known about ancient names,” in von Rad’s succinct summary. 14 They number ten precisely because “both seven and ten are typological numbers, signifying completeness.” 15 In the Covenant between the Pieces, God promises Abraham “this land” (Gen 15:7), the typical designation employed in the promissory texts. The extended description (Gen 15:18–21), which is closely related to the Deuteronomistic literature and dependent on its ideas, repeats the familiar phrase but then elucidates it by means of a spatial merism and an elaborated list of nations. Although these two irregular descriptive formulas are unique in the patriarchal narratives, they customarily appear in the Deuteronomistic literature. The retrospective expansion can thus be understood as clarifying and schematic in nature, as intending to “update” the vision of the Promised Land. I shall discuss this view and its significance in the following section.

Promissory Texts Containing Spatial Merisms and Detailed Border Descriptions Although scholars have assumed that all five of the passages under discussion constitute border descriptions defined by the “demarcation of ex­ tremities,” 16 they do not agree about whether the border descriptions reflect a single territory or disparate entities. The debate is evidence of the fact that

‘The Law’ in Ezra-Nehemiah,” Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Panel Sessions—Bible Studies and Ancient Near East (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1988) 109. 13. See Ishida’s attempt in this regard in “The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations,” 483. Clements considers the Kenites, Kenizzites, and Kadmonites to be the most original elements, while Lohfink discerns a southern/Judean program in the list: see Ronald E. Clements, Abraham and David: Genesis XV and Its Meaning for Israelite Tradition (London: SCM, 1967) 21; Lohfink, Das Landverheissung als Eid, 67. For additional proposals, see Gary Rendsburg, The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986) 108; Hagelia, Numbering the Stars, 172–77. 14.  Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (trans. J. H. Marks; OTL; London: SCM, 1972) 189. 15. Samuel Loewenstamm, The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition (trans. B.  J. Schwartz; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992) 82. 16. Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 87.

The Promise of World Dominion

103

these descriptions cannot simply be presumed to refer to one, unambiguous geographical entity. 17 In order to examine whether the descriptions depict a specific (de-)limited territory, let us presuppose that they do in fact relate to a single entity. This necessarily differs from the territory referred to in the detailed description of the “land of Canaan” in Numbers 34, since the territory in the promissory texts stretches to the Euphrates and includes all the regions east of the Jordan, and the Sinai Peninsula up to the Nile Delta. 18 In contrast to the “land of Canaan,” this hypothetical territorial unit is never defined by name. Scholars have consequently categorized it variously as representing the “ideal borders,” 19 the “Patriarchs’ borders,” 20 the “land of the Amorites,” 21 or the “imperial borders.” 22 In Weinfeld’s opinion, the hypothetical territory is characteristic of the broad Deuteronomistic view, in which the land includes the regions east of the Jordan—in contrast to the restrictive Priestly perspective, which regards the Jordan as the land’s eastern border. 23 If we are indeed dealing with a single theoretical entity, 17.  In Gershon Galil’s words: “Despite the fact that the described area may be defined in general terms, it is very difficult to accurately define its borders. Several questions remain open which cannot be resolved even when we combine the five descriptions and conjecture that they represent a single territorial concept” (“Gvulot ha-aretz ha-muvtachat [The Borders of the Promised Land],” in Shemot [ed. Y. Avishur and S. Talmon; Olam hatanakh; Tel Aviv: Davidson-Ittai, 1993] 147). 18.  For the possibility that the territory reflected in the descriptions is Eber-hanahar (Beyond the River), the fifth Persian province (fifth–fourth centuries b.c.e.), see below, pp. 292–293. 19.  Skinner, Genesis, 283. 20.  See, for example, Zecharia Kallai, “The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible,” ErIsr 12 (Glueck Volume; 1975) 29 [Hebrew]; Nadav Naʾaman, “The Shihor of Egypt Which Is in Front of Egypt,” in Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction. Collected Essays, vol. 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005) 268; idem, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography (Jerusalem: Simor, 1986) 244–45. 21.  Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 87. 22. Moshe Weinfeld, “The Extent of the Promised Land: The Status of Transjordan,” in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit (ed. G. Strecker; Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten 25; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 69; idem, The Promise of the Land, 69. 23.  Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land, 52–76. More precisely, Weinfeld proposes that the section dealing with the Covenant between the Pieces (including vv.  18–21) originated in the Davidic period (pp. 66–67, following Benjamin Mazar, “The Historical Background of the Book of Genesis,” in The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies [ed. B.  A. Levine and S. Aḥituv; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986] 50). In Weinfeld’s opinion, Exod 23:31 forms part of the Book of the Covenant; this broad view

104

Chapter 4

this would include the Sinai Desert from the south of Kadesh-barnea and extend to the Nile (“the river of Egypt”—Gen 15:18) and the Gulf of Eilat (the “Sea of Reeds”—Exod 23:31). According to all the sources, however, including the Deuteronomistic literature (Deut 1:35, 40), the journey through the Sinai Desert was regarded as taking place outside the land. 24 We must consequently reassess both the descriptions themselves and their relation to the Priestly concept of the Promised Land. A comparison of the descriptions of the Promised Land containing spatial merisms and the explicit border accounts—such as the full description of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” (Num 34:1–12) or the depiction of the future land in Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek 47:13–48:35)—demonstrates that they diverge from one another in both literary and conceptual terms: 1. The nature of the geographical locations mentioned in the descriptions. While the border depictions include specific names (such as the ascent of Akrabbim, Hazar-enan, ha-Riblah, the east side of Ain), the spatial merisms in the promissory texts use broad-ranging geographical references (such as the Euphrates, the river of Egypt, the Great Sea, and the Lebanon), some of which are vague and undefined (such as the desert or the river) and by their very nature do not constitute precise and unambiguous borderlines. 2. The number of locations mentioned.  The precise border descriptions allude to a large number of sites (20 in “the land with its various boundaries” document)—in contrast to the “promissory texts containing spatial merisms,” which refer to between 2 (Gen 15:18) and 5 (Josh 1:4) locations only. derives from the political circumstances of the United Monarchy and is subsequently adopted by the Deuteronomistic material. It is difficult to regard the pre-Deuteronomistic sources as reflecting such a geographical concept of the Promised Land, however— inclusive of the territory east of the Jordan—in light of the patriarchal narratives. As Yehezkel Kaufmann notes, the patriarchs evidence no connection with the Transjordan: Abraham and Isaac never pass through the territory, and when Jacob crosses the Jordan, he is regarded as entering a foreign land (Gen 32:11): see Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (trans. M. Greenberg; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960) 242. 24.  This may explain Galil’s concurrence with Weinfeld’s proposal of two dimensions of the Promised Land in “The Borders of the Promised Land,” while the map in his commentary on Joshua demarcates the southern border according to Josh 1:4 as a line identical with the border of the “land of Canaan,” in the region of Kadesh-barnea rather than the Nile: see Gershon Galil and Yair Zakovitch (eds.), Yehoshua [Joshua] (Olam hatanakh; Tel Aviv: Davidson-Ittai, 1994) 11.

The Promise of World Dominion

105

3. The formulations found in the descriptions.  The depictions of the border of the land of Canaan adopt the “place and verb” system in outlining for the reader a detailed “virtual tour,” following the border from point to point, using verbs such as “go up, go down, turn,” and so on. On several occasions, the description contains explicit notations regarding the side of the settlement on which the border passed (such as “your boundary shall then pass south of the ascent of Akrabbim” or “south of Kadesh-barnea” [Num 34:4]). This sort of precision and detail are also characteristic of other border depictions that use different descriptive systems: the “region” system found in Ezekiel or the city rosters + “place and verb” that occur in the tribal border demarcations. In contrast, the promissory texts employ spatial merisms that are characteristically nondetailed, general formulas. 4. The dimensions of the territory and the four compass points.  The border descriptions refer to an area with dimensions that are explicitly expressed by means of the four compass directions. The promissory text use merisms and make no reference either to the scope of the territory or to the four winds of heaven. The territory to which they allude is indefinite and ambiguous. 5. The names given to the territory under discussion.  The border descriptions depict a distinct geographical unity identified as “the land of Canaan” (Num 34:2). In contrast, the hypothetical entity reflected in the spatial-merism descriptions lacks a precise designation, permitting the possibility that these formulas relate to diverse territorial entities. 6. The context in which the descriptions occur.  The precise border depictions appear in the context of the allotments: “this is the land that shall fall to you as your portion” (Num 34:2; note also “your hereditary portion” in v. 13; “through whom the land shall be apportioned” in vv. 17 [‫ ]נחלו‬and 18 [‫“ ;)]לנחֹל‬this land shall fall to you as your heritage” (Ezek 47:14); and “that is the land which you shall allot as a heritage” (Ezek 48:29). Contrariwise, the spatial merisms in the border descriptions appear in the context of war and conquest, being associated with assurances of victory and the defeat of the enemy: “Every spot on which your foot treads I give to you. . . . No one shall be able to resist you as long as you live” (Josh 1:3–5; cf. Deut 11:25). Several passages also contain lists of the people inhabiting the land, whom God promises to drive out before the Israelites (Gen 15:19–21, Exod 23:28; cf. 23:23). The “gift of the land” in such contexts signifies the “delivery of its inhabitants into the hands of the Israelites”—that is, “victory in battle” (Exod 23:31b) rather than the “granting of land.”

106

Chapter 4

It is evident that two independent literary methods are in use in the biblical texts: literal cartological indicators and broad generalizations. The disparity between the two methods cannot be explained by claiming reference to discrete geographical concepts—the broad (Deuteronomistic) view versus the more limited (Priestly) view. The question still remains whether the descriptions of the Promised Land formulated with spatial merisms are precise—or even general—border descriptions. Attempts to outline a map based on the details they provide are visual proof that they cannot be considered true border demarcations. 25 In order to investigate the nature of the spatial merism descriptions of the Promised Land, I shall now examine the expressions that characterize them, together with the numerous difficulties that the depictions themselves pose for anyone who is seeking to understand them as defining the borders of the Promised Land.

The Geographical Elements in the Promissory Texts The five descriptions of the Promised Land include references to the most prominent of the world’s geographical features: seas, great rivers, the wilderness/desert, together with the highest and most impressive mountain in the region, the (Mount) Lebanon. The selection of these elements reflects their perception as representing the cosmos and its boundaries. They are transitional regions, the abode of threatening liminal forces. Dominion over them, on the mythological plane, reflects the victory of order over chaos, and on the historical level, the inhabited and ordered center’s control over the dangerous and volatile periphery.

Sea Three of the five texts refer, by different names, to the Mediterranean: “the Sea of Philistia” (Exod 23:31), “the Western Sea” (Deut 11:24), and “the Great Sea on the west” (Josh 1:4). One also mentions the “Sea of Reeds” (Exod 23:31), which is usually identified with the Gulf of Eilat. 26 In the ancient world, the 25.  Thus, for example, Weinfeld draws a map with open lines: the northeastern borderline follows a segment of the Euphrates, cutting across the eastern desert at a certain point in order to join up with the Red Sea, leaving the southern and northern boundaries undemarcated (The Promise of the Land, 57). 26. See Loewenstamm, ‫ים סוף‬, EncBib 3:695; Galil, “The Borders of the Promised Land,” 147.

The Promise of World Dominion

107

sea was conceived as the gods’ rival; the gods’ subduing of the waters was a familiar motif in ancient Near Eastern mythologies. The Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish describes Marduk’s conflict with Tiamat, the primeval sea. 27 Ugaritic texts depict Baal’s struggle against the sea, 28 while the Egyptian Instruction for Merikare includes the god’s “subduing the water monster” among his acts on behalf of humankind. 29 Mythological residues hinting at this struggle are also found in poetic passages in the Bible (cf. Isa 27:1, Ps 74:13–15, Job 26:12–13, etc.). 30 God sets a boundary to the sea as a “watch,” curbing its reach (Job 7:12 and elsewhere) and preventing it from overrunning the land: “Should you not revere Me—says the Lord—Should you not tremble before Me, who set the sand as a boundary to the sea, as a limit for all time, not to be transgressed? Though its waves toss, they cannot prevail; though they roar, they cannot pass it” (Jer 5:22; cf. Ps 104:9, Prov 8:27–29). 31 The sea is thus confined and restricted by land while in turn it delimits and encompasses the dry land. 32 A graphic illustration of this notion is found in a Babylonian map from the first half of the first millennium b.c.e. in which the world is portrayed as a flat circle encompassed by a ring of sea (marratu). 33 In the fifth century b.c.e., Herodotus scornfully notes that his predecessors depicted the world as a perfect circle, surrounded by the sea on all sides (History 4.36). In his own view, however, the earth, while not a perfect disk, was still ringed by the sea. The mythological 27.  COS 1:390–402. For the description of the gods’ struggle and Marduk’s victory, see especially tablet IV. 28.  Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle (VTSup 55; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 235–36. 29.  Lichtheim in COS 1:65 n.  29. See Otto Kaiser, Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Ägypten, Ugarit und Israel (BZAW 78; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1962) 36. For the sea in the Hittite myth of Illuyanka and in Hurrian texts, see Jaan Puhvel, “The Sea in Hittite Texts,” in Studies Presented to Joshua Whatmough (ed. E. Pulgram; The Hague: ’s-Gravenhage, 1957) 227–28. 30.  See Umberto Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973–75) 2:83–84; idem, The Goddess Anath: Canaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971) 71–75. 31.  Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies, 2:95–96. 32.  See Arent J. Wensinck, The Ocean in the Literature of the Western Semites (Amsterdam, 1918) 21–22; Philippe Reymond, L’eau: Sa vie, et sa signification dans l’ancien testament (VTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1958) 170. For the ocean surrounding the world in Egyptian thought, see Mario Liverani, Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100 b.c. (HANE/S 1; Padua: Sargon, 1990) 52–53. 33.  See Wayne Horowitz, “The Babylonian Map of the World,” Iraq 50 (1988) 147– 65; idem, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Mesopotamian Civilizations 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998) 20–42.

108

Chapter 4

waters encompassing the world were perhaps perceived—as they still are today—as a natural, absolute, and final boundary. 34

Rivers The five descriptions of the Promised Land contain one reference to the Nile—as the “river of Egypt” (Gen 15:18). 35 Since the whole length of this vast river cannot be considered one of the borders of the land, scholars commonly identify the general marker “the river of Egypt” as the Nile’s eastern branch, which demarcates the land’s southern boundary. 36 This exegetical act is not required by the text but derives from an attempt to read these passages as border descriptions on the basis of which cartological lines may be drawn. “The river” is the sole marker mentioned in all the spatial merisms, appearing almost verbatim in these passages in the form “to the great river, the Euphrates.” 37 The arthrous noun “the River” refers to the Euphrates (Exod 23:31; cf. Isa 7:20, 8:7, 27:12). 38 Although the general indicator “to/from (the 34.  See Curzon’s statement: “Of all Natural Frontiers the sea is the most uncompromising, the least alterable, and the most effective”: George N. Curzon, Frontiers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907) 13 (quoted in Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny [Chicago: Quadrangle, 1935] 64). 35.  See, for example, Skinner, Genesis, 283. According to a different view, the “river of Egypt” is identical with the “Wadi of Egypt” (1 Kgs 8:65, 2 Kgs 24:7; see also Isa 27:12): see Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Commentary (trans. J. J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984–86) 229; George B. Gray, The Book of Isaiah I–XXVII (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912) 462. Some scholars prefer to emend the “river” of Egypt in the Covenant between the Pieces to “Wadi” of Egypt: see BHS on Gen 15:18; Hölscher, Ge­schichts­schreibung in Israel, 279; Ephraim Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964) 114; Clements, Abraham and David, 21 n. 24. 36.  See, among others, Anbar, “Genesis 15,” 51; Galil, “The Borders of the Promised Land,” 147. For the explicit indicator “from the Shihor, which is close to Egypt” (Josh 13:3) in the description of “the land that yet remains” (also mentioned in the story of the bringing up of the Ark, 1 Chr 13:5), see below, p. 231. 37.  “To” the Euphrates in Gen 15:18 is “from” the Euphrates in Deut 11:24. MT Deut 11:24 omits the word “Great,” although “Great” does appear in most of the versions: see BHS. 38.  See Arnold B. Ehrlich, Mikra kiphshuto [The Literal Exegesis of the Bible] (Berlin, 1899–1901) 3:27 [Hebrew] (to Isa 11:15); Reymond, L’eau, 87–88. “The river” occurs only once in the biblical text when not designating the Euphrates, in a designation of the city of the Edomite king “Saul of Rehoboth-on-the-river” (Gen 36:37)—apparently a reference to one of the local rivers in northern Edom (Skinner, Genesis, 436). This exception to the rule is explained by theorizing that the passage was incorporated from an external source, possibly an Edomite document. (For an analysis of the list of kings in this text, see John R. Bartlett, “The Edomite King-List of Genesis XXXVI 31–39 and

The Promise of World Dominion

109

great river), the Euphrates” appears to relate to the entire length of this immense river, 39 this sort of reference appears equally as implausible as the assumption that the whole length of the Nile denotes the border of the Promised Land. Scholars have consequently sought to identify which particular stretch of the river is indicated. While the majority are inclined to consider the region around the Euphrates’ western bend as the best candidate, some commentators arbitrarily demarcate a line stretching along the river from this bend another dozen kilometers north and eastward. 40 Neither proposal is warranted by the texts themselves. Both reflect geographical and/or historical assumptions. Attempting to identify the border markers with the “four winds of heaven” creates an additional problem, since the text lacks any reference to compass directions of this sort. So, for example, does the “Re(e)d Sea” mark the southern side of the Promised Land or the eastern side? 41 As an example of the difficulty of identifying the indicators with one of the four compass directions, scholars are divided over whether the Euphrates represents the eastern, northern, or northeastern prospect of the Promised Land. 42 This issue bears directly on the I Chron. I 43–50,” JTS 16 [1965] 301–14.) Mesopotamian documents likewise employ the noun “river” in alluding to the Euphrates: see CAD N/1 373, s.v. nāru 3' k. See also Thutmose III’s (1479–1425 b.c.e.) description of the Euphrates in the Barkal Stele: “that great river which lies between this foreign country and Naharin” (ANET 240; see also n. 23). According to a different opinion, “the great river” is the Litani, and the clause “the river Euphrates” (Deut 1:7, Josh 1:4) is a gloss deriving from an erroneous identification reflecting the circumstances prevalent in the United Monarchy: see Alfred Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients (Leipzig, 1916) 502. This is a harmonistic endeavor to bring the phrase “the great river” into line with the remainder of the markers denoting the northern border, such as “Baal-gad at the foot of the Hermon” (Josh 13:5) and “from Dan to Beer-sheba” (p. 500). 39. In the words of the twelfth-century Jewish philosopher Judah Halevi, “‘The fourth river is the Euphrates’ (Gen 2:14) designates the northern border” (The Kuzari [Jerusalem: Sefer ve Sefel, 2003] 2:14). Thus, for example, Israel Ariel’s map of the Promised Land delineates the Euphrates as the border from the bend of the river in Syria to its estuary in the Persian Gulf: Israel Ariel, Atlas of the Land of Israel: Its Borders according to the Sources (Jerusalem: Cana, 1988) 1:28, 30, and passim. [Hebrew]. 40.  See the maps in Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land, 57; and Galil’s commentary on Joshua (Joshua, 11). Compare Diepold’s conclusion that the precise point at which the line links the Euphrates and the Mediterranean cannot be known with any degree of certainty: Peter Diepold, Israels Land (BWANT 5/15; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972) 32. 41.  For the southern side, see Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land, 67. For the eastern side, see J. N. M. Wijngaards, The Dramatization of Salvific History in the Deuteronomic Schools (OtSt 16; Leiden: Brill, 1969) 94 n. 1. 42.  For the eastern, see, for example: Ehrlich, Mikra kiphshuto, 1:1 (at Josh 1:4); She­ maryahu Talmon, “‫ מדבר‬midbār,” TDOT 8:98; Galil and Zakovitch, Yehoshua, 35, on

110

Chapter 4

question of the status of the territory east of the Jordan. If the river represents the northern border, the Promised Land does not necessarily include the Transjordan. If, however, it demarcates the eastern side, the Transjordanian strip—or at least the northern part thereof—does fall within its scope. 43 Identifications of this sort are grounded in the unsupported assumption that the “extremities formula” represents dichotomies, placing one site against its opposite number: south versus north (the river of Egypt opposite the Euphrates, in Gen 15:18; the desert opposite the river in Exod 23:31) and east versus west (the river opposite the sea in Deut 11:24). 44 Not uncoincidentally, the sources themselves lack any clear indication of the direction that the Euphrates is intended to represent, just as they lack any accurate marker with respect to which part of it is the border. “The River” thus cannot be considered an unambiguous indicator of any of the sides of the Promised Land. Biblical cosmogony and ancient Near Eastern mythology attributed a similar role to the “river” as to the “sea” in defining the world’s boundaries. Although the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish distinguishes between fresh water (represented by the god Apsu) and salt water (represented by Tiamat), this is this verse. For the northern, see: Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, 201. See also Rashbam’s commentary on Deut 11:24. For the northeastern, see, for example: Shmuel Aḥituv, Joshua (Mikra LeYisraʾel; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1995) 73 [Hebrew]. 43.  Thus, for example, Wijngaards considers the phrase “from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen 15:18; cf. 1 Kgs 5:1, 2 Kgs 24:7) to indicate “only the northern and southern borders . . . with the obvious implication that the East (the Jordan) and the West (the Sea) cannot be altered in any case”—that is, the description in the Covenant between the Pieces does not include the territory east of the Jordan (see also Y. Kaufmann, Sepher Yehoshua [The Book of Joshua] [Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1963] 20). According to this view, Exod 23:31 also relates to a limited area from which the east side of the Jordan is excluded; the Red Sea is the eastern border, parallel to the Jordan River: see Wijngaards, The Dramatization of Salvific History in the Deuteronomic Schools, 94–95 n.  1; see also Magne Sæbø, “Vom Grossreich zum Weltreich,” VT 28 (1978) 88–89. On the other hand, the expression “from the wilderness and the Lebanon and from the River—the Euphrates—to the Western Sea” (Deut 11:24) presents the Euphrates as the eastern (rather than the northern) prospect of the Promised Land, thereby including the territory east of the Jordan within the Promised Land: see Wijngaards, The Dramatization of Salvific History in the Deuteronomic Schools, 98. In Wijngaards’s opinion, the disparity is reflective of differing historical circumstances. 44.  This is also Sæbø’s premise, in regard to both the ordinary extremities formula and the doublets, which he considers intersections (a north–south line crossing an east– west line): Magne Sæbø, “Grenzbeschreibung und Landideal im Alten Testament mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der min-ʿad-Formel,” ZDPV 90 (1974) 17. For a discussion of the erroneous presuppostion that spatial merisms necessarily relate to dichotomous compass directions, see above, pp. 80–81.

The Promise of World Dominion

111

a secondary differentiation. 45 Although the term ‫ תהום‬customarily applies to the clear waters of the “deep(s),” it is also linked to the deliverance at the Red Sea (Exod 15:5, 8; Ps 106:9). The Ugaritic god of the sea was known as “Prince Yamm” (zbl ym) and “Judge Nahar” (ṯpṭ nhr). In the Hebrew Bible as well, “sea” and “river” appear in poetic parallelism: “The earth is the Lord’s and all that it holds, the world and its inhabitants. For He founded it upon the ocean (‫)ימים‬, set it on the nether-streams (‫( ”)נהרות‬Ps 24:1–2); “He rebukes the sea and dries it up, and He makes all rivers fail” (Nah 1:4; cf. Hab 3:5, et al.). 46 The Nile and Euphrates are both called “sea” (Isa 19:5, Jer 51:36), while Pharaoh is likened to the “Dragon of the sea” (Isa 27:1, Ezek 32:2), which is almost certainly a reference to the crocodile of the Nile. 47 The large, long rivers serve as extensions of the mythological primeval sea; like the sea, they lie beyond the globe of the world, which they delimit. In the biblical description of the Garden of Eden, the rivers possess a common source, from which they divide “and become four branches” that irrigate the world (Gen 2:10). Although these should perhaps be identified with existent rivers in the area of Mesopotamia, 48 some of them may be real rivers (the Tigris and Euphrates) and others imaginary (the Gihon and Pishon). 49 However this issue is decided, they constitute four cosmic rivers that parallel the four winds of heaven and the four corners of the earth, encompassing the “land” and delimiting it. The countries named are all surrounded by water: the Pishon is “the one that winds around the whole land of Havilah” (Gen 2:11), while the Gihon “winds around the whole land of Cush” v. 13), and the Tigris “flows east of Asshur” (v. 14)—that is, it forms Asshur’s eastern border. In this respect, the Euphrates holds a special position, because it is considered 45.  See Marvin H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts (VTSup 2; Leiden: Brill, 1955) 63–64. 46. In Cassuto’s opinion, the reference here is to sea currents rather than to rivers running through continents: Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies, 2:83–84. See also Reymond, L’eau, 169; Luis I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World (AnBib 39; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970) 162. For this meaning of “river,” see HALOT 676, s.v. “river” 1. 47. Although Stadelmann considers the term “sea” to have been applied to the Nile, due to its broadening into a delta, and to the Euphrates because of its wide estuary in the Persian Gulf (The Hebrew Conception of the World, 156), the connection between broad bodies of water instead seems to derive principally from cosmogonic concepts. 48.  See Ephraim A. Speiser, “The Rivers of Paradise,” in Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967) 23–34. 49. See Kaiser’s review (Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Ägypten, Ugarit und Israel, 107–12) and the bibliographical references in Lea Mazor, “The Correlation between the Garden of Eden and the Temple,” Shnaton 13 (2002) 12 n. 24 [Hebrew].

112

Chapter 4

equivalent to the cosmic ocean, perhaps by virtue of its extraordinary length and breadth. 50 The Hebrew Bible mentions rivers found in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Syria. 51 The wadis whose streams are inconsistent (Job 6:15) are not employed to designate cosmic borders; “failing” wadis (cf. Jer 15:18) such as the Wadi of Egypt therefore go unmentioned. The descriptions also neglect to speak of small bodies of waters, such as the Sea of Galilee (the Kinneret) or the Dead Sea. 52 The Jordan, whose flow is steady, is the sole contender for the title of “river” in the land, because the attitude displayed toward it in the biblical texts attests the fact that in the eyes of their author(s) it possessed a midway status between a cosmic river and local stream. In mythological contexts, it is described as a “river” (Job 40:23; perhaps also Ps 66:6 53), while the descriptions of the entrance into the land, prior to its conquest (Joshua 3–4), are modeled on the crossing of the Red Sea, with its well-known mythological intimations of cosmic struggle. The Jordan is not mentioned, however, in the promissory texts containing spatial merisms. As a local body of water linking the Kinneret and the Dead Sea, it is not equivalent to the ancient rivers that encompassed all the lands of the world in the Garden of Eden. Consequently, we find no such expressions as “from the Jordan to the sea” in the depictions of the Promised Land—although they do appear in the Deuteronomistic History that portrays the actual settlement: “See, I have allotted to you, by your tribes, [the territory of] these nations, that still remain, from the Jordan (and that of all the nations that I have destroyed) and the Great Sea in the west” (Josh 23:4). This passage is an attempt to link the imperialistic promissory language with a description of the borders of the land that has actually been conquered—up to the Jordan, as 50.  The Euphrates represented the ocean and the sea: see Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 53, 60 n. 3. 51.  For a list of rivers cited, see Reymond, L’eau, 86–87; Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, 161–62. 52.  Liverani has examined the connection between the biblical depictions and cosmological portrayals. He indiscriminately incorporates other descriptions of the land, however, including the detailed representations that also refer to the Jordan and the Wadi of Egypt, ultimately concluding with the mystified comment that “the ‘Brook of Egypt—an almost non-existent river, just a wadi empty of water for most of the year, and hardly representative of Oceanic waters—is promoted to be the southern boundary” (Prestige and Interest, 54, esp. n. 17). 53.  If this verse is understood to refer to the crossing of the Jordan rather than the crossing of the Red Sea depicted in the first half of the parallelism: see Loewenstamm, The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition, 237.

The Promise of World Dominion

113

stated. 54 The same phrase also appears in LXX Josh 13:7–8a in the command to divide the land among the tribes on the west of the Jordan: “(And now divide this land by lot to the nine tribes, and to the half tribe of Manasseh.) From Jordan to the Great Sea westward thou shalt give it them: the Great Sea shall be the boundary. But to the two tribes and to the half tribe of Manasseh. . . .” 55

Wilderness Along with great bodies of water, the descriptions of the Promised Land refer to the wilderness/desert (Exod 23:31; Deut 11:24; Josh 1:4). The arthrous form (“the Wilderness”) is not a conventional allusion to a specific wilderness and, within the land, may relate to the Sinai Desert in the south and/or the Syrian-Arabian Desert in the southeast. 56 In similar fashion to the Euphrates, attempts to identify the wilderness with one of the sides of the land directly affect the status of the territory east of the Jordan. 57 Scholars arbitrarily associate “the Wilderness” with the Sinai Desert in the south 58 or the great Arabian Desert in 54.  The source of this text is indicated both by its characteristically Deuteronomistic language and by the chapter’s literary form, a form that was favored by the Deuteronomistic author/editor: a historiosophical survey placed in the framework of a prominent figure’s farewell speech: see Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull et  al.; JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981) 9, 102 n.  15. For the speeches, see also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 10–14. 55.  The text of the LXX should be preferred here, because it preserves the preface to the awkward and disjointed MT, where the unit focusing on the territories of the Transjordanian tribes opens with the statement: “with him, the Reubenites and the Gadites had already received the shares which Moses assigned to them on the east side of the Jordan” (Josh 13:8). It is plausible to posit that this passage dropped out of the MT due to homoioteleuton, because the phrase “and the half tribe of Manasseh” appeared in both the opening and conclusion of the unit: see Lea Mazor, The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua: Its Contribution to the Understanding of the Textual Transmission of the Book and Its Literary and Ideological Development (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994) 265 [Hebrew]. 56.  According to Talmon, “the Desert” specifically signifies the Sinai Desert: She­ maryahu Talmon, “The ‘Desert Motif ’ in the Bible and in Qumran Literature,” in Biblical Motifs (ed. A. Altmann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966) 42; idem, “‫ מדבר‬midbār,” 98. 57.  Galil is aware of the problematic, noting that “the uncertainty regarding the location of ‘the Desert’ makes it difficult to determine the relation of the territory east of the Jordan to the Promised Land.” He nevertheless argues that “Kaufmann’s argument that the east of the Jordan is not included in the Promised Land possesses no basis” (“The Borders of the Promised Land,” 147). 58. See Ehrlich, Mikra kiphshuto, 2:1; Samuel Rolles Driver, The Book of Exodus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911) 250; Diepold, Israels Land, 33; Galil and

114

Chapter 4

the east, and commentators who consider all the descriptions to reflect a single, broad-reaching entity understand “the Desert” to be designating both the Sinai and the Arabian deserts. 59 The allusions to the desert are also related to the “remotest parts of the earth.” Ibn Ezra associates the desert with the ends of the world in his commentary on Ps 72:8: “The ‘ends of the earth’—that is the desert.” This exegesis apparently derives from the correspondence between this verse (“Let him rule from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth”) and the description of the Promised Land in Exod 23:31: “I will set your borders from the Sea of Reeds to the Sea of Philistia, and from the wilderness to the river.” Although the biblical text does not explicitly identify the “ends of the earth,” 60 it intimates that the desert is found there. 61 The earth as encompassed by sea and desert is also a prevalent concept in ancient Greek thought from the time of Hecataeus of Miletus’s “map of the world” (sixth–fifth centuries b.c.e.), and Herodotus relates that the desert stretches along the edges of Egypt (History 2.31), India (3.98, 102, 105; 4.40, 185), and Europe (5.9). The desert is not a place of life but an “uninhabited land, wilderness where no man is” (Job 38:26). In Mesopotamian literature, the desert merges with the realm of Sheol, 62 representing the chaos in which demons abide (Isa 13:21, Zakovitch, Joshua, 35. In Sæbø’s opinion, since the eastern border is always formed by the Jordan, the desert consistently designates the southern border (“Grenzbe­schreibung und Landideal im Alten Testament, 18). 59.  “The Sea of Reeds is at the southernmost point of the land (the gulf of Aqaba); the Sea of Philistia (the Mediterranean) constitutes the western and southwestern border; ‘the wilderness’ is the eastern and southern border; while ‘the River,’ the Euphrates, is the northern and northeastern border” (Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land, 67). See also Kallai, “The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible,” 29. In Galil’s words, “‘The Desert’ may be the great Syrian-Arabian Desert that stretches from the east to the inhabited land, but the passage may also be understood as referring to deserts in the south of the country, the southern Negeb and Sinai, or, based on another premise, the deserts south and east of the land” (“The Borders of the Promised Land,” 147). 60.  Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, 135. Alongside the phrase ‫אפסי ארץ‬, which hints at the primeval mythological waters (apsû), the Hebrew Bible refers to the ends of the world simply as the ‫קצוי ארץ‬/‫( קצות‬Isa 40:28, Ps 48:11, et al.) or ‫( ירכתי ארץ‬Jer 6:22). 61.  For the various senses of the desert in the Hebrew Bible, see Armin W. Schwarzenbach, Die geographische Terminologie im Hebräischen des Alten Testamentes (Leiden: Brill, 1954) 93–98. 62.  The Sumerian logogram for desert, EDIN, and its Akkadian parallel ṣeru also signify the netherworld whence arises the wind of destruction: see Yehoshua Amir, ‫מדבר‬, EncBib 4:674; Alfred O. Haldar, The Notion of the Desert in Sumero-Accadian and West-Semitic Religions (Uppsala Universitet Årsskrift 3; Uppsala: Lundquist, 1950) 19–

The Promise of World Dominion

115

34:11–14), a place from which devastating storms and ruinous winds arise 63—a “terrible land” (Isa 21:1) filled with terrors. As a liminal place, it forms a transitional space between chaos and the cosmos on the historical plane (the wanderings in the wilderness) and the eschatological realm (the future redemption). 64 Furthermore, it plays the practical role of a haven and refuge for debtors and fugitive transgressors: “They flee to a parched land, to the gloom of desolate wasteland . . . scoundrels, nobodies, stricken from the earth” (Job 30:3, 8). King Idrimi of Alalakh (ca. 1500 b.c.e.) fled to the desert, 65 and David hid there from Saul (1 Samuel 23–26). Thus, escape into the desert and the abode of protagonists there also reflect a symbolic transitional stage, a temporary expulsion from civilization and social status to a place that represents the reversal of their fortunes—from which they return strengthened and renewed to their rightful place in the geographical, social, and political center of power. The divine struggle against the sea parallels the gods’ contention with the mythological forces of chaos in the wilderness. 66 In Ugaritic mythology, the gods Shahar and Shalem are banished from the inhabited earth to the “fringes of the desert.” 67 Hints of the battle against the forces of the wilderness are found 20, 35. David Wright argues that no unambiguous evidence exists to suggest any similar overlap between the terms “desert” and “Sheol” in the biblical texts, despite efforts to identify it in passages such as Jer 2:6, 31; Ps 63:2; etc.: David P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 26–27 n. 38. 63.  In a lament over the ruin of the Sumerian city of Ur, the goddess Ningal exclaims: “might I have cried to it: ‘Storm, turn back into the desert!’” (Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harps That Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987] 455, line 111). The destruction therefore blows from the desert: see also Haldar, The Notion of the Desert in Sumero-Accadian and West-Semitic Religions, 28. Compare Isa 21:1: “Like the gales that race through the Negeb, it comes from the desert, that terrible land”; and Jer 25:32–33: “Disaster goes forth from nation to nation; a great storm is unleashed from the remotest parts of earth. In that day, the earth shall be strewn with the slain of the Lord from one end to the other. They shall not be mourned, or gathered and buried; they shall become dung upon the face of the earth.” 64.  Talmon, “The ‘Desert Motif ’ in the Bible and in Qumran Literature,” 37. 65.  COS 1:479, line 14. This story reflects the role played by the desert, irrespective of the question of its historical authenticity: see the bibliography cited in Oded Tammuz, “Canaan: A Land without Limits,” UF 33 (2001) 505–6 n. 26. 66.  Haldar, The Notion of the Desert in Sumero-Accadian and West-Semitic Religions, 23, 35. 67.  KTU 1.23.4, lines 65, 68. Pardee suggests that the text reflects the classic battle between the “Desert and the Sown” (COS 1:283 n. 67). In the Baal myth, the gods inform Baal that they have journeyed across the earth and reached the mhyt qṣm, lnʿmy ʾarṣ dbr—that is, the ends (full of) water, the pleasant places of the land, and the desert (p. 267, col. II). For the role of the sea and desert in marking the border of the land in

116

Chapter 4

precisely in the biblical descriptions with a veiled polemic against this conception, because they stress the absolute, complete power of the One God over the wilderness and sea, the dichotomous elements that serve the forces of chaos: “He turns the rivers into a wilderness, springs of water into a thirsty land, fruitful land into a salt march, because of the wickedness of its inhabitants. . . . He turns the wilderness into pools, parched land into springs of water” (Ps 107:33, 35).

Mountains “The [mountain of] Lebanon” (Deut 1:7, 11:24; Josh 1:4) is a very broad area, averaging 170 km long by 30 km wide. 68 According to Deut 1:7, the Lebanon is included in the territory of the Promised Land (cf. Deut 3:25), thus making if difficult to comprehend how precisely the mountain can signify its border. 69 Some scholars perceive the Lebanon as forming the mid-point of the axis stretching from south (the desert) to north (the Euphrates), 70 others maintaining that it is the northern border of the Promised Land, notwithstanding the fact that its greater portion falls within the Land. 71 Mountains and mountain ranges also appear as primeval sites lying outside the inhabited world and demarcating the ends of the earth. In the Babylonian map of the world, the term šadû (mountain) signifies the region at the end of the world that is the source of the Euphrates, which apparently is a reference to the mountainous area of southern Turkey. 72 In Mesopotamian traditions, the enemy comes out of the mountain and desert to destroy the god’s dwelling. 73 The source of this conception is the realities of ancient Mesopotamian life: settlements were situated along the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates; the Ugaritic mythology, see Nicholas Wyatt, “Sea and Desert: Symbolic Geography in West Semitic Religious Thought,” UF 19 (1987) 375–89. 68.  See Yohanan Aharoni, ‫לבנון‬, EncBib 4:425. 69. See Aḥituv (Joshua, 73), who considers this verse to refer to southern Lebanon up to Lebo-hamath. 70. See Diepold, Israels Land, 33; Sæbø, “Grenzbeschreibung und Landideal im Alten Testament,” 19; Hagelia, Numbering the Stars, 169–70. Compare Rashbam’s failure to relate to the Lebanon in his comment on Deut 11:24: “‘From the desert’: south. ‘The Euphrates’: north. ‘To the Western Sea’: from the place where you are now standing in the southeastern corner of the Land of Israel to the Mediterranean in the west” (translation mine). 71. See Aḥituv, Joshua, 73. 72.  Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 28. 73.  Haldar, The Notion of the Desert in Sumero-Accadian and West-Semitic Religions, 24.

The Promise of World Dominion

117

borders were the mountains in the north and east and the deserts in the south and west. 74 The struggle against the enemy from the mountain takes on mythological dimensions in the epic of Ninurta’s battle against the mountain, in the form of the monster Asag. 75 In another epic, the mountain serves as the abode of the monstrous Anzu bird and the arena for the epic hero’s fight against it. 76 In the biblical texts, God’s fashioning of the mountains—which are mentioned alongside the abyss and the sea—reflects the Creator’s control over His world (Isa 40:12, et al.). 77 A parallel to this concept also appears in the Mesopotamian myth of Erra, the god of destruction, who agitates (dalāḫu) the sea and demolishes (gamāru) the mountains. 78 Mountains in general—and the Lebanon in particular—also serve as protagonists in biblical poetry, alluding, alongside the sea and desert to the divine battle against the forces of chaos (Hab 3:6, Psalms 29, 114). Nouns signifying “mountain” in Semitic languages are etymologically and semantically linked, as are other similar concepts such as “desert,” “field,” and “border.” Thus, for example, the Akkadian šadû is linked etymologically to the Hebrew word for “field” (‫)שדה‬, while the Arabic jabal is related to ‫( גבול‬gĕbūl, “border/territory”), and dabra in Ethiopic is linked to “wilderness” (‫)מדבר‬. 79 Waters, rivers, deserts, and mountains are also perceived as sites of waste and impurity, into which are cast elements that contaminate individuals and society. Ancient healing ceremonies regularly involved throwing diseases and illnesses as far as possible away from inhabited regions—into the mountains, sky, depths, open fields, arid deserts, and rivers, whence they are carried back to the waters of the deep (apsû). 80 This idea also forms the backdrop behind 74.  See, for example, the description of the devastation of Sumer at the hands of the Gutium, who descended from the mountains and swept over Sumer “as the flood of Enlil” and by a storm that arose from the desert: Piotr Michalowski, The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur (Mesopotamian Civilizations 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989) 40–41, lines 75–77. 75.  Jan van Dijk, ud me-lam-bi nir-gál (Leiden: Brill, 1983). 76.  For the text, see Amar Annus, Epic of Anzu (SAA Cuneiform Texts 3; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2001). For the translation, see Benjamin R. Foster, Before the Muses (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996) 458–81. 77. Shemaryahu Talmon, “‫ הַר‬har; ‫ ִּג ְבעָה‬gibhʿāh,” TDOT 3:440. 78.  The Erra Epic, tablet IIId, line 5. For the text, see Luigi Cagni, Das Erra-Epos: Keilschrifttext (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970) 100. For the translation, see Foster, Before the Muses, 778. 79.  Talmon, “‫ הַר‬har; ‫ ִּג ְבעָה‬gibhʿāh,” 428. The mountains also possess a dual cosmological function in representing both center and periphery. 80.  Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 85, 255–56, 269–70. The sea and desert remain favored places for the disposal of toxic waste today.

118

Chapter 4

the ritual sending of the scapegoat into the wilderness (Lev 16:7–10, 22). 81 The liminal locations of these places and their role as sites of refuge and transition explain why the Israelites pass through them in the process of their identityformation: the Red Sea, the Sinai Desert, Mount Sinai/Horeb, and the Jordan River. The fact that they appear in the descriptions of the Promised Land thus originates from the mytho-poetical significance they bear in the ancient Near Eastern world view.

Depictions of World Dominion Our understanding of the five Deuteronomistic descriptions of the Promised Land is aided by the detailed depictions of world dominion that occur in the biblical poetic texts, as noted by Ibn Ezra in his commentary on Ps 72:8 (see above, p.  114): “And his rule shall extend from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth” (Zech 9:10); “Let him rule from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth” (Ps 72:8). A metaphorical intimation of all-encompassing power also appears in the image of the vine that fills the earth: “Its branches reached the sea, its shoots, the river” (Ps 80:12); and in David’s rule: “I will set his hand upon the sea, his right hand upon the rivers” (Ps 89:26). 82 Additional psalms speak of the world dominion of the king enthroned in Jerusalem: “Ask it of Me, and I will make the nations your domain; your estate, the ends of the earth” (Ps 2:8; cf. Ps 18:44–48); “For lo, he shall wax great to the ends of the earth” (Mic 5:3b). The expression “from sea to sea” was known to the Israelites as early as the eighth century b.c.e., as can be seen from Amos’s prophecy describing the expanse over which people will journey, seeking God’s word in vain: “Men shall wander from sea to sea and from north to east to seek the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it” (Amos 8:12). 83 81.  Talmon, “The ‘Desert Motif ’ in the Bible and in Qumran Literature,” 44; Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, 29–30. 82.  Anbar seeks to ascribe an ideological significance to the plural “rivers” in Ps 89:26. He conjectures that this passage was the genesis of the view that David’s kingdom stretched from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates: Moshe Anbar, “Abrahamic Covenant: Genesis 15,” Shnaton 3 (1979) 49 [Hebrew]. In my opinion, the verse’s intimations of world dominion and poetic garb weigh against such a literal reading. 83.  See above, p. 81. As is his wont, Amos converts a positive expression (universal dominion) into a negative expression in order to augment the impact on his audience by way of surprise. Unexpected conclusions that upend accepted conventions are characteristic of Amos’s prophecies: see 3:2, 5:18–20, 9:7; see Shalom Paul, Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 102 n. 18. According to Weiss, the first half of the phrase—“from sea to sea”—is intended to paint a picture of a panting thirst for water

The Promise of World Dominion

119

Because the Psalms link David’s rule to the maximum geographical breadth, scholars have conjectured that descriptions of the Promised Land were influenced by the scope of David’s kingdom. 84 Although the existence of an Israelite empire during the United Monarchy is disputed, 85 this sort of concept is sometimes considered to lie behind these passages. In my opinion, no relationship exists between the descriptions of the kingdom of David and those of the Promised Land. The biblical historiography does depict David as a great warrior and conqueror, the founder of an “empire”: he fights the Philistines, subdues Moab (2 Sam 8:1–2), and smites Ammon (2 Sam 10:7–11) and the Arameans under the leadership of Aram Zobah (2 Sam 10:15–19, Ps 60:2), turning them and Edom into Israelite vassals (2 Sam 8:6, 14; 10:19). He himself reaches the Euphrates, where he sets up a “monument” in the tradition of the great imperial vanquishers (2 Sam 8:3, 86 1 Chr 18:3). At the same time, however, he is not said to have reached as far south as the river of Egypt, and to his northwest lay parallel to the image of aimless wandering that it engenders: Meir Weiss, The Book of Amos (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992) 180–86 [Hebrew]. 84.  See Albrecht Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Munich: Beck, 1953) 2:75; compare with Mazar, “The Historical Background of the Book of Genesis,” 50–51; Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land, 65–68. 85.  For a survey of the various views, see Gary Knoppers, “The Vanishing Solomon,” JBL 116 (1997) 19–44. 86.  See Henry P. Smith, The Books of Samuel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899) 305. The majority of commentators regard the act of setting up a monument as referring to Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and signifying that the Aramean king sought to impose his sovereignty on the region in question: see Rashi and Radak on this verse. According to this interpretation, while Hadadezer was occupied on the other side of his kingdom, David took the occasion as an opportunity to attack Zobah: see Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2:71–72; Abraham Malamat, “Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon,” in History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues (Leiden: Brill, 2001) 210; Hans W. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel (trans. J. S. Bowden; OTL; London: SCM, 1964) 291. The custom of erecting a monument on the bank of an impressive river is more appropriate, however, to the memorialization of extraordinary feats of kings from distant reaches and does not necessarily apply to the exploits of a local ruler. See, for example, Thutmose III’s testimonial regarding his eighth campaign (1447 b.c.e.), in which he reached the Euphrates and set up a monument next to that erected by his grandfather, Thutmose I (ANET 239; Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 60; above, pp.  46–47). See also P. Kyle McCarter Jr., II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984) 247–48. No warrant exists for attempting to identify “the river” with a river other than the Euphrates, such as the Orontes: see Gösta Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest (JSOTSup 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 484 n. 4.

120

Chapter 4

the independent nations of Tyre and Sidon (1 Kgs 5:15–26). 87 According to the Hebrew Bible, at the time of the United Monarchy, the Lebanon was ruled by Hiram of Tyre, who supplied David and Solomon with cedars and cypresses (2 Sam 5:11, 1 Kgs 5:22–24). Moreover, the historiographical description of David’s rule contains no spatial merisms. The model on which the biblical author based the Davidic period instead appears to have been a local kingdom, such as Aram–Damascus. During the second half of the ninth century b.c.e., this region was ruled by Hazael, king of Aram, who subjugated Gath of the Philistines (2 Kgs 12:18) and subdued Israel and Judah (2 Kgs 8:12; 13:3, 22; Amos 1:3). According to a dedicatory inscription on an equine forehead-ornament discovered at Samos, Hazael also crossed the Euphrates. 88 The biblical historiographical texts consequently do not identify David as the person who realized the patriarchal promises, nor do the promises reflect his achievements, either literarily or in actuality. An association between his rule and world dominion is only found in the Psalms, the language of which is poetic and the character is eschatological. The biblical descriptions of world dominion employ spatial merisms, portraying its dimension by such concepts as “sea,” “river,” “the remotest parts of the earth” (Hebrew, ʾapsei ʾareṣ, an allusion to Apsu, the primeval deep). 89 Elements of this type of world dominion are known from the Enthronement Psalms: “mighty waters,” “Lebanon,” “the Wilderness of Kadesh” (Ps 29:3–8). 90 These images derive from Mesopotamian royal terminology, which depicts the reaches of imperial power as running “from the upper to the lower sea.” 91 In 87.  Kaufmann, Sepher Yehoshua, 20. 88. Israel Ephʿal and Joseph Naveh, “Hazael’s Booty Inscriptions,” IEJ 39 (1989) 192–200. 89. See Reymond, L’eau, 171. For the etymology of ‫אפס‬, see HALOT 79. 90.  See Herbert G. May, “Some Cosmic Connotations of mayim rabbîm, ‘Many Waters’,” JBL 74 (1955) 16. Psalm 29, which mentions the Wilderness of Kadesh, has long been recognized as reflecting Canaanite-Phoenician influences: see Harold (Haim) L. Ginsberg, The Ugaritic Texts (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1936) 129–30 [Hebrew]; Yitzhak Avishur, Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989) 25– 75 [Hebrew]; Michael L. Barré, “A Phoenician Parallel to Psalms 29,” HAR 13 (1991) 25– 32. According to Malamat (“Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon”), the psalm reflects traditions originating at the beginning of the second millennium b.c.e. 91.  See the descriptions of Shalmaneser III: see, for example, Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium bc II (858–745 bc) (RIMA 3; Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1996) 98, lines 9–10. The first Assyrian king to be called “King of the Upper and Lower Sea” was Tukulti-Ninurta I (thirteenth century b.c.e.): see Marie-Joseph Seux, Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1967) 320; Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia

The Promise of World Dominion

121

contrast to Mesopotamian documents, however, the biblical texts assert that true “global power” belongs not to the king but to God: “The earth is the Lord’s and all that it holds, the world and its inhabitants. For He founded it upon the seas, set it on the rivers” (Ps 24:1–2). 92 The rule of the Davidic Dynasty as depicted in the Psalms is thus an image of God’s reign as the Creator and guider of the world, who bestows on His earthly representative the authority to govern the whole earth.

A Response to Neo-Assyrian Propaganda The same set of features—seas, rivers, deserts, and mountains—are used to designate the scope of Assyrian rule. Thus, for example, Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244–1208 b.c.e.) is described as “king of the Upper and Lower Seas, king of the extensive mountains and plains.” 93 As is true of all monocentric imperial powers, one of the Assyrian king’s principal tasks was territorial expansion. 94 The ruler sought to impose his rule “from the Lower Sea to the Upper Sea” (that is, from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean), 95 a phrase that alludes to world-wide boundaries and royal authority over the forces of chaos. In his conquests, the Assyrian monarch accomplished what the gods had promised, and his feats were described as “the glory of the gods.” 96

bc (to 1115 bc) (RIMA 1; Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1987) 244, lines 5–6. The expression originated, however, in royal Sumerian inscriptions from the third millennium b.c.e., such as the depictions of Lugalzagesi, king of Uruk (ca. 2360 b.c.e.), as ruling all the peoples “from east to west.” Enlil put the routes in good order for him “from the Lower Sea, (along) the Tigris and Euphrates, to the Upper Sea”: see Horst Steible, Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1982) 2:316–17, col. 1, line 36–col. 2, line 16; Thorkild Jacobsen, “Early Political Development in Mesopotamia,” ZA 52 (1957) 135–36; Jerrold S. Cooper, Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986) 94, and the additional bibliographical references cited therein. 92.  See Kraus’s argument that the biblical ideology revamped ancient Near Eastern royal descriptions of world dominion: Hans Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms (trans. K. Crim; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986) 121. 93.  Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia bc (to 1115 bc), 244, lines 5–7. 94. Hayim Tadmor, “World Dominion: The Expanding Horizon of the Assyrian Empire,” in Landscapes, Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East: Papers Presented to the XLIV Rencontre assyriologique internationale, Venezia, 7–11 July 1997 (ed. L. Milano et al.; Padua: Sargon, 1999) 55–62. 95.  See above, n. 91. 96. Bustenay Oded, War, Peace and Empire (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992) 13–27.

122

Chapter 4

The territory encompassed by royal jurisdiction is defined primarily by using spatial merisms, which are also accompanied by lists of cities, lands, and peoples. 97 This custom is well illustrated by the titles given to the three great Assyrian conquerors who preceded Tiglath-pileser III and succeeded in reaching the Mediterranean. Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 b.c.e.) commences the summary of his military campaigns by declaring himself “conqueror from the opposite bank of the Tigris to Mount Lebanon and the Great Sea of the land of Amurru in the west, (who) has conquered the entire land of Ḫatti.” 98 Michelle Marcus has demonstrated the affinity between this geo-ideological concept and the organization of the military campaign reliefs that adorn Ashurnasirpal II’s throne room: opposite walls describe his exploits in the south (the middle Euphrates region) and west (northern Syria). 99 The arrangement of this “visual propaganda” is based on the meristic principle, the king’s control over dichotomous distant regions symbolizing the all-embracing scope of his royal victories. The titles of his son, Shalmaneser III (858–824 b.c.e.), highlight the latter’s achievements in similar fashion: “conqueror from the upper sea to the lower sea of the land Nairi, and the Great Sea of the west, from Mount Amanus, as far as Mount Lebanon, I gained dominion over all the land Ḫatti. I conquered from the source of the Tigris to the source of the Euphrates.” 100 The artists in the king’s service arranged the depictions of Shalmaneser’s campaigns on the bronze gates at Balawat in corresponding geographical order: his campaigns to Urarṭu and northwestern Iran are gathered together on the lower half of the gate, while most of those toward Syria and the Mediterranean appear on the upper half. The extremities signify the vast scope of the royal feats: Babylonia in the south, the source of the Tigris in the north, Gilzanu in the east, and the Mediterranean coast in the west. In Marcus’s words, the reliefs serve as a “summary, or map, of the extent of the Assyrian control in all four compass directions.” 101 97.  Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 46–47. 98.  Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium bc I (1114– 859 bc (RIMA 2; Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1991) 309, line 19b. See also above, pp. 65, –69. 99.  For the principle underlying the geographical structure of the reliefs and their order, see Michelle I. Marcus, “Geography as Visual Ideology: Landscape, Knowledge, and Power in Neo-Assyrian Art,” in Neo-Assyrian Geography (ed. M. Liverani; Qua­ derni di Geografia Storica 5; Rome: Herder, 1995) 193–202, esp. p. 198. 100.  Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium bc II (858–745 bc), 59–60, lines 11–14. 101.  Marcus, “Geography as Visual Ideology,” 196.

The Promise of World Dominion

123

The third of the great conquerors during the period of Neo-Assyrian expansion, Adad-nirari III (810–783 b.c.e.), ruled “from Mount Siluna in the east [here follows a long list of mountains and lands] as far as the shore of the Great Sea in the east . . . from the bank of the Euphrates, the land Ḫatti, the land Amurru in its entirety, Tyre, Sidon, Israel [literally: the land of [Bit-]Ḫumri], Edom, (and) Palastu, as far as the Great Sea in the west.” 102 The prominent geographical elements that appear in the descriptions of the Promised Land also appear in Assyrian depictions: seas, mountains, rivers, and deserts. Some are designated by name (such as Mount Amanus, the Tigris, Euphrates, the Great Sea), while others are general notations (such as the broad deserts, the mountains). The latter bear a typological and conceptual resemblance to the patriarchal promise as articulated in Deuteronomy: “Every spot on which your foot treads shall be yours; your territory shall extend from the wilderness to the Lebanon and from the River—the Euphrates—to the Western Sea” (Deut 11:24). 103 They especially resemble the repetition of the promise in Josh 1:3–4: “Every spot on which your foot treads I give to you as I promised Moses. Your territory shall extend from the wilderness and this Lebanon to the Great River, the Euphrates—the whole Hittite country—and up to the Great Sea on the west.” The correspondence between the names mentioned in this text and the locations referred to in the Assyrian royal inscriptions is virtually identical in many cases: “(Mount) Lebanon,” “the whole Hittite country” (this detail is omitted in Deut 11:24), 104 and “the Great Sea,” (in Deuteronomy: “the Western Sea”). The royal inscriptions illustrate an actual reign, and the assertions are not merely imperial boasts but commemoratives of military 102.  Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium bc II (858–745 bc), 212–13, lines 5–13, who suggests “Samaria” for “the land of [Bit-]Ḫumri.” See, however, Brad E. Kelle, “What’s in a Name? Neo-Assyrian Designations for the Northern Kingdom and Their implications for Israelite History and Biblical Interpretation,” JBL 121.4 (2002) 652 n. 45. 103.  For the connection between the biblical descriptions of the Promised Land and the Assyrian royal inscriptions, in particular the expressions “the whole Hittite country” and “the Mediterranean Sea in the west” which appear in both Mesopotamian and biblical literature, see Weinfeld, “The Extent of the Promised Land,” 97–98. 104.  The fact that the phrase “the whole Hittite country” is omitted in LXX Josh 1:4 does not witness to its secondary nature in the MT (cf. BHS) but merely to the septuagintal tendency to harmonize the text in Joshua with Deuteronomy. This agenda also lies behind the alteration of “the Great Sea” to “the Western Sea” attested in LXX Josh 1:4, reflecting the ‫( הים האחרון‬the Western Sea), as in Deut 11:24: see Mazor, “The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua,” 134–35.

124

Chapter 4

victories. 105 The biblical texts, however, are dealing with a promise rather than its fulfillment. Both sets of documents nonetheless relate to a maximal exercise of power over other peoples. The territory is defined by means of spatial merisms, and the description employs general or specific topographical phenomena (by mentioning impressive and representative elements). Thus, one can see that the biblical descriptions of the Promised Land draw on the world view reflected in the Assyrian royal inscriptions. The Deuteronomistic concept of the Promised Land may consequently be understood to have developed against the background of Neo-Assyrian imperial propaganda. The descriptions of Assyrian rule and conquests formed an important part of this propaganda and were disseminated through the royal summary/display inscriptions inscribed and engraved on the walls and floors of the palace, the statutes of oxen and lions set up in front of its doors, and the monuments erected throughout temples and on the empire’s extremities. A similar message was conveyed visually through reliefs in the royal palace and in public places such as the city gates and various steles. 106 While literacy in general and in Akkadian in particular only lay within the grasp of a minority, the inscriptions and reliefs served as propaganda simply by virtue of their presence. The capacity to mobilize resources enabled the kings to erect monumental edifices such as these, and control over knowledge and the power to preserve it for the future were symbolic of the king’s might. Together, these “artifices” conveyed an unambiguous graphic and textual message: Assyria’s strength demonstrated the fulfillment of the gods’ wishes. Assyrian kings are consistently depicted as aggressors—those who vanquish the enemy and despoil him of his subjects and treasures. At the same time, the enemy (designated “wicked” in the inscriptions) who trusts in its far-flung distances, its fortifications, or the

105. For the link between the formulations describing world dominion, which served internal royal propaganda purposes, and the core of historical reality, which “corroborated” these claims, see Liverani, Prestige and Interest, 48. Thus, for example, Tukulti-Ninurta I adorned himself with the title “king of the upper and lower seas” only in the wake of his victory over Kashtiliash IV and Babylonia. 106.  The reliefs on the walls of the royal palace and the text of the Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions complete and complement one another. For the relationship between the textual and visual descriptions at Sennacherib’s palace, see John M. Russell, Sennacherib’s Palace without Rival at Nineveh (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991) 6. Irene Winter thinks that the text parallels the artistic depictions, which create a “narrative space” that should be interpreted independently: Irene Winter, “Royal Rhetoric and the Development of Historical Narrative in Neo-Assyrian Reliefs,” Studies in Visual Communication 7/2 (1981) 2, 18, 21.

The Promise of World Dominion

125

mercenary forces it can summon to its aid must perpetually endure crushing defeat. Its king will be killed, deposed, or forced to flee to remote places. 107 God’s promise to His people is thus a counterresponse to Assyrian propaganda. Contrary to the message that the Assyrian king is the vanquisher and ruler of the world, the Deuteronomistic promissory texts assert that the Israelites are destined for dominion over the whole earth. God promises His people imperial world power, identical in scope to that of the Assyrians. The monocentric promise has already been made to Abraham, the founding father, as part of the Covenant between the Pieces.

Conclusion The biblical passages with land promises that contain spatial merisms convey as sense of great power and universal rule by adopting the imperialistic, utopian language that was prevalent in the ancient Near East during the NeoAssyrian period. 108 This language forms part of the assurance of victory and dominion over other peoples that are claimed on behalf of the Israelites (Deut 11:24–25; cf. Josh 1:3). Contra the scholarly consensus, however, the depictions do not refer to a defined, specific territorial unit. Their divergence from detailed descriptions of the border of the land is not geographical—a distinction that cannot reconcile their discrepancies (what constitutes the border of the Promised Land—the Jordan or the Euphrates?)—but conceptual and reflects a different understanding of “border.” The disparity between the two views does not, however, drive a wedge between them. In God’s statement to Joshua on the eve of the entry into the land, the two concepts of the land appear side by side. The divine instruction, which 107.  Winter, “Royal Rhetoric and the Development of Historical Narrative in NeoAssyrian Reliefs,” 3; Mario Liverani, “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire,” in Power and Propaganda (ed. M. T. Larsen; Mesopotamia 7; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979); Frederick M. Fales, “The Enemy in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: ‘The Moral Judgement,’” in Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4 bis 1 Jahrtausend v. Chr.—XXV recontre assyriologique internationale, Berlin, 3 bis 7 Juli 1978 (ed. H.-J. Nissen and J. Renger; Berlin: Reimer, 1982); Hayim Tadmor, “Propaganda Literature, Historiography: Cracking the Code of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in Assyria 1995 (ed. S. Parpola and R.  M. Whiting; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997) 326. 108.  See Waldemar Janzen (“Land,” ABD 4:146), who nonetheless regards this concept as physical and territorial. Naʾaman approximates the view I am proposing by noting that “the patriarchs’ borders were never described in detail and do not belong to the same category as the other two” (the borders of Canaan and boundaries of the tribes of Israel; Naʾaman, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography, 39).

126

Chapter 4

asserts that the Jordan is the border of the Promised Land—“Prepare to cross the Jordan, together with all this people, into the land that I am giving the Israelites” (Josh 1:2)—is accompanied by the promise of unlimited world dominion: “Every spot on which your foot treads I give to you as I promised Moses. Your territory shall extend from the wilderness and this Lebanon to the Great River, the Euphrates—the whole Hittite country—and up to the Great Sea on the west” (1:3–4). Nor does this assertion preclude the possibility that one Deuteronomistic author composed this passage with a single stroke of his pen. On the one hand, the texts express a multicentric world view of the Land as one of the elements in the triple axis of God–People–Land—the land possessing known borders such as those given in the Priestly source. As we have seen, the Deuteronomistic school recognizes the limits that God placed on His people with regard to the territories east of the Jordan (Deut 2:5, 9, 19). This conception is linked to the settlement of the land—to the entry of a homeless people into the inheritance their sovereign God bequeathed to them while they were still outside it. Thus, the conception is also linked to a justification of dispossessing the resident inhabitants. On the other hand, the Deuteronomistic ideology regards the land as constituting part of the divine promise of world dominion—that is, an unbounded land. This monocentric perspective reflects the stage of expansion and rule over other peoples and imperialistic territorial aggrandizement by a people already settled in the land that is intent on realizing its divine destiny. This, too, was promised to their forefathers. The first concept is rooted in the historical circumstances in which the Israelite nation was founded and in its existence (in two kingdoms) before its destruction and annexation to the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires, as one “power” among many others. The second concept betrays traces of influence by the Neo-Assyrian imperialist ideology that flourished in the framework of conquering campaigns and territorial expansion. As noted above, the inscriptions of Azatiwada, king of the Danunians, demonstrate that the aspiration to expand can take root even in a limited, local kingdom without any imperial history. 109 We should thus not be surprised by the fact that a monocentric ideology (contingent on Mesopotamian imperialistic terminology) emerged within the diminutive kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Nor should we feel any need to search for an actual “period of glory” as being responsible for the creation of these texts. 109.  See above, p. 55.

Chapter 5

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries” Document (Numbers 34:1–12) Detailed Border Descriptions The detailed and precise border descriptions of the external perimeters and internal tribal division of the Promised Land reflect the Israelites’ conception of their relationship with their God, shaped by the covenant ideal. The structure, components, and content of the biblical religious covenant are based on the ancient Near Eastern sovereign-vassal relationship. 1 Diplomatic 1.  The first scholar to compare the biblical covenant with Hittite treaties of the fourteenth–thirteenth centuries b.c.e. was George E. Mendenhall, “Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East,” BA 17 (1954) 50–76. Frankena and Weinfeld subsequently compared the structure of the book of Deuteronomy with the Assyrian vassal treaties: Rintje Frankena, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” in Kaf-Hē: 1940–1965—Jubilee Volume, Published on the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Dutch O.T. Society (ed. P. A. H. de Boer; OtSt 14; Leiden: Brill, 1965) 122–54; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 59–172, esp. pp. 59–61. The structure and essence of the treaties themselves have also been analyzed, most prominently by Klaus Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings (trans. D. E. Green; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); cf. Moshe Weinfeld, “‫ ברית‬berîth,” TDOT 2:253–79; Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976) 20–44; Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (ABib 21; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978); Paul Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982). Weinfeld distinguishes two types of sovereign-vassal treaties: a treaty in which the vassal pledged loyalty, and a grant document bestowed by the king on his vassal subject in return for the latter’s loyalty, comparing God’s Abrahamic and Davidic covenants with Hittite treaties and the treaties of Ulmi-Teššub and Muršili II: Moshe Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies 3; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 184–203. It should be stressed that Israel’s covenant with God is of a religious rather than a diplomatic nature:

127

128

Chapter 5

treaties from this period frequently contain descriptions of the borders of the land granted by a sovereign to his vassal state(s). 2 The sovereign outlines the boundaries of the territory he bestows on his vassal, subject to the vassal’s pledge of loyalty and commitment to the clauses of the treaty binding him. This is the literary and cultural context of the biblical border descriptions of the Promised Land. Detailed border descriptions that are virtually maps with accurate, literal terms appear in three biblical texts: (1) the depiction of the “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” on the eve of the Israelites’ entrance into the land (Num 34:1–12), which outlines the external perimeters of the Promised Land; (2) the account of the tribal allotments in Joshua (Joshua 15–19), which delineates the borders between the tribes; and (3) Ezekiel’s vision of the ideal land (Ezek 47:13–20; 48:1, 28), which includes details about the overall dimensions of the land and about its internal tribal divisions, the outer description prefacing the inner and serving as its framework. Only two of the three passages—those in Numbers and Ezekiel—contain an extensive and detailed geographical demarcation of the external borders of the Promised Land. Both texts are associated with P, which may indicate that Priestly circles took a particular interest in the precise nature of the land’s boundaries due to the special significance they ascribed to purity and impurity issues in general and to the cultic requirements relating to the land in particular—a perspective that continued to develop in subsequent generations. 3 The see Tadmor’s reservations regarding drawing an analogy between the two planes or positing any affinity between the religious covenant of the Hebrew Bible and political vassal treaties: Hayim Tadmor, “Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East: An Historian’s Approach,” in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book (ed. D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker; Chico, CA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1982) 127–52. For the possibility that a religious covenant was also in effect between the people and their god in Emar on the bend of the Euphrates, see Daniel E. Fleming, “Emar: On the Road from Harran to Hebron,” in Mesopotamia and the Bible (ed. M. W. Chavalas and K. L. Younger Jr.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002) 222–50. 2.  See above, pp. 30–44. 3. Kenneth D. Hutchens, “Defining the Boundaries: A Cultic Interpretation of Numbers 34:1–12 and Ezekiel 47:13–48:1, 28,” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes (ed. M. P. Graham et al.; JSOTSup 173; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 225–26. Although this tendency is characteristic of the mishnaic preoccupation with the borders of the land, it remains conjectural with respect to the Sitz im Leben of the biblical descriptions. The halakic issues linked to the performance of commandments dependent on the land—such as the seventh year of release, freewill offerings, tithes, and the separation of the dough—lie behind the text known as the

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

129

delineation may also represent, however, the Priestly perspective on one of the central issues in biblical thought—namely, the idea of the land and the right to its possession as a divine grant. While the two descriptions provide a full description of the dimensions of the land in laying out its four borders in continuous lines, each employs its own unique method. The document known as “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” (Num 34:1–12) adopts the “place and verb” system, which also appears in the descriptions of the tribal allocations in Joshua. The depiction of the future land in Ezekiel’s vision uses the unique form of the “region” system, according to which the northern and eastern borders of the land are demarcated via a city roster on one side of the border, areas on either sides of the boundary being identified by means of the formula “between the territory of . . . and (between) the territory of . . .” (Ezek 47:16) or “between . . . and . . .” (47:18). While the tribal allocations in Joshua only identify the borders of the internal tribal division—demarcated via the “place and verb” system and a list of cities—the combined reference to all the allocations permits the reader to infer its full dimensions. The combination of the two methods is both characteristic of and unique to this account. In this chapter, I shall focus on the description of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” and examine this document’s (Num 34:1–12) affinities with the depictions of the tribal heritages. In chap. 6, I shall discuss the conceptual and ideological relationship between Num 34:1–12 and Ezekiel’s vision of the dimensions of the future land.

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries” Document (Numbers 34:1–12) On the eve of the entrance into the Promised Land, God describes its borders to Moses: 4 “Baraita of the Boundaries of Eretz-Israel,” discovered on a mosaic inscription from the talmudic period in the Beth-shean Valley (apparently at Rehov), which gives a detailed description of the borders of the land: see Yaacov Sussmann, “The Boundaries of Eretz Israel,” Tarbiz 45 (1976) 213–57 [Hebrew]. For similar tannaitic sources, see Meir BarIlan, “What Was the Purpose of the Tannaim in Describing the Borders of the Land of Israel?” in Studies in Judaica (Source 7) (ed. M. A. Friedman; Tel Aviv: University Presses, 1991) 95–110 [Hebrew]. 4.  As noted above, although the translation used here is based on the njps, the texts analyzed in this chapter have been significantly modified in order to demonstrate the difficulties and precise nuances of the Hebrew (the Hebrew has frequently been “smoothed over” by the translators in order to provide an idiomatic rendering in English).

130

Chapter 5

Preface and gen- (1) And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: (2) Instruct the Israelite eral “bestowal” people and say to them: When you enter the land of Canaan, this terminology is the land that shall fall to you as your portion, the land of Canaan with its various boundaries: Southern side

(3) Your southern sector shall extend opposite the Wilderness of Zin alongside Edom. Your southern boundary shall be from the tip of the Dead Sea on the east. (4) Your boundary shall then turn south of the Ascent of Akrabbim and pass on to Zin, and its limits shall be south of Kadesh-barnea, proceeding to Hazar-addar and passing on to Azmon. (5) From Azmon the boundary shall turn toward the Wadi of Egypt and its limits shall be at the Sea.

Western side

(6) For the western boundary you shall have the Great Sea and [its] border; that shall serve as your western boundary.

Northern side

(7) This shall be your northern boundary: Draw a line from the Great Sea to Mount Hor; (8) from Mount Hor draw a line to Lebohamath, and the limits of the boundary shall be at Zedad. (9) The boundary shall then proceed to Ziphron and its limits shall be at Hazar-enan. That shall be your northern boundary.

Eastern side

(10) For your eastern boundary you shall draw a line from Hazarenan to Shepham. From Shepham the boundary shall descend to Riblah on the east side of Ain; from there the boundary shall descend and abut on the eastern slopes of the Sea of Kinneret. (12) The boundary shall then descend along the Jordan and its limits shall be at the Dead Sea.

Summary

That shall be your land as defined by its boundaries on all sides.

This description commences with the eastern end of the southern sector, following the southern border westward and continuing clockwise to the western, northern, and eastern boundaries, until it completes a full circle and returns to its starting point at the Dead Sea. The depiction of each sector begins with the last point mentioned in the previous line, all four corners thus being indicated twice: the Dead Sea at the southeastern corner (vv. 3, 12); the Mediterranean at the southwestern (vv. 5, 6) and northwestern corners (vv. 6, 7); and Hazar-enan at the northeastern corner (vv. 9, 10). 5 The border is demarcated according to the “place and verb” system characteristic of the tribal-allotment depictions 5. Oded Tammuz argues that in the description of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries,” the northern sector of the eastern border reflects the Kingdom of Israel’s boundary with Aram, which never actually intersected with the northern boundary of Israel: Oded Tammuz, “Canaan: A Land Without Limits,” UF 33 (2001) 529. This proposal derives from a dubious geo-historical reconstruction, however, and contradicts the plain literary evidence. See his allusion to “borders with ends that do not meet” or “the problem of the non-contiguous borders” (p. 536).

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

131

(Joshua 15–19). 6 This method delineates a consecutive borderline, the course of which is indicated by verbs of movement identifying the link between the boundary and site(s) referred to (“pass on,” “proceed,” “ascend,” “descend,” “turn,” “abut,” “curve,” “return,” “touch”) plus the phrase “and its limits shall be at. . . .” 7 The comprehensive account mentions some 20 toponyms, including settlements (such as Kadesh-barnea and Lebo-hamath), routes (the Ascent of Akrabbim), mountains (such as Mount Hor), local rivers (such as the Jordan), wadis (the Wadi of Egypt), and seas (the Great Sea, the Kinneret, the Dead Sea). Past analysis of this document has focused principally on the geo-historical questions attendant upon the description, which are the precise dimensions of the “land of Canaan” and whether the text signifies an identifiable historical geo-political area. Since the border delineations do not fully correspond with the Israelite settlement of any historical period, many scholars consider the description to represent an imagined territorial notion—a utopian ideal that was never realized. 8 Others think that the accurate depictions nonetheless reflect a specific reality and historical setting. Noth, for example, suggests that the account represents the borders of the tribal allotments, 9 while Elliger maintains that the document reflects the borders of David’s kingdom. 10 In 1946, Mazar suggested that the biblical description may signify the Egyptian province of Canaan in the second half of the thirteenth century b.c.e., demarcated by the border agreed on by Egypt and Ḫatti on the eve of the Israelite conquest. 11 In 6.  Aharoni has pointed out the unique character of this literary form, defining it as “a series of border points in sequence”: Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times: A Historical Geography (trans. A. Rainey; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 87. This definition does not relate to the verbs marking the transition between points, probably due to the fact that it reflects Aharoni’s view (following Noth) that the original documents merely contained a list of border points (p. 70). 7.  ‫ והיו תוצאותיו‬,‫ פגע‬,‫ שוב‬,‫ תאר‬,‫ מחה‬,‫ נסב‬,‫ ירד‬,‫ עלה‬,‫ יצא‬,‫עבר‬. 8. See, for example, George B. Gray, Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903) 453; Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel (trans. C. Quin; OTL; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970) 591; and from a divergent perspective, Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (trans. M. Greenberg; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960) 201–3. 9. Martin Noth, “Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches,” ZDPV 58 (1935) 186–89, 239–48; idem, “Das Reich von Hamath als Grenznachbar des Reiches Davids,” PJ 33 (1937) 49; idem, The Old Testament World (trans. V. I. Gruhn; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966) 63–75. 10. Karl Elliger, “Die Nordgrenze des Reiches Davids,” PJ 32 (1936) 34–73. The disparate historical backgrounds that Noth and Elliger propose are functions of their respective geographical reconstructions of the northern border. 11. Benjamin Mazar, “Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Border of Canaan,” in The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies (trans. R. and E. Rigbi; ed. B. A. Levine and

132

Chapter 5

his words, this area was “a fixed administrative-territorial” region “originating at a time long before the Israelite conquest, when Canaan, Phoenicia, and southern Syria constituted an Egyptian province,” which was “later adopted by the Israelites when they conquered the land.” 12 This conjecture appears to provide an appropriate answer to the question of the geo-historical background of the description. It has been adopted, either in full or in part, by numerous scholars who have investigated the link between the biblical “land of Canaan” and the geo-political designation of “Canaan” and/or the ethnic character of the epithet “Canaanite” found in ancient Near Eastern literature and Egyptian sources from the second millennium b.c.e. 13 These proposals relate to the geo-historical background of the territory reflected in the text, however, rather than an analysis of the literary composition of the document or its sources. Because literary studies raise two issues that have direct ramifications for the geo-historical discussion, literary concerns must be addressed prior to geo-historical analyses. The principal literary questions are: (1) What literary relation to other biblical descriptions does the text exhibit? (2) On which sources does it draw for its depiction? These two questions are interrelated; the issue of literary sources calls for an examination of the prominent links between the comprehensive description of the “land of Canaan” and the depictions of the western tribal borders east of the Jordan (Joshua 15–19). Numbers 34 and Joshua 15–19 are the only texts in biblical and extrabiblical literature that employ the “place and verb” system. The affinities they display to one another are not merely stylistic but also linguistic and substantive. Thus, for example, the description of the land’s southern border (Num 34:3–5) par­allels S. Aḥituv; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986) 192–93; idem, “Eretz k’naan biyamei ha-mamlakha ha-tikhona shel mitzrayim [The Land of Canaan in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom Period],” in Canaan and Israel (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1980) 47. 12.  Mazar, “Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Border of Canaan,” 192. 13.  See, among others, Roland de Vaux, “Le pays de Canaan,” in Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser (ed. W. W. Hallo; AOS 53; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1968) 23–30; Magne Sæbø, “Grenzbeschreibung und Landideal im Alten Testament mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der min-ʿad-Formel,” ZDPV 90 (1974) 14–37; Zecharia Kallai, “The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible,” ErIsr 12 (1975) 27–30; Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 75–77; Nadav Naʾaman, “The Brook of Egypt and the Assyrian Policy on the Egyptian Border,” Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction. Collected Essays, vol. 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005) 266–67; idem, “Canaanite City-States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances of the Israelite Tribes,” Tarbiz 55 (1996) 483 [Hebrew]; Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21–36 (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 540.

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

133

virtually verbatim the account of the southern Judahite border (Josh 15:1–4). Closer examination reveals more similarities with regard to context. Both border descriptions appear in proximity to parallel subjects: the section dealing with the tribal settlements east of the Jordan (Numbers 32, Josh 13:8–32), the allotment of the land to the nine and a half tribes (Num 34:13–29, Josh 14:1–5), the allocation by casting lots (Num 33:54, Josh 18:1–10), the laws regulating the levitical cities and cities of refuge (Numbers 35; Joshua 20, 21), and the story of Zelophehad’s daughters (Num 27:1–11, 36:1ff; Josh 17:3–6). 14 I shall commence with an analysis of the literary method adopted in the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document, thence proceeding to a sector-by-sector analysis of the text.

The “Place and Verb” System The borders of the politicohistorical concept of the “land of Canaan” (that is, the Promised Land) are demarcated in 10 verses that form a kind of verbal map in the shape of a virtual tour. 15 We may speculate that this method, in which the border is delineated as a consecutive line, was inspired by an actual ground survey preceding the determination of the border—in similar fashion to the biblical description of the Israelite settlement: Joshua ordered the men who were leaving to write down a description of the land—”Go, traverse the country and write down a description of it. Then return to me, and I will cast lots for you here at Shiloh before the Lord.” So the men went and traversed the land; they described it in a document, town by town, in seven parts, and they returned to Joshua in the camp at Shiloh. (Josh 18:8b–9) 16

14.  See Graeme A. Auld (Joshua, Moses and the Land [Edinburgh: T.  &  T. Clark, 1980] 83), although he distinguishes different strata within these motifs. 15.  For a map based on this description, see, for example, Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 71. 16. This practice may be compared with the sketches surviving from the NeoBabylonian period. Produced by professional surveyors, these sketches contain rough outlines of the field under discussion and its dimensions. Frequently, they also include information about its direction, name, boundaries, the buildings it encompasses, the year in which the survey was conducted, the name of the surveyor, and the name of its commissioner. According to Nemet-Nejat, these sketches are well known as being first drafts made on the ground, subsequently serving as the basis for the formulation of the contract signed between the sides: Karen R. Nemet-Nejat, Late Babylonian Field Plans in the British Museum (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982) 15.

134

Chapter 5

Procedures of this sort appear to have been linked to the implementation of new administrative arrangements and may be compared with Joab’s survey for David’s census in 2 Samuel 24: 17 (5) They crossed the Jordan and encamped at Aroer, on the right side of the town, which is in the middle of the wadi of Gad, and [went on] to Jazer. (6) They came to Gilead and to the region of Tahtim-hodshi, and they came to Dan-jaan and around to Sidon. (7) They came to the fortress of Tyre and all the towns of the Hivites and Canaanites, and proceeded to Beer-sheba in southern Judah. (8) They traversed the whole country, and then they came back to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.

This itinerary is also described via consecutive places and verbs. Some of these verbs recall the terminology found in the “place and verb” system: “cross” (cf. Josh 15:3, 4, 11; 16:2, 6; etc.), “proceeded to” (cf. Josh 15:3, 9, 11; 18:15; etc.), plus with the adverb “around” 18 (cf. “turned”/“passed on” in Josh 15:10; 16:6; etc.). The variation in verbal form reflects a divergence in genre and context: the way-yiqtol 3rd person used in the description of the census (‫ויבֹאו‬, ‫ויעברו‬, ‫ויצאו‬, etc.) is characteristic of biblical narrative in general and of journeys in particular (see Numbers 33); the 3rd-person qatal form (‫ יָצָא‬, ‫עבר‬, etc.) is typical of border descriptions. 19 17.  For the connection between David’s census and the division of the allotments, see Nadav Naʾaman, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography (Jerusalem: Simor, 1986) 98–102. I do not concur with his view that a historical relationship between the census and the tribal-allotment description can be adduced. In another article, Lis­ sovsky and Naʾaman suggest that the conceptual affinity derives from the direct literary association between the two texts: “The author of the boundary system made use of the description of the limits of David’s census (2 Sam. 24:5–7) for delineating the system’s external borders” (Nurit Lissovsky and Nadav Naʾaman, “A New Outlook at the Boundary System of the Twelve Tribes,” UF 35 [2003] 321). 18.  Ancient translations of David’s census translate the adverb as a 3rd-person plural verb: “they went around”—a version that is more reminiscent of the border descriptions. 19.  All the details that appear at the beginning of the account of Joab’s campaign— from the Jordan, nine sites are listed from east to west—are replaced in the continuation by the general statement “all the towns of the Hivites and Canaanites” (2 Sam 24:7). This passage thus appears to be dependent on the description of a route along the eastern and northern border of the area included in the census. Apart from these nine sites, the sole additional toponym mentioned is Beer-sheba in southern Judah, which represents the south of the country in the phrase “from Dan to Beer-sheba,” which appears twice in the census narrative (cf. vv. 2, 15). It was apparently added in order to cover the whole country. For a geographical discussion of the census sites, see Zecharia Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986) 37–40, and the bibliography cited therein.

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

135

The general verbs of transition employed in the census narrative (‫ויעברו‬, ‫ויצאו אל‬, ‫ויבאו‬, ‫ויחנו‬, “passed on, encamped, came, proceeded to”) do not correspond fully with the verbs and compounds that appear in the “place and verb” system, which also has unique verbs such as ‫“( תאר‬curve”—which is found in the Qal solely in this context) and the expression “and its limits shall be at” (‫והיו‬ ‫תוצאות הגבול‬/‫)תוצאותיו‬. This sort of terminology suggests a technical language specific to border descriptions of this type. 20 Some of the meanings of the verbs are clear from the context, particularly where the formulation serves as a topographical notation—such as “ascend” (Josh 15:3, 6, 7, 8; 16:1; 21 18:12; 19:12) and “descend” (Num 34:11, 12; Josh 15:10; 16:3, 7; 17:9; 18:13, 16, 17, 18). 22 Other verbs may be relatively obscure, but their meaning can be conjectured from the context. The precise meaning of the root ‫( יצא‬yṣ ʾ ) is not clear in most of the places where it occurs (Josh 15:4, 9, 11; 16:2; 18:17; 19:12, 13, 27, 34). Occasionally, it refers to the beginning of a borderline (Josh 15:3, 16:6, 18:15) or appears after the phrase that refers to the end of a border (‫ ;והיו תוצאֹת[יו] הגבול‬Num 34:4, 9; see below), while at other times it signals that a border follows the course of a river at the conclusion of a borderline (Josh 15:4: “and proceeded to the Wadi of Egypt”; Josh 16:7: “and proceeded to the Jordan”). The root ‫ יצא‬is also a central component of the expression ‫והיו תוצאֹתיו‬, which marks the termination of the borders in the “place and verb” system. The noun ‫ תוצאות‬always appears in the plural, although both the plural and the singular forms of the root ‫( היה‬hyh) appear in the Kethiv and Qere descriptions of the borders of Canaan and of the Judahite and Benjaminite allotments (Num 34:4; Josh 15:4; 18:12, 14, 19). 23 A similar usage appears in a similar spatial context in additional texts: Joshua’s statement to the house of Joseph: “The hill country shall be yours as well; true, it is forest land, but you will clear it and possess it to its farthest limits (‫”)תצאתיו‬ (Josh 17:18); the description of Jerusalem’s limits in Ezekiel’s vision: “And these are the exits (‫ )תוצאת‬from the city” (Ezek 48:30); and the depiction of the Gadites’ settlement: “and they dwelt in Gilead, in Bashan, and in its dependencies, and in all the pasturelands of Sharon, to their limits (‫( ”)על תוצאותם‬1 Chr 5:16). 20. Thus Noth’s argument (followed by Auld and Aharoni) that the original lists only contained the toponyms (Grenzfixpunkte) without any linking text is not convincing: see Noth, “Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches,” 187; Auld, Joshua, Moses and the Land, 76; Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 70, 248. 21.  The form ‫ עֹלֶה‬in this verse is exceptional. 22. See Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 250 n. 170. 23.  For the verb in singular followed by a noun in plural, see GKC 465/§145o.

136

Chapter 5

The plural noun appears infrequently in other biblical texts with the meaning “escape” or “exit” (Ps 68:21, Prov 4:23). The context indicates that the ‫ תוצאה‬of the border is its “way out”—that is, its final point. 24 In the border descriptions, the phrase marks the termination of the border, whether the border ends at a body of water (the Mediterranean—Num 34:5; Josh 15:4, 11; 16:3, 8; 19:29; the Dead Sea—Num 34:12; Josh 18:19; or the Jordan—Josh 19:22, 33) or at a point on land (Josh 18:14; 19:14). When the expression is used in the middle of a borderline, it appears to indicate a transition between two climatic regions (Josh 15:7, 18:12) and thus to signify the end of a border or geographical region. 25 The precise meaning of the root ‫( עבר‬ʿbr) in the border descriptions is also unclear. 26 In the accounts of Israel’s wanderings and David’s census, it signifies the act of “passing through water” (Num 33:8: “They set out from Pene-hahiroth and passed through the sea into the wilderness”; 2 Sam 24:5: “They crossed the Jordan”). Although it is thus possible that, in the border descriptions, the root denotes a passage from one point to another through a wadi (Num 34:4; Josh 15:3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11; 16:2, 6; 27 18:13, 18, 19; 19:13), this cannot be established with certainty, because the majority of the sites named are unidentified. In the “place and verb” system, the root ‫( נסב‬nsb) carries the sense of “turn” (change direction; Num 34:4, 5; Josh 15:3, 10, 16:6, 18:14), and the compound phrase ‫ ונסב אתו‬signifies “encompass” (Josh 19:14). 28 The root ‫( תאר‬tʾr) resembles ‫ נסב‬and indicates the route of the border in a curved line (Josh 15:9, 11; 18:14, 17), as Rashi notes in his commentary on Josh 15:9: “And circled: Heb. ‫ ְו ָתאַר‬an expression similar to ‫ונָסַב‬,ְ in a circle, like: ‘And with a compass he encircles it ‫ְתאֳרֵהּו‬ ָ ‫[ ’י‬Isa 44:13]. [Targum] Jonathan rendered them all ‫ִסחַר‬ ְ ‫וי‬,ְ ‘and he encircled.’” The root ‫ נסב‬does not occur in the depictions of the northern tribes (see table 9.1 below, p. 252), where the root ‫( שוב‬šub) appears to carry the same meaning, “to go around” (Josh 19:12, 27, 29, 34). The descriptive method in Num 34:1–12 employs the root ‫( הלך‬hlk) twice (Josh 16:8, 17:7), one occurrence of which takes the unusual yiqtol form: “Westward, the boundary proceeded from Tappuah ‫( ”מתפוח ילך הגבול ימה‬Josh 16:8).

24.  The plural form appears to possess a single signification in this context: see BDB 426. 25.  For Num 34:4, 8, see below, pp. 157–58. 26.  BDB states that the root customarily signifies “to pass on” in these texts (s.v. ‫עבר‬, p. 718, §5). 27.  The pronoun “it,” which occurs in proximity to the root (‫)ועבר אותו ממזרח ינוחה‬, is omitted in the ancient translations: see BHS. 28.  See BDB 686; Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 250 n. 170.

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

137

The root echoes a journey description (cf. Num 33:8: “they made a three-days’ journey in the Wilderness of Etham ‫)”וילכו דרך שלשת ימים במדבר אתם‬. The root ‫( מחה‬mḥh) appears only once, in the description of the eastern prospect of the “land of Canaan”: “From Shepham the boundary shall descend to Riblah on the east side of Ain; from there the boundary shall descend and abut on the eastern slopes of the Sea of Kinneret” (Num 34:11). The primary meaning of the root is “to strike.” In this context, presumably, it means that the border “strikes” or “reaches” the eastern slopes of the Kinneret. 29 The geographical concept ‫ כתף‬is familiar from its usage in the tribal boundaries (Josh 15:8, 10, 11; 18:12, 13, 16, 18, 19), where it signifies the “slope” or “side” of a mountain. 30 The final root, ‫( פגע‬pgʿ), indicates the “reaching” or “touching” of a region or site on the far side of the border. Thus, for example, Ephraim’s boundary reached Jericho (Josh 16:7), which belonged to the Benjaminites (Josh 18:12, 21); Issachar’s boundary reached Tabor (Josh 19:22), apparently part of Zebulon’s territory; 31 and Asher’s boundary reached Carmel (Josh 19:26), which lay outside the Asherites’ territory. 32 In numerous cases, the border reached mountains—the unidentified Dabbesheth (Josh 19:11), 33 the Tabor (Josh 19:22), and the Carmel (Josh 19:26)—or a wadi (Josh 19:11: “touching the wadi alongside Jokneam”). These features were clear and thus favored border markers; the description defined the boundary by using them, while signaling that they lay outside the tribal territory. The phrase -‫( לפגוע ב‬lipgôʿa bĕ-) also served as an abbreviated indicator of the side of the border that lay alongside territory that belonged to another tribe, as in the description of Naphtali’s boundary: “The boundary then turned westward to Asnoth-tabor and ran from there to Hukok. It touched Zebulon on the south, and it touched Asher on the west, and Judah at the Jordan on the east” (Josh 19:34; cf. 17:10, 34 19, 27).

29.  BDB 562. 30.  The basic meaning of this noun is “side,” from which the meaning “slope” of a mountain is derived: BDB 509; HALOT 505–6. See Nadav Naʾaman, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography, 109 n. 51, and the bibliography cited therein. 31. See Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 194. 32.  Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 204. 33.  Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 180. 34.  The impersonal plural yiqtol form ‫ יפגעון‬in Josh 17:10 is exceptional in the border lists. It apparently resumes the description of the common allotments of the Josephites (i.e., the Ephraimites and Manassites) in the narrative that opens with the statement, “Thus the Josephites—that is, Manasseh and Ephraim—received their portion (‫( ”)וינחלו‬Josh 16:4). The LXX and Peshiṭta further turn the singular suffix of ‫ גבּולֹו‬into

138

Chapter 5

The “place and verb” system included two additional methods of signaling the region across the border: (1) via the preposition “to(ward)”—as in the opening definition of Judah’s boundary: “toward the territory of Edom” (Josh 15:1; see also 15:21), where it transpires that Edom bordered the territory under discussion; and (2) via the preposition “from,” which marks a division (the ablative mêm), 35 such as, for example, in the verse “Your southern sector shall extend opposite [lit.: from] the Wilderness of Zin” (Num 34:3), where the southern sector is described as stretching to the Wilderness of Zin (see below, p. 150). Not every instance of the “from” preposition carries this meaning in the descriptions, however. In the majority of instances, it serves in its customary role of marking the source or point of origin of the border (terminus a quo): “Your southern sector shall extend opposite the Wilderness of Zin ‫צן‬-‫ממדבר‬ alongside Edom. Your southern boundary shall start from the tip of the Dead Sea ‫־המלח‬‎‫ מקצה ים‬on the east. Your boundary shall then turn to pass . . .” (Num 34:3–4). The border is demarcated via cities, mountains, wadis, bodies of water, and monuments. Thus, for example, the northern boundary of Judah’s territory is marked by the following features: the city of Beth-shemesh (Josh 15:10), Mount Seir (15:10), the fountain of the Waters of Nephtoah (15:9, 18:15), and the Stone of Bohan son of Reuben (15:6, 18:17). The description of the boundary between Benjamin and Ephraim mentions the waters of Jericho (16:1), the hill south of Lower Beth-horon (18:13–14), and Luz, which is Bethel (16:1–2, 18:13). Ephraim’s boundary with Manasseh is defined in reference to Wadi Kanah (16:8, 17:9), while Issachar’s border text names Tabor (19:22). It is thus clear that border descriptions are closely linked to prominent geographical and topographical features as landmarks. If the identification of the site is insufficiently clear, clarifying details are added, such as “to Gilgal, facing the Ascent of Adummim which is south of the wadi” (15:7; cf. 18:17) or “the wadi alongside Jokneam” (19:11). Parallel descriptions of the intertribal boundaries—such as the border between Judah and Benjamin (Josh 15:5b–11, 18:15–19)—mention the same places. The presence of the site in the border list thus makes it impossible to

a plural suffix (“and the sea was their border”), thus presenting a full but artificial picture of the Josephites’ portion as a single allotment bounded by four sides. 35.  The basic meaning of the preposition ‫ מן‬in Biblical Hebrew is that of separation and distance: see GKC 382/§119v; Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2nd ed.; SubBi 14/1–2; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993) 2:489, §133e.

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

139

determine to which tribal territory it belongs. 36 In some instances, the depiction explicitly defines the side of the site on which the border passed. Thus, for example, Benjamin’s northern boundary “ascended to the northern flank of Jericho” (18:12)—that is, Jericho fell within the Benjaminite allotment. Around Beth-horon, the boundary lay on “the hill south of Lower Beth-horon” (8:13–14)—that is, Lower Beth-horon lay within Ephraim’s territory. The accounts also frequently indicate to which tribe the territory belongs: “it ended at Kiriath-jearim—a town of the Judahites” (8:14). The description of Zebulun’s boundary includes the notation “on the border of Chisloth-tabor” (19:12), stressing the fact that Chisloth itself did not belong to Zebulon; “Chesulloth” is in fact listed among the cities of Issachar, the neighboring tribe (19:18).

A Linguistic and Literary Analysis of “The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries” Document (Numbers 34:1–12) Despite the formal unity of the extant text of Num 34:1–12—as exemplified by the preface and conclusion of every section (“For the southern/western/ northern/eastern boundary, this shall be your boundary”)—a separate literary analysis of each section is necessary in order to determine the sources of the boundaries document. On the basis of this examination, we will then discuss the description as a whole.

The Southern Sector The origin and significance of the depiction of the southern sector of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document are most clearly revealed by analyzing the literary and conceptual affinities that it exhibits with the description of the southern Judahite border in Joshua 15: The Southern Judahite Border (Josh 15:1b–4) (1b) toward the territory of Edom the Wilderness of Zin on the south the southern sector,

The Southern Border of the “Land of Canaan” (Num 34:3–5) (3) Your southern sector shall extend opposite [lit.: from] the Wilderness of Zin alongside Edom.

36.  See Jan J. Simons, “The Structure and Interpretation of Josh. xvi–xvii,” in Orientalia Neerlandica: A Volume of Oriental Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1948) 203 n. 3. Although Simons conjectures that these cities contained a mixed population, the site elements of the format are present because of the method of description and are thus unrelated to the tribal affinities of the cities’ residents.

140

Chapter 5

(2) Their southern boundary extended from the tip of the Dead Sea, from the tongue that projects southward. (3) It shall proceed to the south of the Ascent of Akrabbim, and pass on to Zin, and ascend to the south of Kadesh-barnea, and pass on to Hezron and ascend to Addar, and turn toward Karka (4) and pass on to Azmon and proceed to the Wadi of Egypt; and the boundary’s limits shall be at the Sea. That shall be youra southern boundary.

Your southern boundary shall be from the tip of the Dead Sea on the east. (4) Your boundary shall then turn south of the Ascent of Akrabbim and pass on to Zin, and its limits shall be south of Kadesh-barnea, and proceed to Hazar-addar

and pass on to Azmon. (5) From Azmon the boundary shall turn toward the Wadi of Egypt and its limits shall be at the Sea.

a.  The form ‫“( לכם‬to you [pl.]”) in the conclusion is very unusual in a tribal-allotment description, and was apparently influenced by the parallel depiction in Numbers. The LXX reflects the reading ‫“( להם‬to them”), although it is difficult to know whether this was the wording of the original text or was the result of harmonization.

The similarities between the descriptions of the southern sector of the two areas in the two texts are striking: 1. Both present the southern border as being part of a complete territorial description (the “land of Canaan” and the Judahite allotment) that encompasses four complementary sectors identified by name, using the same descriptive (“place and verb”) method. 2. The southern sector is detailed first in both texts and is delineated from east to west. 3. Both texts are characterized by a twofold structure: first, a general definition (“your southern sector shall extend opposite the Wilderness of Zin alongside Edom”; “toward the territory of Edom, the Wilderness of Zin on the south, the southern sector”), followed by a heading (“your southern boundary”; “their southern boundary”) and a description of the length of the border. This structure is unique to the boundary of the southern sector in “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document.

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

141

4. The toponyms in the parallel texts are virtually identical: eight appear in both passages in the same form (the Wilderness of Zin, the Dead Sea, the Ascent of Akrabbim, Zin, Kadesh-barnea, Azmon, the Wadi of Egypt, and the Sea). A number of the expressions about the site’s location also match (“from the tip of the Dead Sea,” “south of the Ascent of Akrabbim,” “south of Kadesh-barnea”). Some of the variations appear to be the product of textual corruption: “Hazar-addar” in the “land of Canaan” corresponds to “Hezron” and “Addar” in the depiction of the southern Judahite boundary; the hapax legomenon “Karka” (Josh 15:3) is the sole unparalleled name. The fact that these two variations are juxtaposed suggests that the description of this section of the border was corrupted during either its composition or its transmission; it is difficult to ascertain which version preserves the original text. 5. Some of the verbs are also identical (“pass on to Zin”; “pass on to Azmon”). The concluding phrases also correspond closely (“and its limits shall be at the Sea”; “and the boundary’s limits shall be at the Sea”). The verbs manifest more variation than do the places, which partly indicates the description’s original context, as we shall see below. 37 The close correspondence between the two descriptions attests their literary linkage. First, I shall examine the possibility that the two texts are dependent on a common source. On the basis of Mazar’s proposal that the phrase the “land of Canaan” derives from a familiar concept in the ancient Near East, Yohanan Aharoni proposed that the conjectured source was an Egyptian or Hittite document detailing the borders of the province of Canaan, “preserved at the covenant center of the Israelite tribes at Shiloh . . . where it served as a sort of deed and testimony for the tribes, who considered themselves the rightful heirs of Canaan.” 38 In his view, “the land of Canaan with its boundaries” document as a whole derives from such a source: “This is one of those most instructive 37.  The numerous divergences, specifically between the connecting verbs prompted Noth to conclude that the original list from which the description was taken only contained a list of toponyms without linking verses (see above, n. 20, where I noted my reservations about this view). 38.  Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 75. As Aharoni notes, “Perhaps the original source was in Egyptian or Akkadian and was translated into Hebrew in different ways” (p. 80 n. 125). Yet he also proposes that the biblical author created the Judahite boundary artificially. The southern, eastern, and western border descriptions derive from the boundary descriptions of the “land of Canaan”: the northern boundary account was copied from the southern Benjaminite border account (p. 253).

142

Chapter 5

examples of ancient sources being preserved among the geographical texts of the Bible, because we have here a document which makes no sense whatever in later periods.” 39 This sort of speculation is unsupported. Although Hittite treaties or edicts determining the territory belonging to the vassal king existed (such as the boundaries between the lands of Arzawa or the areas granted to the king of Ugarit; see above, pp.  33–44) and were delivered into the hands of the local king as confirmation of ownership and were preserved in the royal archive for future reference, the land of Canaan was under Egyptian rule. Documents of this type characterized the relations between the Hittite king and his subjects rather than the relations of the Egyptian pharaohs. This divergence is not merely marginal but reflects an essentially different world view and a different perception of royal functions, including a king’s relations with his vassal states. The Egyptian overlord’s relations with his vassal kings were not based on a formal written treaty but on an oath of loyalty and accepted practice. 40 While he himself was not obligated in any way, the kings subject to him were compelled to swear an oath, and their scions were taken to Egypt as hostages in order to guarantee the country’s allegiance. 41 The Egyptian conception of international relations therefore does not substantiate the existence of such a document in Canaan under Egyptian rule. Similarly, Canaan was not governed by a single ruler who administered the whole territory, and he did not hold a document defining the area under his control. The administrative and governmental picture of the land of Israel provided by the El-Amarna letters and by the royal Egyptian correspondence from the Eighteenth Dynasty reveals a terrain under loose Egyptian sovereignty that contained numerous city-states, the status of which was determined by tempo-

39.  Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 253. 40.  See Shmuel Aḥituv, “The Alliance Oath of the Canaanite Vassals to the Pharaoh,” in Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday (ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau; Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1978) 55–62 [Hebrew]. 41.  See Paul J. Frandsen, “Egyptian Imperialism,” in Power and Propaganda (Mesopotamia 7; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979) 175–76; Nadav Naʾaman, “Rule and Administration in the Late Bronze Age,” in The History of Eretz Israel: The Early Periods (ed. I. Ephʿal; Jerusalem: Keter, 1982) 208 [Hebrew]; Tadmor, “Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East,” and the bibliography cited therein; Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992) 198–99.

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

143

rary and provisional treaties. 42 According to the El-Amarna letters, numerous kings ruled in the land of Canaan, and all were subject to the Egyptian monarch. Thus, for example, the king of Babylonia claimed recompense from the Egyptian king for the loss of his merchants because “Canaan is thy land [mâtka] and [its] king[s are thy servants]” (EA 8.25). The king of Gubla complains/ warns the king of Egypt using a generalization and extremities formula: “All the lands [ga-bi mâtāt] of the ki[ng], as far as Egypt [a-di mât mi-iṣ-ri], will be joined to the ʿApiru” (88.32–34). 43 Could the conjectured document have defined the territory in which the Egyptian rulers’ officers operated? This suggestion cannot be corroborated by either historical or literary considerations. There are no Egyptian administrative documents extant that outline such activity. 44 The documents that we do 42.  Hess argues that the tribal border descriptions (Joshua 13–19) reflect the balance of power between city-states during the El-Amarna period: Richard S. Hess, “Late Bronze Age and Biblical Descriptions of the West Semitic World,” in Ugarit and the Bible (ed. G. J. Brooke et al.; UBL 11; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994) 123–38; a similar proposal is made by Naʾaman, in “The Canaanite City-States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances of the Israelite Tribes.” Although Hess acknowledges that the correspondence with the borders of some of the tribes (such as Judah and Asher) is problematic, the principal difficulty of this theory resides in the fact that the comparison fails to take any literary or conceptual analysis into consideration. Hess reconstructs the conjectured geographical units on the basis of data collected from various genres, without paying attention to the character of written border descriptions in the ancient world. While the El-Amarna letters and other Egyptian documents from the Late Bronze Age inform us of numerous tensions between city-states, these do not include border conflicts. During this period, the land was divided into sparsely populated city-states that fought to gain primacy: see Leon Marfoe, “The Integrative Transformation: Patterns of Sociopolitical Organization in Southern Asia,” BASOR 234 (1979) 32; Shlomo Bunimovitz, “The Problem of Human Resources in Late Bronze Age Palestine and Its Socio-Economic Implications,” ErIsr 25 (Aviram Volume; 1996) 46–47 [Hebrew]. The struggle between the various centers revolved primarily around the residents’ loyalty—“human resources,” in Bunimovitz’s phrase (pp. 48–50)—rather than around land (Marfoe, “The Integrative Transformation,” 14–16). We thus cannot entertain the existence of a governmental and administrative authority likely to have set out the borders of the kingdom’s cities in a written document, and the tribal boundary descriptions certainly could not have relied on a source such as this. 43. For these depictions and other references to Canaan in second-millennium b.c.e. sources, see Tammuz, “Canaan: A Land without Limits,” and the bibliography cited therein. 44.  See Niels P. Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites (JSOTSup 110; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 50; Hutchens, “Defining the Boundaries,” 217–21—both of whom stress the fact that we possess no texts from

144

Chapter 5

possess indicate there was no single governmental center responsible for the various cities in Canaan. 45 Papyrus Anastasi III, from the reign of Merneptah (1210), employs the merism “from Sile to Upe” (in the vicinity of Damascus) to define the area of the foreign land of “Kharu” (Canaan). 46 These locations were the two extreme outlying administrative and military centers of the Egyptian Empire during this period. Sile was the first border fortress on the Via Maris (which linked Egypt and Canaan) 47 that was outside Egyptian territory, and Upe was the administrative center of Damascus. 48 While the Egyptians regarded Canaan (Kharu) as a single geo-political unit over which they ruled in this period, 49 this does not necessarily mean that they conceived of the terthe Late Bronze Age that contain clear, explicit definitions of the borders of “Canaan.” Although this is an argument from silence, it carries weight and is appropriate to the general Egyptian world view. 45.  Regarding the Egyptian administrative system and power centers in the fourteenth–thirteenth centuries b.c.e., see Barry J. Kemp, “Imperialism and Empire in New Kingdom Egypt (c. 1575–1087 b.c.),” in Imperialism in the Ancient World (ed. P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978) 43–48; Frandsen, “Egyptian Imperialism,” 176; Naʾaman, “The Canaanite City-States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances of the Israelite Tribes,” 464–68; Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, 198–209. 46.  Papyrus Anastasi 3 I 10; see Ricardo A. Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies (London: Oxford University Press, 1954) 69; Albrecht Alt, “Das Stützpunktsystem der Pharaonen an der phönikischen Küste und im syrischen Binnenland,” ZDPV 68 (1950) 98. 47. See Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, 203. For the sources, see Yehoshua Grintz, “The Southwestern Border of the Promised Land,” in Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Religion of Israel (Jerusalem: Marcus, 1979) 7–13 [Hebrew]; Shmuel Aḥituv, The Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to the History of Palestine in the Biblical Period (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1979) 117 [Hebrew]; Naʾaman, “The Brook of Egypt and the Assyrian Policy on the Egyptian Border,” 267, and the bibliography cited therein. Sile clearly lies beyond “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries,” which extended in the south to the edge of the populated region, without encompassing the Sinai Desert. 48.  The Egyptian governor in “the land of Upe” is mentioned again in the correspondence between Ramesses II and Ḫattušili III. For the scope of Egyptian authority and power centers in Canaan according to a variety of sources, including this letter, the El-Amarna letters, and other Egyptian documents, see Elmar Edel, “Weitere Briefe aus der Heiratskorrespondenz Ramses II: KUB III 37 + KBo I 17 und KUB III 57,” in Geschichte und Altes Testament: Festschrift A. Alt (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 16; Tübingen: Mohr, 1953) 55–61. 49.  We can adduce from the El-Amarna letters that the kings of Babylonia and Gubla also viewed Canaan as a single political unit under Egyptian rule: see Tammuz, “Canaan: A Land without Limits,” 513–15.

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

145

ritory as a single administrative entity possessed of clear borders. It is thus difficult to identify any context in which a comprehensive document might have been produced. The proposal of an early Egyptian document poses additional problems. The line of the southern border does not correspond to the permanent-population boundaries of the province of Canaan; as Naʾaman has pointed out, the extensive desert region from the valley of Beer-sheba southward was uninhabited during the second millennium. 50 It is thus difficult to explain why it should be included in territory that is understood to represent the province of Canaan—even if the latter contained, as Kallai suggests, “the space within which the permanent population and the clans affiliated with it moved around.” 51 The Egyptians had no reason to provide a detailed description of the southern border. To these geo-historical and literary analyses of the Egyptian source, I now add an innerbiblical literary analysis. Unlike the affinities between the description of the southern sector of the “land of Canaan” and that of the southern sector of the Judahites’ allotment, the descriptions of the northern and eastern sectors employ terminology that is unparalleled in the remaining tribalallotment texts. The northern boundary depiction uses the verb (‫תתאו )לכם‬ twice (“draw [for yourselves],” Num 34:7, 8), while the eastern boundary description contains the phrase ‫“( והתאויתם לכם‬draw a line,” 34:10). Syntactically, the subject of these unusual verbs is not the border but the Israelites, because the corresponding verbs are in 2nd person (plural) rather than the 3rd-person singular that is characteristic of the “place and verb” system. Combined, these forms manifest a distinct style in the border description of oscillating between two subjects (the Israelites and the border): “This shall be your northern boundary: Draw a line [pl.] from the Great Sea to Mount Hor; from Mount Hor draw a line [pl.] to Lebo-hamath, and the boundary’s limits shall be at Zedad. The boundary shall then proceed to Ziphron and its limits shall be at Hazar-enan. That shall be your northern boundary” (34:7–9). The verb ‫( והתאויתם‬see below, p. 161) appears in the Hithpael (or Hiphil, if the text is emended to read ‫ והתאֵיתם‬according to BHS) rather than the Qal customarily employed by the “place and verb” system, while the verb ‫ תתאו‬appears in the Piel and yiqtol without the waw consecutive rather than in the qatal + waw consecutive form, because it is transitive rather than intransitive. The triple occurrence of this unique formulation attests that it is not a textual corruption. The lack of a homogeneous style between the sectors shows that the “the land 50.  See Nadav Naʾaman, “The Inheritances of the Cis-Jordanian Tribes of Israel and the ‘Land That Yet Remaineth,’” ErIsr 16 (Orlinsky Volume; 1982) 156 [Hebrew]. 51.  Kallai, “The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible,” 28.

146

Chapter 5

of Canaan with its various boundaries” is not a single document adopted from an early archival source, as Aharoni proposes. 52 Moreover, analysis of the tribal boundary descriptions demonstrates that the southern Judahite border is stylistically reminiscent of that tribe’s northern boundary and the Benjaminite borders, which suggests that these texts share a common source. It is unlikely that these depictions are connected to a supposed “early archival document,” because there would have been no need to describe a border running through the heart of the Judean Hills as the border between Judah and Benjamin does. The close correspondence between the texts clearly suggests a literary dependence. The best explanation for the extant version is that the description of the southern border of the “land of Canaan” relies on the description of the southern boundary of Judah. 53 This argument is strengthened by the fact that comments referring to the side of the border sites being passed appear primarily in the account of the southern sector of the “land of Canaan”: “south of the Ascent of Akrabbim . . . south of Kadesh-barnea” (Num 34:4; cf. Josh 15:3). 54 In contrast to the tribal-allotment texts, the “land of Canaan” border account does not refer to the neighboring lands, which shows that the southern-sector passage’s original context was the Judahite-allotment description. Additional corroboration of this claim appears if we analyze the following divergences between the depictions: (1) their opening sentences; (2) their varying conceptions of the status of the Jordan Valley; and (3) the formulas used to connect the geographical features.

52.  As I have already remarked, Aharoni considers the original list to have contained only the toponyms (The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 248). Although this applies to the tribal-allotment descriptions, Aharoni argues that it also applies to the divergence between the connecting verbs used to describe the southern border of the “land of Canaan” and the southern boundary of the Judahite allotment. Thus it is plausible to conclude that he also regards the external document that defined the borders of the Egyptian province to have contained only a list of border cities. (His argument in this regard is ambiguous, because he also raises the possibility that the verbal variations derive from discrete translations into Hebrew: see p. 70 n. 25.) According to this theory, the discrepancy in the organization of the verbs and their forms in the various sectors does not indicate disparate sources but reflects a redactional stratum—which is an even more problematic issue. 53.  Noth early on arrived at a similar conclusion, although on the basis of other considerations: “Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josua­buches,” 186–89; see also Levine, Numbers 21–36, 539. 54. A similar phenomenon appears in the description of the eastern border alone: “From Shepham the boundary shall descend to Riblah on the east side of Ain” (Num 34:11).

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

147

Opening Sentences The opening sentences of the two descriptions diverge: while they both speak of “Edom,” the “Wilderness of Zin,” and the “Negeb” (south), these toponyms appear in reverse order. Apparently a chiastic link (indicative of the use of a quotation and its source) exists between them. 55 No parallel exists for the elements “the southern sector (‫ ”)מקצה תימן‬in the Judahite allotment depiction and “your (southern) sector (‫ ”)והיה לכם פאת‬in the “land of Canaan” depiction: toward the territory of Edom the Wilderness of Zin on the south the southern sector (Josh 15:1) 56 your southern sector shall extend opposite the Wilderness of Zin alongside Edom (Num 34:3)

In the description of the Judahite boundary, the other three sides all possess headings that share a common feature: “and the boundary of the east was” (Josh 15:5), “and the boundary on the northern side” (15:5), “and the boundary of the west was” (15:12). 57 The southern sector contains a similar heading in 15:2: “their southern boundary extended.” 58 The prefatory comment that opens the Judahite boundary depiction—“The portion that fell by lot to the various clans of the tribe of Judah lay toward the territory of Edom, the Wilderness of Zin on the south, the southern sector” (Josh 15:1)—is thus not an integral part of the description of the border but a general definition of the territory of Judah (“the portion”). Similar identifications of the allotment’s relation to the areas bordering it or to the general regions it encompasses appear in the preface to the Benjaminite allotment: “The lot of the tribe of the Benjaminites, by their clans, came out first. The territory which fell to their lot lay between the Judahites and the Josephites” (Josh 18:11); in the opening of the Simeonite allotment: “The 55.  For the use of a chiastic structure to signal a quotation in the Hebrew Bible, see Moshe Seidel, “Parallels between Isaiah and Psalms,” Sinai 38 (1955/56) 150 [= Hiqrei Mikra (Jerusalem: HaRav Kook Institute, 1978) 2]; Raphael Weiss, Studies in the Text and Language of the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981) 259–73 [Hebrew]. For diachronic chiastic patterns such as “From Dan to Beer-sheba,” see Avi Hurvitz, “‘Diachronic Chiasm’ in Biblical Hebrew,” in Bible and Jewish History: Studies in Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver (ed. B. Uffenheimer; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1972) 248–55 [Hebrew]. 56. The LXX (“from the borders of Idumea from the Wilderness of Zin, as far as Kadesh southward”) brings the text into closer correspondence with the parallel passage in Num 34:1–12, although it is precisely because it does so that it is suspect of being secondary. It alters the difficult term ‫ מקצה‬to “Kadesh”; the translator was apparently aware of the link between the Wilderness of Zin and Kadesh. A similar situation obtains in the translation of one of the unidentified sites, Karka, as the phrase “west of Kadesh.” 57.  ‫ וגבול ים‬/ ‫ וגבול לפאת צפונה‬/ ‫וגבול קדמה‬. 58.  ‫ויהי להם גבול נגב‬.

148

Chapter 5

portion of the tribe of Simeonites, by their clans, lay inside the portion of the Judahites” (Josh 19:1); and in the heading of the Manassite allotment: “And this is the portion that fell by lot to the tribe of Manasseh . . . Gilead and Bashan were assigned to him” (Josh 17:1). The roster of Judahite cities begins in similar fashion: “This was the portion of the tribe of the Judahites by their clans: The towns at the far end of the tribe of Judah, near the border of Edom, in the Negeb, were . . .” (Josh 15:20–21). Joshua 15 opens with a reference to Edom, which is the territory that the Judahite allotment borders (“toward the territory of Edom”). Although the biblical accents do not divide the remark from the continuation of the verse, “the Wilderness of Zin on the south,” 59 it is best to regard the two parts as separate items of information: (1) the Judahite allotment borders Edom; and (2) the Wilderness of Zin is located (fully or in part) in the Negeb—that is, in the southern sector of the Judahite allotment. In this analysis, Edom and the Wilderness of Zin are separate sites. 60 The noun ‫( תימן‬T/teman) in the final clause of the comment (“the southern sector”) can carry two possible meanings: (1) it can be a general term for the compass direction (south; cf. Deut 3:27, Isa 43:6, et al.). This sense appears in texts identifying the south with the region of God’s presence, as the phrase ′‫ה‬ ‫ (ה)ת(י)מן‬in the inscription from Kuntillet Ajrud attests, as well as Hab 3:3: “God is coming from Teman, the Holy One from Paran”; 61 (2) it can refer to Teman as a city in Edom (Ezek 25:13), equal in importance to the “fortresses of Bozrah” (Amos 1:12); it also appears in some texts parallel to Edom itself (Jer 49:7) as well as parallel to Mount Esau (Obadiah 9). 62 The final part of the 59. The njps translation indicates that the second clause explains the first: “down to the border of Edom, which is the Wilderness of Zin.” 60.  See s.v. “‫ מדבר צן‬,‫צן‬,” EncBib 6:744. The locative form “southward (‫ ”)נגבה‬does not refer here to a direction or orientation but to the place where an event occurred or where an item is located, in the fashion of “in Mahanaim (‫( ”)מחנימה‬1 Kgs 4:14): see GKC 250/§90d. Compare the identification of the cities “near the border of Edom, in the Negeb (‫( ”)בנגבה‬Josh 15:21). 61.  ‫אלוה מתימן יבוא‬. For the Kuntillet Ajrud inscription, see Shmuel Aḥituv, Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: From the Period of the First Commonwealth and the Beginning of the Second Commonwealth (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1992) 156–57 [Hebrew]. Zeʾev Meshel identifies Kuntillet Ajrud with the site “Teman” on the grounds of the phrase quoted here, which was discovered on an inscription at the site: Zeʾev Meshel, “Teman, Horvat,” NEAEHL 4:1458–64. It is more plausible, however, to posit that “Teman” is a general name for the region whence God comes (Hab 3:3)—in similar fashion to Deut 33:2 and Judg 5:4: see John A. Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrud,” ZAW 94 (1982) 9–13. 62.  Roland de Vaux, “Téman: Ville ou région d’Édom?” RB 76 (1969) 379–85.

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

149

comment (“the southern sector”) can accordingly be interpreted in two ways: following the second sense of “Teman” given above, the phrase ‫ מקצה תימן‬parallels the comment’s opening statement, “the border of Edom.” According to the first meaning of Teman, the expression denotes the southern limit of the land (see Ezek 48:1: ‫)מקצה צפונה‬. 63 In this reading, the text is not repeating what has already been stated but is adding new information—and is thus preferable in my opinion. The fact that the Judahite allotment was the first of the tribes west of the Jordan to be delineated meant that it could not be identified in relation to the allotments bordering it. It was possible, however, to depict it in relation to Israel’s external neighbors (Edom) and the geographical region at its limit (the Wilderness of Zin), as well as in reference to the land as a whole (at its southern end). In contrast to the opening remark in Joshua 15 describing the southern sector of the Judahite allotment, the parallel passage in the “land of Canaan” document relates solely to the southern border rather than to the whole land: “Your southern sector shall extend opposite [lit.: from] the Wilderness of Zin alongside Edom” (Num 34:3a). The heading “your southern sector” ostensibly commences the description of the southern border, and the clause “opposite the Wilderness of Zin alongside Edom” provides additional details. The appearance of the beginning of an “extremities formula” (“opposite [lit.: from] the Wilderness of Zin”) is deceiving, however, because the sentence is cut off in the middle. The immediate continuation contains a second “preface,” virtually identical in form to the opening of the Judahite southern border depiction (Num 34:3b: “Your southern boundary shall be . . .”; cf. Josh 15:2, 4). Following this, the description resumes (“from the tip of the Dead Sea on the east”), and the border account then proceeds without interruption. The text thus appears to contain two opening statements related to the southern border. 64 The doublet may be explained as an initial general description of the southern border followed by a heading that precedes the details given in the continuation. 65 This proposal does not elucidate the reason for the interruption of the general depiction, however, nor does it give any reason for the variations between the parallel opening statements. A general description of the border would normally have presented it along its length, from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean—as, for example, in Ezekiel’s vision of the southern border: “The other border of Gad shall be the southern boundary. This boundary shall 63.  See BDB 892; HALOT 1120; and the translations. 64. See Levine, Numbers 21–36, 352–53. 65.  This is the standard analysis accepted by most scholars; see, for example, “‫ מדבר צן‬,‫צן‬,” EncBib 6:744.

150

Chapter 5

run from Tamar to the waters of Meribath-kadesh, to the Wadi, and to the Great Sea” (Ezek 48:28). The opening remark in “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document employs the phrase “your southern sector (‫)והיה לכם פאת נגב‬.” Although the term ‫ פאה‬is characteristic of the Priestly source, 66 it only occurs once in this text. This is in contrast to the description of the tribal borders, where it appears both in the northern Judahite boundary depiction (Josh 15:5) and in the Benjaminite allotment account (Josh 18:12, 14, 15, 20). The opening remark of Num 34:1–12 identifies the southern border (“your southern sector”) in reference to two regions: the Wilderness of Zin (“opposite [lit.: from] the Wilderness of Zin”—a geographical notation) and Edom (“alongside Edom”—a geo-political notation). The preposition “from” (“from the Wilderness of Zin”) does not indicate the beginning of the boundary but a separation (that is, in the direction of/opposite the Wilderness of Zin), as in the border descriptions (see Josh 17:7: “The boundary of Manasseh ran from Asher”—that is, in the direction of Asher). 67 In my opinion, here also the Wilderness of Zin should be distinguished from Edom, because the two sites are compound subjects that resume the content of the first half of the verse: it is first established that the southern sector of the “land of Canaan” borders the Wilderness of Zin, and subsequently that it abuts Edom. 68 The Wilderness of Zin and Edom are the two large areas that border the south of the “land of Canaan,” and we should not attempt to adduce from the comment either a full or a partial identification of the two, beyond the recognition of their general geographical proximity. The double opening statements in the description of the “land of Canaan” attest that this section of the depiction is a secondary reworking that is dependent on the parallel tribal-boundary description in Joshua. The author of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document was not faced with a need to define the territory of Judah, so he employed the opening statement to indicate the 66.  Out of 81 appearances in the biblical text, more than half (46) appear in Ezekiel, with another 29 being found in the Priestly literature, principally in the technical sense commonly found in architectural and geographical texts. 67.  See above, n. 35. For similar ablative forms in Hittite and Akkadian, see below, p. 269. 68.  In a spatial context, the preposition ‫ על ידי‬carries the meaning “borders on”: see Judg 11:26; Levine, Numbers 21–36, 533. The syntactical division between the Wilderness of Zin and Edom proposed here differs from the analysis of Jacob Licht, who argues that “the Wilderness of Zin lies next to Edom”: Jacob Licht, A Commentary on the Book of Numbers (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981–91) 3:168 [Hebrew], as well as from Levine’s translation, “from the Wilderness of Zin, abutting Edom” (Numbers 21–36, 529).

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

151

location of the southern border alone: “Your southern sector shall extend. . . .” While he retained the remarks linking this border to the Wilderness of Zin and Edom, he omitted the remark related to the location of the Judahite allotment at the land’s southern limit (“the southern sector [‫)”]מקצה תימן‬. The reversal in the order of “Edom” and “the Wilderness of Zin” signals his deliberate citation of the description of the southern Judahite boundary, according to Seidel’s law. The reference to Edom that appears in both descriptions can also help us identify the disparities between the two from a geo-historical perspective. Although the Kingdom of Edom stretched primarily from the east to the Arabah, Edomite forces campaigned westward in the seventh century b.c.e., threatening the settlements of the Kingdom of Judah in the eastern Negeb. As we learn from one of the letters from Arad, military reinforcements were sent to Ramat Hanegeb “lest Edom should come there” (Ostrakon 21, line 20). 69 Findings discovered at archaeological excavations conducted in the Negeb—such as an Edomite ostrakon from Ḥorvat Uzza, a seal with an Edomite inscription from Tel Aroer, and an Edomite temple at Ḥorvat Kitmit—demonstrate that the Edomites settled in the western Arabah and eastern Negeb. 70 The remark that prefaces the Judahite city roster (Josh 15:21: “near the border of Edom, in the Negeb”) thus appears to relate to the Edomite expansion into the south of the country. This evidence is insufficient for providing information regarding the background of the Judahite border description (Josh 15:1–12), however, which apparently derives from another source. 71 The prefatory comment to the 69. Yohanan Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1975) 48 [Hebrew]. See also the reconstruction he proposes for Ostrakon 40: “The evil [performed by] Ed[om]” (line 15). The tense relations between Judah and Edom in the last centuries of the Kingdom of Judah are also attested by the line of fortresses in the Negeb that dates to this period: see Zeʾev Meshel, “Iron Age Negev Settlements as an Expression of Conflict between Edom, Judah and Israel over Borders and Roads,” in Eilat: Studies in the Archaeology, History and Geography of Eilat and the Aravah (ed. Y. Aviram et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Israel Antiquities Authority, 1995) 173 [Hebrew]. 70. Itzhak Beit-Arieh, “Judean-Edomite Rivalry in the Negev,” Qadmoniot 36 (2003) 66–76 [Hebrew]. The process culminated in the creation of the Hellenistic-Roman administrative unit of Idumea, which probably originated in the Achaemenid period: see Israel Ephʿal, The Ancient Arabs (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982) 199–200. Some of the disputed finds are the “Edomite potsherds” that have been discovered at many sites in the Negeb. 71. For the divergent backgrounds of the Judahite border description and city rosters, see Albrecht Alt (“Judas gaue unter Josia,” PJ 21 [1925] 100–16), who is followed by the majority of scholars. Lissovsky and Naʾaman distinguish between lists of cities that are dependent on archival sources and administrative border descriptions

152

Chapter 5

Judahite border depiction (“The portion that fell by lot to the various clans of the tribe of Judah lay toward the territory of Edom”) makes it difficult to discern whether the reference is to eastern or southern Edom; both locations are possible. All that can be stated with certainty is that the verse indicates that the entire Judahite allotment bordered the territory of Edom. In contrast to this description, the “land of Canaan” border account locates Edom in the south rather than the east of the country; the comment refers exclusively to the southern boundary rather than to all the land’s perimeters. The date when the southern Judahite border depiction and/or the source from which it derives was composed is difficult to determine. One proposal is that the sites mentioned in the southern border description (specifically, Kadesh-barnea) were included because the source was an administrative document from the period of Josiah’s reign. 72 In an alternative view, the border in the Judahite southern boundary description consisted of a line of Negeb fortresses, which were apparently destroyed during Shishak’s campaign in the last

that are supposedly unique in ancient Near Eastern literature: see Lissovsky and Naʾaman, “A New Outlook at the Boundary System of the Twelve Tribes,” 298–302. Border descriptions of administrative districts appear in documents from the period of Ur-Nama: see Fritz R. Kraus, “Provinzen des neusumerischen Reiches von Ur,” ZA 51 (1955) 45–75. Just as from a linguistic perspective the noun ‫ גבול‬carries dual meanings (an area and its perimeters) in ancient languages, so too the city rosters and border descriptions complement one another from a literary perspective and frequently occur in tandem—such as, for example, in the depiction of the borders of the Hittite Kingdom of Tarḫuntašša in the Bronze Tablet: see my article “The Tribal Boundaries in Light of Tarḫuntašša Border Descriptions,” Shnaton 12 (2000) 174–75 [Hebrew]. 72.  As early as 1927, Alt argued that the Judahite border description was not an integral part of the other depictions (which he dated to the premonarchic period) but originated in the reign of Josiah: see Albrecht Alt, “Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Josua,” in Festschrift Ernst Sellin: Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte und Archäologie Palästinas (ed. W. F. Albright et al.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1927) 13–24. Archaeological evidence indicates that Josiah expanded the borders of his kingdom, building border fortresses at Kadesh-barnea (Ein el-Kudeirat). The political circumstances of Josiah’s reign also explain the detailed description, which extends the northern Judahite border to the Sea, enumerating, among other sites, Ekron and Jabneel (Josh 15:11). The archaeological finds from Mesad Hashavyahu near Yavneh Yam suggest that this region was under Israelite control during Josiah’s reign: see Bustenay Oded, “Pnei ha-tequphah: ha-mamlakha ha-meuchedet, ha-pilug le-shtei mamlakhot ve-ha-chorban [The Features of the Period: The United Kingdom, the Division into Two Kingdoms, and the Destruction],” in Israel ve-yehudah be-tequphat ha-mikra (The History of Eretz Israel 2; ed. I. Ephʿal; Jerusalem: Keter, 1984) 170.

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

153

quarter of the tenth century. 73 If this theory is correct, the description relates to the Kingdom of Edom east of the Arabah. 74 The depiction of the southern sector of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document is consequently dependent on the Judahite tribe’s southern border description. The minor variations that the author introduced hint at the date when he wrote. Although he quotes the border depiction virtually verbatim, he alters the prefatory comment—the original formulation of which indicated that the Judahite border ran alongside Edom—because in his own days the Edomites had already penetrated southern Judah, and the border between the Kingdom of Judah and the populated Edomite territory ran along the southeast perimeter of the Arad/Beer-sheba Valley. The terminus a quo for the composition of this description is thus the end of the seventh century b.c.e. The Status of the Jordan Valley The first toponym mentioned in the southern Judahite border description in Joshua 15 refers to the southern tip of the Dead Sea (Josh 15:2: “Their southern boundary began from the tip 75 of the Dead Sea”), whence it “proceeded to the 73.  See Rudolf Cohen, “Fortresses and Roads in the Negev during the First Temple Period,” in Eilat: Studies in the Archaeology, History and Geography of Eilat and the Aravah (ed. J. Aviram et al.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Israel Antiquities Authority, 1995) 80 [Hebrew]. 74.  In light of the archaeological finds, most scholars argue that an Edomite state did not exist prior to the eighth century b.c.e.: see, for example, Piotr Bienkowski, “The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan: A Framework,” in Early Edom and Moab (Sheffield Archaeological Monograph 7; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) 8. This conclusion has more recently been called into questioned, in light of increased evidence for the existence of a political entity in Edom as early as the beginning of the Iron Age: see Israel Finkelstein, “Edom in Iron Age I,” ErIsr 23 (Biran Volume; 1992) 224–29 [Hebrew]; Thomas E. Levi et al., “Reassessing the Chronology of Biblical Edom: New Excavations and 14C Dates from Khirbat en-Nahas (Jordan),” Antiquity 78 (2004) 865–79. 75.  This term does not refer to the half island lying in the middle of the Dead Sea, despite the similarity of Hebrew ‫ לשון‬to the Arabic name “a-Lisan.” The phrase “the tongue of the Egyptian sea” (Isa 11:15) makes it clear that the noun signifies part of a body of water, not necessarily associated with the Dead Sea—a narrow body of water or gulf: see BDB 546, ‫לשון‬, §6. The Dead Sea itself has two “tongues”: the northern (Josh 15:5, 18:19) and southern (Josh 15:2): see Benjamin Mazar, “‫ים המלח‬,” EncBib 3:693; despite the view cited in Mazar’s name in Zecharia Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 116. Remember that the southern portion of the Dead Sea was apparently dry during the biblical period. Thus, the expression refers solely to the northern portion: see Shmuel Aḥituv, “‫ צער‬,‫צוער‬,” EncBib 6:695–96; idem, Joshua (Mikra LeYisraʾel; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1995) 242, on Josh 15:2.

154

Chapter 5

south of the Ascent of Akrabbim.” In contrast, the “land of Canaan” border depiction commences on the eastern side of the Dead Sea (Num 34:3: “from the tip of the Dead Sea on the east”), “turning” from there (that is, changing direction) to pass south of the Ascent of Akrabbim. While the root ‫“( יצא‬proceed”) appears three more times in the description of the border’s starting point (Josh 16:6, 18:15 [twice]), the root ‫“( נסב‬turn”) does not appear in any parallel role (see its usage in Num 34:5; Josh 15:3, 10; 16:6; 18:14). This variation likewise attests that the Judahite boundary description is the primary text. The border’s divergent starting point and the use of the first verb reflect a deliberate polemical alteration that derived from a variant geo-political conception of the area being described. The reviser was seeking to include the northern Arabah within the parameters of the Promised Land. 76 The disagreement over the status of the northern Arabah is also visible in other biblical passages. In the Abraham narratives, the area constitutes an independent territory known as “the land of the Plain” (Gen 19:28), and its inhabitants are called residents of “the cities of the Plain” (13:12, 19:29). When a quarrel broke out between Abraham’s and Lot’s shepherds, and “the land could not support them staying together” (13:6), the two men parted ways: “Abram remained in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled in the cities of the Plain, pitching his tents near Sodom” (13:12). This story describes the valley prior to the destruction of Sodom, a period when the author considered its physical attributes to be very different, because the Dead Sea had not yet been formed. 77 The valley region and its cities were clearly not considered part of the “land of Canaan,” however, either when it was “like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt” (13:10) or after it became a wasteland, with its smoke “rising like the smoke of a kiln” (19:28). The rather strange story of the war against the four kings in this area (Genesis 14) likewise referred to the region of “the Valley of Siddim, now the Dead Sea” (14:3), as a separate political unit that contained five cities, all of whose kings shared a common fate. Other biblical texts reflect a different conception: 1. The Table of Nations states that the five cities of the Jordan Valley belonged to “the Canaanite territory,” whence it may be adduced that they form part of the Promised Land: “The Canaanite territory extended from Sidon as far as Gerar, until Gaza, and as far as Sodom, Gomorrah, 76.  Harmonistic endeavors to regard the variants as complementary literary descriptions fail to notice the significant disparity in viewpoints that is embedded in the textual polemic: see, for example, Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 116. 77. John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (2nd ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930) 252.

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

155

Admah, and Zeboiim, until Lasha” (Gen 10:19). 78 The reference to all the cities attests the dispute regarding the region’s status. 79 2. Deuteronomy 34, which demarcates the area of the land that was described to Moses before his death, highlights the fact that this region is included in the Promised Land: (1) Moses went up from the steppes of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the summit of Pisgah, opposite Jericho, and the Lord showed him the whole land: Gilead as far as Dan; (2) all Naphtali; the land of Ephraim and Manasseh; the whole land of Judah as far as the Western Sea; (3) the Negeb; and the Plain—the Valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees—as far as Zoar. (4) And the Lord said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, ‘I will assign it to your offspring.’ I have let you see it with your own eyes, but you shall not cross there.” (Deut 34:1–4)

This description mentions two cities and the Sea after the preposition “to (‫”)עד‬ (“as far as Dan,” “as far as the Western Sea,” and “as far as Zoar”), which may be the residue of a spatial merism. 80 The reference to Zoar as a perimeter city attests the fact that the author viewed the Jordan Valley as lying inside the borders of the Promised Land, thereby providing further evidence of the existence of a polemical discussion regarding the region’s status. In Ezekiel’s vision of the future land (Ezekiel 47–48), the northern Arabah also falls within its borders. The southern border is delineated briefly: “The southern limit shall run: A line from Tamar 81 to the waters of Meriboth-kadesh, 78.  The plain cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim are also mentioned in Gen 14:2 and Deut 29:22 (the latter two sites also appearing in Hos 11:8). Lasha is not referred to elsewhere in the biblical texts and, according to the majority of scholars, should be identified with the fifth plain city, “Bela, which is Zoar” (Gen 14:2, 8): see Haim (Harold L.) Ginsberg, ‫לשע‬, EncBib 4:532. 79.  Ginsberg has pointed out the differences in opinion about the scope of the land in the Jordan Valley region in Gen 10:19 (which regards it as part of Canaan) and Gen 13:12 (which excludes it from the territory of the Promised Land) but does not refer to additional sources relevant to this issue: Harold (Haim) L. Ginsberg, “A Preposition of Interest to Historical Geographers,” BASOR 122 (1951) 13. 80.  In addition to these sites, the description principally enumerates the names of regions: Gilead, Naphtali, the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, the land of Judah, the Negeb, and the Plain. The sole elaboration relates to the valley region: “the Plain—the Valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees—as far as Zoar” (Deut 34:3). Jericho is not associated with the Plain in any other text; its occurrence here may be linked to the identification of Moses’ observation point as Mount Nebo, “opposite Jericho” (v. 1). 81.  This site does not appear in the description in Numbers, and according to Aharoni should be identified with Hazevah: see Yohanan Aharoni, “Tamar and the Roads to Elath,” IEJ 13 (1963) 30–39. This claim is based on the identification of Tamar with a

156

Chapter 5

along the Wadi [of Egypt] and the Great Sea” (Ezek 47:19; cf. 48:28, with minor variants). Two diverging views of the relation of the northern Arabah to the Promised Land may thus be distinguished. While the southern Judahite boundary description (Josh 15:2) and the patriarchal narratives (Gen 13:12, 14:2–3) present it as an independent territory lying outside the bounds of the Promised Land, the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document (Num 34:3), Ezekiel’s vision (47:19, 48:21), the Canaanite border in the Table of Nations (Gen 10:19), and the depiction of the Promised Land given to Moses on the eve of his death (Deut 34:3) consider the valley to be part of the land. 82 Because the identity of the cities of the Plain is uncertain, it is difficult to ascertain the precise scope of the disputed region referred to as “the land of the Plain.” Sodom and Gomorrah were mythological cities that symbolized iniquity and destruction (Isa 1:9, 3:9, 13:19; Jer 23:14, 49:18, 50:40; Zeph 2:9; et al.). A similar function can be attributed to Admah and Zeboiim, though on a lesser scale (Deut 29:22, Hos 11:8). Zoar, the sole city to escape the fate of the remainder of the “cities of the Plain” by virtue of Lot’s presence (Gen 19:20–23), is also the only city mentioned in non-mythological contexts, and was a city on the Moabite border (Isa 15:5: “to Zoar”; Jer 48:34: “from Zoar”). 83 No direct evidence exists that Zoar was governed by Judah during any of the biblical periods. 84 Later sources locate the city on the southeastern perimeter of the region, place that possessed a similar name and is referred to in Byzantine sources. Its location south of the Dead Sea further depends on the LXX and Peshiṭta to Ezek 47:18, which read ‫“( תמרה‬Tamara”) in place of the MT ‫“( תמדו‬you shall measure”): see Rudolph Cohen and Yigal Yisrael, “The Excavations at ʿEin Ḥaẕeva / Israelite and Roman Tamar,” Qadmoniot 29 (1996) 78–92 [Hebrew] and pp. 174–176 below. 82.  The documentary hypothesis is unhelpful here, because the sources do not correspond to either of the opposing conceptions: Joshua 15, Gen 13:12, and Numbers 34 are ascribed to P; Gen 10:19 to J; and the opening verses of Deuteronomy 34 either to the Deuteronomistic literature or to E. 83.  The derivation of the name Zoar from the word ‫ מצער‬in Gen 19:20 may be related to Zoar’s status as a border city that was customarily mentioned in merisms in conjunction with the preposition “from.” For words prefixed with the letters bêt, kāp, lāmed, and mêm, which are liable to be construed both as prepositions and as nominal morphemes, see Simcha Kogut, “Biblical Prepositions and Their Dependence on Exegesis: Doubts about Their Identification Due to Morphological Ambiguity,” Language Studies 10 (2006) 159–70 [Hebrew]. In linguistic terms, this constitutes a midrashic etymology derived from metanalysis: see Noam Mizrachi, “The Derivation of Abraham’s Name (Gen 17:5),” Tarbiz 71 (2002) 344–46 [Hebrew]. 84.  The city should perhaps be identified with the “Zair,” which is referred to in the account of Joram’s war against Edom: “Joram crossed over to Zair with all his chari-

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

157

which is today the northern portion of the Dead Sea. 85 The controversy reflected in the above passages revolves around the sovereignty attributed to the area of the southern lake of the Dead Sea and the northern Arabah. Although the greater part of this territory was uninhabitable, claims to ownership may have related to its economic potential or to the routes passing through it. 86 The question of sovereignty may have become a pressing issue when the Edomites subjugated the Arabah and the eastern Negeb in the seventh century b.c.e. 87 Additional Textual Variations 1. The points “Zin” and “from the Negeb to Kadesh-barnea” are divergently linked in the two descriptions. In the southern Judahite boundary description, they are connected by the root ‫“( עלה‬ascend”), whereas in the “land of Canaan” document they are joined by the phrase “and its limits shall be.” The latter expression is customarily associated with a toponym by means of the preposition ‫“ אל‬to/at” (see Josh 18:14: “and its limits were at Kiriath-baal—that is, Kiriathjearim) 88 or the locative ‫ה‬- (cf. Num 34:5: “[From Azmon the boundary shall turn toward the Wadi of Egypt] and its limits shall be at the Sea”). 89 When the description depicts the border as passing near boundary posts (on the north, south, and so on), however, a transitional verb is customarily employed (cf. Josh 15:6: “The boundary passed north of Beth-arabah”). The awkward combination of these two methods (‫ )והיֻה תוצאתיו מנגב לקדש ברנע‬is evidence of otry. He arose by night and attacked the Edomites, who were surrounding him and the chariot commanders” (2 Kgs 8:21): see Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings (AB 11; New York: Doubleday, 1988) 96. According to this argument, Zoar was under Edomite control during Joram’s reign (851–843 b.c.e.). 85.  Aḥituv, “‫ צער‬,‫צוער‬,” EncBib 6:696. 86.  The copper trade in this area (if not in the Jordan Valley region itself), together with the roads linking up with the King’s Highway and Eilat, should be recalled in this context: see Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 18. For the copper quarries and industry in the eastern Arabah, see Ernst A. Knauf and Cherie J. Lenzen, “Edomite Copper Industry,” Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 3 (1987) 83–88; Levi et al., “Reassessing the Chronology of Biblical Edom.” A large military and administrative center from Iron Age II (tenth–ninth centuries b.c.e.) was discovered at Hazevah, which Aharoni identifies with Tamar, testifying to the site’s importance and role as a crossroads: see Rudolf Cohen and Yigal Yisrael, “The Excavations at ʿEin Ḥaẕeva / Israelite and Roman Tamar,” Qadmoniot 29 (1996) 78–79 [Hebrew]. 87.  The existence of a polemic of this type corresponds to Beit-Arieh’s suggestion that the Edomite expansion was military rather than a quiet ethnic or cultural invasion (“Judean-Edomite Rivalry in the Negeb,” 78–79). 88.  ‫והיה תצאתיו אל קרית בעל היא קרית יערים‬. 89.  ‫והיו תוצאתיו הימה‬.

158

Chapter 5

the fact that this description is secondary in relation to the parallel passage. The author of the “land of Canaan” document appears to have substituted the phrase ‫ והיֻה תוצאתיו‬for the original verb (“ascend”) in order to create a schematic design: the expression appears at the conclusion of each border (except for the western boundary at the coast), as well as in the two lines that cross the land breadthwise at the geographical extremities: Zedad in the north (Num 34:8) and Kadesh-barnea in the south. 2. Following the notation “south of Kadesh-barnea,” two different roots appear: ‫“( עבר‬pass”) and ‫“( עלה‬ascend”) in the southern Judahite boundary description (‫ )ועבר חצרון ועלה אדרה‬and ‫“( יצא‬proceed”) in the border of the “land of Canaan” document (‫)ויצא חצר אדר‬. Although this variation may be part of the textual corruption of the toponyms in this passage, it is also possible that it is connected to the tendency indicated above. As remarked above, the root ‫“( יצא‬proceed”) frequently denotes the commencement of the line (its origin). It also appears following the phrase “and the boundary’s limits shall be” (‫והיו‬ ‫)תֹוצאֹת הגבֻל‬, in the northern-border description (Num 34:8–9). It is thus feasible that the author of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document used this root after the same phrase for the southern-sector description as well, in order to reinforce his schematic representation. 3. Azmon and the Wadi of Egypt are linked in the two descriptions by different verbs: “proceed to the Wadi of Egypt (‫ ”)ויצא נחל מצרים‬in the southern Judahite boundary depiction in contrast to “from Azmon, the boundary shall turn toward the Wadi of Egypt (‫ ”)ונסב הגבול מעצמון נחלה מצרים‬in the “land of Canaan” document. The latter wording may reflect a chiastic design on the part of the author, because the structure of the sentence ‫ מעצמון נחלה מצרים‬was influenced by the expression “south of the Ascent of Akrabbim (‫מנגב למעלה‬ ‫)עקרבים‬,” which is a formulation that is unique to the southern border of the “land of Canaan”: ‫והיה לכם גבול נגב‬ ‫מקצה ים המלח קדמה‬ ‫ונסב לכם הגבול מנגב למעלה עקרבים‬ ‫ועבר צנה‬ ‫והיה תוצאתיו מנגב לקדש ברנע‬ ‫ויצא חצר אדר‬ ‫ועבר עצמנה‬ ‫ונסב הגבול מעצמון נחלה מצרים‬ ‫והיו תוצאתיו הימה‬

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

159

Conclusion This analysis presents several points that indicate that the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document is literarily dependent on the southern Judahite border description. These markers derive from various areas: phrases identifying to which side of the border certain sites belong, which appear exclusively in the southern sector of the “land of Canaan” description; stylistic analyses of the language of the sectors’ descriptions; and literary and conceptual comparisons of the language of the parallel passages. Geo-historical considerations also lead to the conclusion that the Judahite boundary reflects an earlier historical period than the period reflected by the boundary in the “land of Canaan” depiction, which was apparently composed in the seventh century b.c.e. at the earliest.

The Western Sector The description of the western prospect of the “land of Canaan” is simple and clear. It also demonstrates literary affinities with the Judahite boundary depiction, as indicated in the following schematic table: Josh 15:12 And the western the Great Sea and its boundary bordera

This was the boundary of the various clans of the Judahites on all sides.

Num 34:6 And the western you shall have the Great That shall serve as your boundary Sea and (its) border; western boundary. a.  The notation ‫ הימה‬is possibly a corruption due to dittography with (‫הים ה(גדול‬.

The “land of Canaan” description (Numbers 34) contains an additional address to the Israelites (“and the western boundary you shall have”); the repetition of the conclusion (“this boundary shall be your western sector”) is in keeping with the schematic framework of the other sectors. The literary dependence is revealed by the use of the term “the Great Sea,” which is characteristic of the book of Joshua: “the entire coast of the Great Sea” (Josh 9:1), “the Great Sea on the west” (Josh 1:4, 23:4; cf. 13:7–8 [LXX] 90). Both documents conjoin the 90.  See Lea Mazor, The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua: Its Contribution to the Understanding of the Textual Transmission of the Book and Its Literary and Ideological Development (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994) 266 [Hebrew]. These verses appear in a Deuteronomistic context. The entire western border may not have belonged to the original administrative document but may have been penned by a later editor who completed the southern Judahite border description in line with his own conception.

160

Chapter 5

designations “the Great Sea” and “and (its) border.” The latter is a phrase that appears in depictions of boundaries that cross bodies of water: “the Great Sea and (its) border (‫( ”)הים הגדול וגבול‬Num 34:6; Josh 15:12, 47; 91 Ezek 47:20 92), “the river Arnon, inside the river and (its) border (‫( ”)נחל ארנֹן תוך נחל וגבֻל‬Deut 3:16), “the Jordan and border (‫( ”)הירדן וגבול‬Deut 3:17; Josh 13:23, 27). The waw in this expression may be a conjunctive waw, signifying that the border includes the labile perimeters of a body of water, such as a shoreline or a river; 93 or an explicative waw indicating that “the sea (the Jordan, the Arnon, etc.) is the border.” Bodies of water frequently constituted ancient boundaries. 94 As in the case of the southern boundary, the description of the western border of the “land of Canaan” appears to depend on the description of the western Judahite boundary, which it transformed into a description of the western border of the “land of Canaan” as a whole.

The Northern and Eastern Sectors The account of the northern border and its continuation in the eastern sector possesses no literary or conceptual parallel in the tribal boundary depictions in Joshua. The border commences at the Great Sea and extends to the 91.  This verse must be read according to the Qere: ‫הים הגדול וגבול‬. 92.  The text ‫ הים הגדול מגבול‬in Ezekiel appears to be a corruption of ‫הים הגדול וגבול‬: see below, p. 178. 93. See HALOT 1:171, s.v. ‫( גבול‬a border alongside rivers and lakes, shoreline). The omission of the possessive pronoun (*‫ )*וגבולו‬is a witness to the fact that it represents a fixed coinage. See the Aramaic of the Sefire inscription which employs the term ‫( מצר‬in a fixed form, without a pronoun), which apparently represents the Akkadian miṣru, a parallel of Hebrew ‫גבול‬: see Hayim Tadmor, “Heʿarot le-shurot ha-pticha shel ha-chozeh ha-arami mi-sefire [Comments on the Opening Lines of the Aramaic Sefire Treaty],” in Sepher Shmuel Yeivin (ed. S. Abramsky et al.; Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1970) 397–401. 94.  Examples of rivers as borders can be found in extrabiblical literature—such as the Shamri River, which marks part of the border of the Kingdom of Kizzuwatna (Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts [2nd ed.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999] 25, §63), as well as the biblical texts Num 21:13 and Josh 22:25: see my “Water Division in Border Agreements,” SAAB 10 (1996) esp. p. 60. For this interpretation of the expression, see Magnus Ottosson, “‫ ּגְבּול‬gebhûl; ‫ ָּגבַל‬gābhal; ‫ ּגְבּולָה‬gebhûlāh,” TDOT 2:365–66. Mitmann also suggests that the context of the expression “and the border (‫ ”)וגבול‬indicates that the body of water is the border. His conclusions derive from a premise (which I dispute) about the verse, “The boundary of the Reubenites was the Jordan and border (‫ויהי גבול‬ ‫( ”)בני ראובן הירדן וגבול‬Josh 13:23): “und es ist von vornherein nicht anzunehman, dass die beiden gəbûl in diesem einen Satz Unterschiedliches meinen.” In other words, he claims that the word gĕbūl cannot have two different meanings in a single verse: Siegfried Mitmann, “ûgebûl—‘Gebiet’ oder ‘Grenze’?” JNSL 17 (1991) 37–44, esp. p. 41.

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

161

western sector. Since the northern- and eastern-sector descriptions both employ the unusual forms “draw a line (‫והתאויתם לכם‬/‫)תתאו‬,” I shall discuss them together. Num 34:7–9: the northern border

(7) This shall be your northern boundary: (8) Draw a line from the Great Sea to Mount Hor; from Mount Hor, draw a line to Lebohamath, and the limits of the boundary shall be at Zedad. (9) The boundary shall then proceed to Ziphron, and its limits shall be at Hazar-enan. That shall be your northern boundary.

Num 34:10–12: the eastern border

(10) For your eastern boundary you shall draw a line from Hazarenan to Shepham. (11) From Shepham the boundary shall descend to Riblah on the east side of Ain; from there the boundary shall descend and abut on the eastern slopes of the Sea of Kinneret. (12) The boundary shall then descend along the Jordan, and its limits shall be at the Dead Sea.

The descriptions of the northern and eastern sectors adopt the “place and verb” system, although some of the roots used are not characteristic of this method. The verbs ‫ תתאו‬and ‫ התאויתם‬are exceptional in both form and root. The biblical use of ‫( תאה‬tʾh) is confined to the depiction of the border of the “land of Canaan,” apparently deriving from ‫( ָּתו‬tw). 95 Their etymology, status as transitive verbs, and usage with the reflexive pronoun all attest that these roots were terms of surveyance, recording, and measurement. 96 These sorts of verbs appear in extrabiblical border descriptions, such as the border that runs between Ḫatti and Kizzuwatna, as reflected in Tudḫaliya II’s treaty with Sunaššura: “the border district will be surveyed and divided between them” (lines 41, 44, 47, 50: see below, p. 172 n. 14, p. 175). According to the identification commonly accepted today (with minor variations), the northern border runs from one of the peaks of Mount Lebanon to the eastern-desert border, approximately 100 km northeast of Damascus. 97 The lexical and syntactical divergence from the “place and verb” system aligns 95.  ‫ תאה‬is a variant of ‫תוה‬: cf. Ezek 9:4: ‫( והתוית תו‬Levine, Numbers 21–36, 534). 96. The LXX indeed renders the three situations by using the verb καταμετρήσετε (“to measure out precisely”). The verb μετρέω (“to measure in every direction”) customarily translates the Hebrew root ‫מדד‬: see, for example, LXX Num 35:5: ‫ומדֹתם מחוץ לעיר‬ ‫ = את פאת קדמה‬καὶ μετοήσεις ἔξω τῆς πόλεως τὸ κλίτος τὸ πρὸς ἀνατολὰς (“And thou shalt measure outside the city on the east side”). 97.  Demarcation of the line depends on identifying Lebo-hamath with the village of Labwe in the northern Lebanese Beqaʿ, near one of the sources of the Orontes, because a similar name is mentioned in Egyptian, Assyrian, and Byzantine sources (Mazar, “Lebohamath and the Northern Border of Canaan,” 199–201); and identifying Zedad with a tel located in a village that has a similar name, on the desert border, 4 km southeast of

162

Chapter 5

the northeastern description more closely with ancient Near Eastern border depictions, especially Hittite boundary texts from the second millennium b.c.e. As remarked above, Mazar suggests that the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document reflects the ancient border between Egypt and Ḫatti as demarcated in the thirteenth century b.c.e. As already noted, Aharoni’s claim that the Israelites drew the entire boundary delineation from an archival document that was translated into Hebrew from the original Akkadian or Egyptian is implausible in regard to the description as a whole and with respect to the southern boundary in particular. Given the credibility of Mazar’s identification of the northern border with the Hittite-Egyptian boundary at the end of the second millennium b.c.e., however, we must examine Aharoni’s argument in relation to this sector. Is it possible to imagine that the Priestly author of the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document obtained a copy of the demarcation of the Hittite-Egyptian border that he then used to depict his document’s northern sector? Although we can quite accurately trace the course of the Hittite-Egyptian border, which was fixed after the battle of Kadesh, we do not possess any literary-legal account of its details. The treaty concluded between Ḫattušili III and Ramesses II of Egypt in the thirteenth century b.c.e. is known from several sources: an Egyptian hieroglyphic version engraved on the walls of the Temple of Amon in Karnak and an Akkadian version found on three tablets during the excavations at Boghazköy (Ḫattuša). 98 Although neither of these texts includes a description of the border, the treaty presumes that each side was aware of Riblah, on the route from Qaryatein to Homs: see Karl Elliger, “Die Nordgrenze des Reiches Davids,” PJ 32 (1936) 38; Bustenay Oded, ‫צדד‬, EncBib 6:673. 98.  For the Akkadian version, see Ernst F. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien (Boghazköi Studien 8–9; Leipzig, 1923) 112–23; Veysel Donbaz, “Some Observations on the Treaty Documents of Kadesh,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43 (1993) 27–37; Elmar Edel, Die ägyptische-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer und hethitischer Sprache (Ahandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 77; Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994). For an English translation, see Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 96–100. For a translation of the two versions, see ANET 199–203; and for a comparison, Stephen H. Langdon and Alan H. Gardiner, “The Treaty of Alliance between Hattusilli, King of the Hittites, and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt,” JEA 6 (1920) 179–205. The relationship between the two texts is complex. After representatives of the two kingdoms had summarized the details of the agreement, each party composed its own version in Akkadian on a silver tablet. These were then exchanged, the Hittite version being taken to Egypt, translated into Egyptian, and written on the palace walls, and the Egyptian silver tablet being taken to Ḫattuša, where it was copied by local scribes: see Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 96. The original silver tablets have not survived.

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

163

which region belonged to the other party—as demonstrated, for example, by the clause prohibiting attacks on the second signatory. 99 Did any document describing the course of the border between Ḫatti and Egypt ever exist? The Hittite-Egyptian parity treaty is structurally reminiscent of the Hittite vassal treaties. Both types of treaty contain clauses detailing elements such as its conditions, the gods’ standing witness to it, and curses for its violation. 100 In the absence of any border depiction in the sole parity treaty to have survived, we can only speculate about its nature by way of analogy. While relations between equal-status kingdoms contained the same limitations and obligations as laid out in vassal treaties, both sides were bound by the conditions. We can therefore assume that an external border with a power equal in status to Ḫatti resembled the boundary between subkingdoms within the Hittite Empire in nature and function, because identical conditions and requirements were imposed on the two “fraternal” kings. Since the clause with the definition of the borders in vassal treaties was not a required element in their formulation, it is absent from most extant political treaties. 101 Consequently, the omission of a border clause in the Ḫattušili-Ramesses treaty does not indicate the lack of a clearly defined physical border. 102 The Egyptian version of the treaty is related to the obligations laid out in previous treaties, from the days of Suppiluliuma and Muwattalli, 103 which may have contained border descriptions. Although it is reasonable to assume that the boundary between the powers followed an existing route and was not being changed in such a way as to require its redefinition in writing, 104 the possibility cannot be ruled out that it 99.  For this clause, see Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien, 116, lines 22–23; Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 97–98, §6. 100.  See Viktor Korošec, Hethitische Staatsverträge (Leipziger rechtswissenschaft­ liche Studien 60; Leipzig, 1931) 11–15; Guy Kestemont, Diplomatique et droit international en Asie occidentale: 1600–1200 av. J.C. (Louvain: Université Catholique de Louvain, 1974) 8–9, 58–61; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 50. 101.  Nor was its location in the treaty fixed: see McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 59. 102.  Wilson, in the preface to the translation of the Egyptian version in ANET 199, claimed that the lack of a literary description does indicate that a real boundary line was missing. I agree with McCarthy, who argues on the contrary that we cannot link the absence of such a border clause to the nonexistence of a real boundary line—just as we cannot relate the omission of a historical-survey clause to the absence of any political relations prior to this period (Treaty and Covenant, 59). 103. See ANET 200, under the heading “Reaffirmation of former treaties” (and p. 200 n. 11); Langdon and Gardiner, “The Treaty of Alliance between Hattusilli, King of the Hittites, and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt,” 189, §5. 104.  Götze reached a similar conclusion: “The treaty . . . makes no mention at all of territorial claims. This means that the border remained on the line which the conqueror

164

Chapter 5

consisted of a well-known historical line that was never recorded in a binding document. Thus there is no extant evidence of an ancient literary source for the northern border description. Although the northern boundary line probably refers to the whole border between Egypt and Ḫatti during the second half of the second millennium b.c.e., this assumption is not a historical fact that can serve as a chronological anchor for the source lying behind the biblical text; it is simply a general cultural phenomenon that is indicative of literary ties between the Hebrew Bible and other ancient Near Eastern societies. Moreover, the region of Lebo-hamath apparently continued to serve as the political boundary during later periods. Tiglath-pileser III recorded the cities he conquered in Hamath, followed by another fragmentary list of the cities of Aram–Damascus (“Beth Hazael”) that begins with the name Labʾu. 105 Lebo-hamath was thus a border city between the kingdoms of Hamath and Aram in the eighth century b.c.e. In light of this fact, the northern border description of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” attests neither an educated attempt at defining the borders of the Promised Land in conformity with an ancient geographical practice (rooted in the “international relations” of the second millennium b.c.e.) nor the deliberate employment of an archaic literary model. The author of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document appears to have been familiar with the terminology commonly employed by border surveyors throughout the ancient Near East. Although the border itself reflects an ancient boundary that existed in the region for centuries, this is insufficient grounds for attempting to adduce authentic historical knowledge about second-millennium b.c.e. reality. The description of the eastern border of the “land of Canaan” that succeeds the depiction of the northern sector uses the “place and verb” system. In addition to using the exceptional root ‫“( מחה‬abut”), it employs the customary root ‫“( ירד‬descend”) three times and concludes with the fixed formula “its limits shall be (‫)והיו תוצאותיו‬.” The opening depiction of the eastern sector, however, employs the unique phrase ‫( והתאויתם לכם גבול קדמה‬Num 34:10: “For your Shupiluliumash had established and which his successors had successfully defended” (Albrecht Götze, “The Struggle for the Domination of Syria [1400–1300 b.c.],” in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 2/2: History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1380–1000 b.c. [ed. I. E. S. Edwards et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975] 259). 105. Hayim Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science, 1994) 148, line 25; 149 n. 25. See below, p. 280. This region also served as the border between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms during the Hellenistic period, and between the Fatimids and Hamdans in the ninth–thirteenth centuries c.e.: see Marfoe, “The Integrative Transformation,” 19.

“The Land of Canaan with Its Various Boundaries”

165

eastern boundary you shall draw a line from Hazar-enan to Shepham”) in place of the root ‫( היה‬hyh), which is typically used in the opening and closing verses of this schema. As we have seen, the root ‫( תאה‬t ʾh), which appears twice in the description of the northern border ([‫—תתאו ]לכם‬Num 34:7, 8), corresponds closely to the root used for surveying and measuring. It is possible that, in the context of the preface to the border depiction, there is a play on words with the ordinary meaning of the root ‫“( אוה‬wish”), intimating the author’s awareness of the fact that the boundary represents an ideal rather than a reality. As far as we know, in contrast to the northern border of the “land of Canaan,” the presumed length of the eastern boundary from the northeastern corner (Hazar-enan) to the eastern shore of the Kinneret is not linked to the ancient Egyptian-Hittite border. 106 The line joining up with the Kinneret from the east turns southward and follows the length of the Jordan, possibly reflecting the border between the Assyrian provinces of Gilead and Karnaim, which was the boundary set by Tiglath-pileser III following his conquest of the Transjordan. 107 If, as we 106.  The geographical reconstruction of the line is dubious. The identity of Shepham is unknown. The context makes clear that “Riblah” is too far east to be identified with a site of the same name (although always referred to anarthrously) in Hamath (2 Kgs 23:33, 25:21; Jer 39:5, 52:9, 26–27); therefore, its identity is also obscure: see Gray, Numbers, 461; cf. Levine, Numbers 21–36, 535, 540. The “Ain” which the border passes on the east is speculatively identified with Khirbet ʿAyyun, five kilometers east of the Kinneret and north of Yarmuk—principally due to the fact that the border continues from here to the eastern shores of the Kinneret: see Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 67. From the geographical context it is evident that this place has no connection with the “Ijon” mentioned in the list of cities which the Aramean king Ben-Hadad smote (1 Kgs 15:20; 2 Chr 16:4) and Tiglath-pileser captured (2 Kgs 15:29). On the assumption that Ezekiel describes the same border, it may be reconstructed, in general terms, according to the conjectured boundaries of the Assyrian province of Hauran: the border passing east of Damascus (close to the route leading from Damascus to Tadmor), turning westwards in the area of Biqʿat Bashan, and reaching the Kinneret: see Benjamin Mazar, ‫חורן‬, EncBib 3:64 [Hebrew]. 107.  For the Assyrian provinces of the Transjordan, see Emil Forrer, Die Provinzeinleitung des Assyrischen Reiches (Leipzig, 1920) 69; Bustenay Oded, “Observations on Methods of Assyrian Rule in Transjordania after the Palestinian Campaigns of TiglathPileser III,” JNES 29 (1970) 178–79. A map can be found in Benedikt Otzen, “Israel under the Assyrians,” in Power and Propaganda (ed. M. T. Larsen; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979) 252. Forrer reconstructs three Assyrian provinces in northern Transjordan: Karnaim, Hauran, and Gilead, opining that Karnaim cut between Hauran on the southeast, Gilead on the south, and Damascus on the north (ibid., 62). Ezekiel determines the eastern border of the future Land thus: “As to the eastern sector: A line between Hauran and between Damascus, and between Gilead and the between land of Israel: with the Jordan as a boundary, you shall measure down to the Eastern Sea

166

Chapter 5

surmise, the Assyrian administrative division and other empires subsequent to it followed the Aramean and early Israelite divisions, 108 we may assume that this line also depended on a relatively well-known territorial division, possibly relying on the boundary between Aram and Israel at a certain stage. In this context, it is interesting to note that precisely the Israelite territory—or at least the land of Gilead (the area that Israel claimed in the Transjordan)—was considered to lie beyond the border of the Promised Land, whereas the territory under the control of Aram–Damascus up to the border with Hamath (Lebohamath) was regarded as an integral part of the land.

Conclusion In contrast to the accepted consensus, the description of the borders of the “land of Canaan” does not constitute evidence of a real-life source but is instead a literary and ideological composition intended to identify the allotment promised by God to the Israelites as part of their covenant relationship. The lack of stylistic uniformity among the sectors of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document is evidence that the author of the document created a complex depiction. The description of the northern boundary relies on a familiar geographical concept of early origin; the account of this border and the preface to the account of the eastern boundary that follows it reflect a literary model used by border surveyors. The descriptions of the southern and western boundaries are dependent on the delineation of the Judahite boundary. The southern boundary depiction was composed, at the earliest, in the seventh century b.c.e., and this date also applies to the earliest possible composition of the whole document. The author sought to bring uniformity to his description via similar prefaces and conclusions: “your boundary shall be / for your boundary you shall draw a line” (‫ והתאויתם לכם [ל]גבול‬/ ‫ [ו]זה יהיה‬/ ‫ ;והיה‬vv. 3, 6, 7, 9, 10) and through the schematic use of the phrase “its limits shall be (‫)והיו תוצאֹתיו‬,” which marks the southern (Kadesh-barnea) and northern (Zedad) extremities and the termination of the borderline in the south, north, and east (vv. 4, 5, 8, 9, 12). The conclusion of the description (Num 34:12)—“That shall be your land as defined by its boundaries (‫ )לגבֻלֹתיה‬on all sides”—is constructed on the model of the preface (Num 34:2): “this is the land that shall fall to you as your portion, the land of Canaan with its various boundaries (‫)לגבֻלֹתיה‬.” [Dead Sea]” (Ezek 47:18; cf. the discussion below, pp. 174–175)—without mentioning Karnaim. 108.  Oded, “Observations on Methods of Assyrian Rule in Transjordania,” 179, and the earlier literature cited in n. 19 therein.

Chapter 6

Ezekiel’s Vision of the Ideal Land The fourth and final section of the book of Ezekiel contains a renewal of the promise of the land following its loss and delineates the form that the internal divisions and external perimeters the land will possess in the future (Ezek 47:13–48:29). Like the “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document (Num 34:1–12), Ezekiel’s vision provides precise and comprehensive details about the prospective borders of the whole land, and like the description of the tribal allotments in Joshua (Joshua 13–19), it also lays out its internal tribal portions. The resumption of the patriarchal promise not only allows the author of the book to buttress the returnees’ right to the land by adducing the divine source and sanction of the oath (the original promise having once been fulfilled and then blighted) but also to “update” the concept and bring it into line with his own vision. An examination of Ezekiel’s depiction of the future land reveals that it possesses close substantive and linguistic affinities with the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” description. Both texts delineate the Promised Land for a people that is living without it, and the two passages also refer to the same geographical entity. 1 As in the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” portrayal, Ezekiel stresses the continuous line of the border by mentioning the corner sites that mark its termination, beginning with a repetition: the Great Sea at the northwestern corner (47:15, 19) and again at the southwestern corner (47:19, 20); Hauran at the northeastern corner (47:16, 18); and Tamar at the southeastern corner (47:18). 2 Substantive resemblances are also evident in the common occurrence of many of the border toponyms: two of the northern boundary locations—Zedad (Num 34:8, Ezek 47:15) and Hazar-enan/enon (Num 34:9–10; Ezek 47:17, 48:1)—appear solely in these two texts. 1. Contra Tammuz, who argues that Ezekiel’s depiction is an interpretation of the description given in Numbers—or a similar sketch—and that the two accounts refer to discrete geographical units: Oded Tammuz, “Canaan: A Land without Limits,” UF 33 (2001) 501–43. 2.  The text should be read as ‫ תמרה‬rather than as ‫( ָתמֹדו‬see BHS) here; see Ezek 48:23. For this corruption, see below, pp. 174–175.

167

168

Chapter 6

The description of the land’s external borders is linked to its internal division into tribal allotments—91⁄2 tribes according to Num 34:13 and 12 according to Ezek 47:13. Zimmerly has pointed out the terminological correspondence between the two texts with respect to the issue of inheritance. 3 First, the Hithpael of the root ‫( נחל‬nḥl; cf. Num 32:18, 33:54 [2×], 34:13; Ezek 47:13) appears in only two other places in the Hebrew Bible, both in a different context: the use of foreigners as slaves (Lev 25:46, Isa 14:2). The expression “that you shall inherit” (‫ )אשר תתנחלו‬also appears solely in these two parallel sources (Num 34:13, Ezek 47:13). Second, the two descriptions both contain the phrase ‫נפל‬ ‫“( בנחלה‬to fall as heritage to”; in the Qal in Num 34:2, Ezek 47:14; in the Hiphil in Ezek 45:1, 47:22 [2×], 48:29), which itself occurs elsewhere only in three other places: once in the Qal (Judg 18:1) and twice in the Hiphil (once in the description of the “remaining territory” in Josh 13:6 and once in the depiction of the nations that still remain, in Josh 23:4). The designation “this is the land that shall fall to you as your inheritance (‫ ”)זאת הארץ אשר תפל לכם בנחלה‬in Num 34:2 recurs almost verbatim in Ezek 47:14: “This land shall fall to you as your inheritance (‫)ונפלה הארץ הזאת לכם בנחלה‬,” and again at the end of the unit: “That is the land which you shall allot as a heritage (‫זאת הארץ אשר תפילו‬ ‫( ”)מנחלה‬Ezek 48:29). 4 These points of contact and similarity reveal the direct literary link between Ezekiel and Numbers. Some of the scholars who have analyzed this connection have been influenced by their view of the period to which P (including its portrayal of the Promised Land) should be attributed. According to the theory that P was redacted in the fifth century b.c.e. and is thus later than Ezekiel’s vision of the borders of the land, which was composed in the sixth century, 5 some 3. Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel (trans. R. E. Clements; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979–83) 2:528. 4.  See also Graeme Auld, Joshua, Moses and the Land (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980) 75, 81. 5.  As noted above, the border depiction/tribal-allotment section belongs to the fourth and final segment of Ezekiel’s visions (chaps. 40–48), which is dated—on the basis of Ezek 40:1 (“In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, the fourteenth year after the city had fallen”)—to 572 b.c.e. This date cannot be applied to all of the prophecies included in this section, however, and scholars are divided over the question of which were written by Ezekiel himself and which were added by his disciples: see Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2:345, 553. Some scholars regard the whole portion as probably late and nonEzekielian: see Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel (trans. C. Quin; OTL; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970) 563–64. According to a different view, this section does not contain editorial strata or additions and may in fact be from Ezekiel’s own hand: see Moshe Greenberg, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” Int 38 (1984) 181–208. It is

Ezekiel’s Vision of the Ideal Land

169

scholars consider the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document to be later than Ezekiel’s and to be dependent on it. Thus, for example, Gray maintains: “Here as in other things, what Ezekiel embodies in his description of the ideal future, P embodies in his account of the idealized past.” 6 Other scholars from the same school argue that both texts depend on Priestly sources. Cooke suggests, in this regard, that the Priestly document was “beginning to take shape” and that “some of these experimental decrees have been preserved in the last part of Ezekiel . . . continuing the work Ezekiel had begun.” 7 In contrast, Kaufmann maintains that P is earlier than Ezekiel and that Ezekiel’s description is later than the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document, and is dependent on it. 8 Other scholars have discussed the origin of the two texts and the relationship between them without reference to the pentateuchal sources. Here, we find a large measure of consensus. Mazar, who contends that the description of the “land of Canaan” derives from an Egyptian provincial entity existing in the second millennium, argues that Ezekiel’s demarcation is based on this account, although with revised toponyms and the insertion of contemporary concepts. 9 De Vaux agrees with Mazar regarding the early territorial unit reflected in the “land of Canaan” description in Numbers but argues that both Numbers and Ezekiel are reliant on the same source or a common tradition, and the differences reveal that they had access to additional sources. 10 Since Ezekiel (47:16– 18) speaks of Hamath, Damascus, Gilead, and Hauran—the names of Assyrian provinces established between 733 and 720 b.c.e.—the book appears to rest on a tradition that dates to a period later than this time. The fact that these sites do likely that the border description was edited together with the entire book in the first half of the fifth century b.c.e.: see Lawrence Boadt, “Ezekiel, Book of,” ABD 2:720, §5. 6.  George B. Gray, Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903) 453. 7.  George A. Cooke, “Some Considerations on the Text and Teachings of Ezekiel 40–48,” ZAW 42 (1924) 111. See also Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 591; John W. Wevers, Ezekiel (NCB; London: Thomas Nelson, 1969) 336. Cooke concurs that the description of the “land of Canaan” (which he attributes to P) relies on Ezekiel’s depiction, because P ascribes the demarcated region to the nine and a half tribes “in accordance with the historical facts”: see George A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936) 525. 8. Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine (2nd ed.; trans. M. Dagut; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1953) 72–73. 9. Benjamin Mazar, “Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Border of Canaan,” in The Early Biblical Period: Historical Essays (trans. R. and E. Rigbi; ed. B. A. Levine and S. Aḥituv; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986) 192. 10.  Roland de Vaux, The Early History of Israel (trans. D. Smith; London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1978) 6–7, 127–32.

170

Chapter 6

not appear in the description of the borders of the land of Canaan led de Vaux to conclude that it was dependent on an earlier tradition; hence, the date of this common source was necessarily earlier than the end of the eighth century b.c.e. He thus arrived at a conclusion similar to Cooke’s, although in his opinion, the common source was not a Priestly document but an earlier document that preserved the same area as the term Canaan signified to the Israelites on the eve of their entry into the land. Auld despairs of finding a solution to the whole issue, arguing that the texts are too corrupt to base a decision on regarding literary sources. 11 In the following section, I demonstrate that an analysis of the descriptions in their context and a comparison with border delineations in extrabiblical sources can help to identify the literary relation between the two texts.

The Northern Border Although Ezekiel’s description resembles the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document in following the borders along a continuous line, he begins with the northern rather than the southern boundary. This disparity appears to be linked to the order of the tribes whose allotments are redefined within the territory. The “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” depiction’s commencement with the southern border is a function of the order of the tribal allotments recorded in the Book of Conquest: the Judahites come first in the list of allocations, and the tribe’s southern border likewise appears first in the description of their portion. In contrast, the author of Ezekiel opens his depiction with the northern boundary, and the first tribal border mentioned is the Danites’: “These are the names of the tribes: At the northern end . . . : Dan— one [tribe]” (Ezek 48:1). This alteration most likely reflects Ezekiel’s awareness of the variant starting point of the Israelites’ settlement campaign. Whereas the portrayal of the “land of Canaan” begins in the south due to the fact that, having left Egypt, the Israelites crossed the Sinai Desert and should have entered the land from this direction (the south), Ezekiel’s vision of the future land commences from the north, because the Babylonian exiles returned to the land from this direction. 12 The description of the northern border is the most detailed in Ezekiel’s account. Following a full delineation of its line, the author concludes with a brief synopsis, detailing the border by means of several summary statements 11.  Auld, Joshua, Moses and the Land, 76. 12.  See David H. Engelhard, “Ezekiel 47:13–48:29 as Royal Grant,” in Go to the Land I Will Show You: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young (ed. J. E. Coleson and V. H. Matthews; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 50.

Ezekiel’s Vision of the Ideal Land

171

Table 6.1.  Comparison of Northern Border Descriptions Numbers 34:7–9

Ezekiel 47:15–16

Ezekiel 47:17

Ezekiel 48:1

This shall be your northern boundary:

These are the boundar- This shall be the ies of the land: As the boundary northern limit:

At the northern end,

from the Great Sea

from the Great Sea

from the Sea

by the Hethlon way,

along the Hethlon way,

draw a line . . . to Mount Hor, from Mount Hor draw Lebo-a a line to Lebo-hamath, and the limits of the boundary shall be toward Zedad.

Zedad (Hamath),

Berathah, And the boundary shall proceed to Ziphron,

Sibraim—which lies between the border of Damascus and the border of Hamath—

and its limits shall be at Hazar-enan.

Hazar-hatticon,b which (to) Hazar-enon,c is the border of Hauran.

Hazar-enan

to the northd of the territory of Damascus, with the territory of Hamath to the north of it. That shall be your northern boundary.

That shall be the northern limit.e

a. MT ‫( לבוא צדדה חמת‬Ezek 47:15–16) is corrupt and should be read following the LXX and Ezek 48:1: ‫ צדדה‬,‫לבוא חמת‬. See BHS; Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel, 530; Mazar, “Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Border of Canaan,” 198–99; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2:518. b.  ‫ חצר התיכון‬is a corruption of ‫חצרה עינון‬: see Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel, 530; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2:518. c. In Zimmerli’s opinion, this should be completed on the basis of the targumim: ‫עד חצר עינון‬ or ‫( חצרה עינן‬Ezekiel, 2:519). This is the meaning of the verse even without the emendation, since the repetition of the southern border in Ezek 48:28 also omits the preposition ‫“( עד‬to”). d.  As a comparison with Ezek 48:1 indicates, the word ‫ צפון‬is out of place here, possibly because of dittography with ‫צפונה‬, and should probably be placed after the word ‫“( גבול‬border”) at the beginning of the sentence: . . . ‫ מן הים‬:‫והיה גבול צפון‬. e.  The corruption in the word ‫“( זאת‬this”) recurs in the descriptions of the eastern and southern borders (vv. 18, 19). With respect to the western border, the text reads: ‫( זאת פאת ים‬GKC 366/§117m).

172

Chapter 6

(Ezek 47:17). A similar précis appears in the description of the Danite border, the territory of the tribe that was the most northern (Ezek 48:1). Table 6.1 compares the description of the northern border given in the “land of Canaan” document and the three depictions of the northern border in Ezekiel—the full delineation and the two abbreviated descriptions. Some of the toponyms mentioned in Ezekiel are identical with those in Numbers 34: the Great Sea, Lebo-hamath, Zedad, and Hazar-enan/enon. Ziphron and Sibraim also appear to be variants of the same name. 13 The descriptions are distinguished from one another by the phrase “(along) the way of Hethlon,” which in Ezekiel replaces “Mount Hor” in Numbers 34, and “Berathah,” which only appears in Ezekiel. 14 13.  See Isaiah Press, A Topographical Historical Encyclopedia of Palestine (Jerusalem: Reuven Mass, 1955) 3:658–59 [Hebrew]. Other scholars maintain that these two places should not be identified with one another and that Sibraim is to be located in the Lebanese Beqaʿ, between Damascus and Hamath: see Terry Fenton, ‫סברים‬, EncBib 5:996. 14.  The issue of the identity of Berathah exemplifies the contribution literary analysis makes to the discussion of geo-historical issues. The name resembles the “Berothai” mentioned in 2 Sam 8:8. This site is one of the cities of Aram Zobah, from which David plundered large amounts of copper, and is customarily identified with Bereitan, about 12 km south of Baalbeq in the north of the Beqaʿ Valley: see Hector Avalos, “Berothai,” ABD 1:679; Mazar, “Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Border of Canaan,” 195 n. 29. This presents difficulties, however, if we decide that Ezekiel’s description portrays a line, with Bereitan being located about 40 km southwest of Lebo and 70 km southwest of Zedad. Some scholars have thus suggested that Berathah/Berothai was a southern enclave: see Ben-Zion Luria, “Gvul ha-tzaphon be-chazon yehezkel [The Northern Border in Ezekiel’s Vision],” in Iyunim be-sepher Yehezkel (ed. Y. Avishur; Jerusalem: Society for the Study of the Bible in Israel, 1982) 210. Another proposal distinguishes the two places, identifying Berathah with another location east of Zedad: Karl Elliger, “Die Nordgrenze des Reiches Davids,” PJ 32 (1936) 69. I suggest that a comparison with Hittite border descriptions provides a more plausible explanation. In their delineation of the boundary between Ḫatti and Kizzuwatna, two kings identified one of its segments by defining who held sovereignty over the regions on each side of the border: “the Great King should hold all that which is on the city of Turutna’s side of the border, and Sunaššura should hold that which is on the land of Adaniya’s side. . . . the Great King should hold that which is on Ḫatti’s side, and Sunaššura should hold that which is on Adaniya’s side” (Tudḫaliya II’s treaty with Sunaššura, lines 53–57). For a description of this border, see KBo I 5, lines 40–66; Ernst F. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien (Boghazköi Studien 8–9; Leipzig, 1923) 108–11; Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (2nd ed.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 17–26; compare with Albrecht Götze, Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography (YOSR 22; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1940) 50–51; John Garstang and Oliver R. Gurney, The Geography of the Hittite Empire (London: British Institute of Archaeology, 1959) 59. Although the city of Adaniya was the most important of the regional centers close to the border, it was around 35 km from

Ezekiel’s Vision of the Ideal Land

173

Ezekiel adopts a different descriptive method from the “place and verb” system that was characteristic of the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document. While the northern border depiction in Ezekiel commences from the same point of origin—the Great Sea—it goes on to refer to a series of sites without connecting verbs, subsequently defining the regions mentioned by way of two comments: “which lies between the border of Damascus and the border of Hauran” and “which is the border of Hauran” (Ezek 47:16). Damascus, Hamath, and Hauran—as well as the Gilead mentioned on the eastern border (v. 18)—were Babylonian provinces, some of which derived from the Assyrian administrative division established in southern Syria and the land of Israel as early as following the conquests of Tiglath-pileser III (733–732 b.c.e.). 15 Ezekiel’s descriptive method indicates that the border passed between the provinces of Damascus and Hamath, northeast of Damascus. It is likely that Ezekiel used contemporary geographical knowledge and thus delineated the border with the help of terms familiar in his day to bring it into line with the geo-political reality of the sixth century b.c.e. in Syria and the land of Israel. 16 We are not necessarily compelled to presuppose that the author of the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document failed to allude to the names of these provinces because he lived in a period prior to their establishment, however. 17 The above discussion indicates that the earliest date to which that composition can be ascribed is the end of the seventh century. In intending to identify the land of Canaan for the Israelites on the eve of their entrance into it, its author the line. On the basis of such parallels, it is feasible to speculate that Berathah/Berothai was a significant city in the border region but was not situated on the boundary line. 15.  See Emil Forrer, Die Provinzeinleitung des Assyrischen Reiches (Leipzig, 1920) 69–70 (and the accompanying map); Benedikt Otzen, “Israel under the Assyrians,” in Power and Propaganda (ed. M. T. Larsen; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979) 252; Bustenay Oded, “Observations on Methods of Assyrian Rule in Transjordania after the Palestinian Campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III,” JNES 29 (1970) 177–86. The first comment appears to demarcate the location of Sibraim, while the second relates to Hazarhatticon; (for this corruption, see above, p. 171, note b). From a grammatical perspective, however, the first comment can apply to more than one site, thereby allowing for the possibility that Berathah may also have been situated “between the border of Damascus and the border of Hamath.” 16.  See Hayim Tadmor, “The Southern Border of Aram,” Yediot 25 (1961) 209–10 [Hebrew]; Mazar, “Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Border of Canaan,” 198–99; R. de Vaux, “Le Pays de Canaan,” in Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser (ed. W. W. Hallo; AOS 53; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1968) 28–30; Zecharia Kallai, “The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible,” ErIsr 12 (Glueck Volume; 1975) 27 [Hebrew]. 17.  As de Vaux concludes (see above, n. 10).

174

Chapter 6

may have been cautious about introducing anachronisms and thus refrained from attaching later terminology to the divine promise. In Ezekiel’s unique descriptive methodology, the northern border passes through various regions and is delineated by the formula “from between . . . and between. . . .” The depiction of the eastern boundary, which follows the northern border, uses the same system, as I shall now discuss.

The Eastern Border The eastern border as described in Ezekiel is demarcated solely by the names of provinces and regions: Hauran, Damascus, Gilead, and the land of Israel (see table 6.2). The territory of the land includes the province of Damascus and the land of Israel, with Hauran and Gilead lying outside its purview. The continuation of the border depiction follows the course of the Jordan to the “Eastern Sea”—that is, the Dead Sea (cf. Joel 2:20, Zech 14:8). The border description concludes with the verb ‫תמֹדו‬. ָ This form is surprising here, because it is the only verb in Ezekiel’s border portrayal. The text should perhaps be emended, as in the LXX and Peshiṭta, to read ‫תמרה‬, “toward Tamar,” which is the toponym mentioned in the southern border description (v. 19). The textual corruption appears to be the influence of the measurement terminology prevalent in chaps. 40–48 (see 40:5, 20; 42:20; 45:3; etc.). 18 Terms of this sort are appropriate to border delineations, as the expressions “draw a line (for yourselves) ([‫ ”)תתאו ]לכם‬in the northern boundary description of the “land of Canaan” (Num 34:7–8) and “draw a line (‫ ”)התאויתם לכם‬in the eastern border (v. 10) indicate. The treaty with the demarcation of the border between Ḫatti and Kizzuwatna (from the beginning of the fourteenth century b.c.e.) also contains the sentence: “the border district will be surveyed and divided between them” (Tudḫaliya II’s treaty with Sunaššura, lines 41, 44, 47, 50). 19

The Southern Border Ezekiel describes the southern border twice, in virtually identical formulations—once in delineating the boundaries (Ezek 47:19) and once in the depiction of the southern-most allotment of the Gadites (Ezek 48:28). For the sake of comparison, I shall also cite here the description of the southern Judahite border that is the source of the southern border portrayal in the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document (see above, pp. 139–159). The longer and two shorter descriptions of the northern border discussed above differ one from another. The longer lists seven toponyms (compared with 18. See Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel, 531; Zimmerl’, Ezekiel, 519–20. 19.  See above, n. 14.

Ezekiel’s Vision of the Ideal Land

175

Table 6.2.  The Eastern Border Description Numbers 34:10–11

Ezekiel 47:18

For your eastern boundary you shall draw a line

As the eastern limit:

from Hazar-enan to Shepham.

a line between Hauran and (between) Damascus,

From Shepham the boundary shall descend to Riblah on the east side of Ain;

and between Gilead and (between) the land of Israel:

from there the boundary shall descend and abut on the eastern slopes of the Sea of Kinneret. The boundary shall then descend along the Jordan

the Jordan as a boundary,a

and its limits shall be at the Dead Sea.

you shall measure down to the Eastern Sea. That shall be the eastern limit.

a. The LXX reads ‫ מגבול‬as a verb: “The Jordan divides (to the sea)”: see below, p. 178 n. 26. Since the root ‫( גבל‬gbl) usually refers to the parties’ setting up of borders rather than to the border mark itself (see Deut 19:14; Exod 19:12, 23), we should perhaps read here “the Jordan and (its) border” (see Deut 3:17; Josh 13:23, 27). On the other hand, the description of the Benjaminite border (Josh 18:20: “On the eastern rim, the Jordan was their boundary [‫)”]והירדן יגבל אתו לפאת קדמה‬ may attest a similar phrase in a similar context: the Jordan serves to mark the border of the territory—assuming, of course, that this is not a textual corruption (see BHS).

six in the Numbers passage) and three additional regions along the boundary (Damascus, Hamath, and Hauran). The brief account immediately following (Ezek 47:17), on the other hand, only refers to two toponyms and two regions, and the abbreviated sketch of the Danites (48:1) lists three sites and two regions. Ezekiel’s description of the southern border—the territory as a whole and a repeated delineation of the southern-most tribal allotment—only appears in condensed form. Four toponyms appear in the two passages—Tamar, the waters of Meriboth/Meribath-kadesh, the Wadi (of Egypt), and the Great Sea—in contrast to the eight given in Numbers 34 (see table 6.3 below). The southern border commences from Tamar, which Aharoni identifies with Hazevah. 20 Ezekiel thus explicitly incorporates the northern Arabah within the territory of the land of Israel—in contrast to the description of the “land of Canaan,” which only hints at this inclusion by shifting the beginning of the boundary from 20.  The modern ʿAin Ḥuṣub: see Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967) 51. See above, p. 155 n. 81.

Chapter 6

176

Table 6.3.  The Southern Border Description Joshua 15:1b–4

Numbers 34:3–5

Ezekiel 47:19

Toward the territory of Edom,

Your southern sector shall extend

the wilderness of Zin on the south, the southern sector.

opposite the Wilderness south of Zin alongside Edom. [‫]תימנה‬

(south). [‫]תימנה‬

Their southern boundary extended

Your southern boundary shall be

This boundary

from the tip of the Dead Sea, from the tongue that projects southward.

from the tip of the Dead from Tamar Sea on the east.

from Tamar

It shall proceed to the south of the Ascent of Akrabbim

Your boundary shall then turn south of the Ascent of Akrabbim

and pass(ed) on to Zin

and pass on to Zin,

and ascended to the south and its limits shall be of Kadesh-barnea south of Kadesh-barnea

The southern sector: [‫]ופאת נגב‬

Ezekiel 48:28 the southern sector [‫]אל פאת נגב‬

to the waters the waters of of Meriboth- Meribathkadesh, kadesh,

and pass on to Hezron, and proceed to ascend to Addar, and turn Hazar-addar toward Karka. And pass on to Azmon

and pass on to Azmon.

and proceed to the Wadi of Egypt;

From Azmon the boundary shall turn toward the Wadi of Egypt

along the Wadi [of Egypt]

along the Wadi [of Egypt]

and the boundary’s limits shall be at the Sea.

and its limits shall be at the Sea.

to the Great Sea.

to the Great Sea.

That shall be your southern boundary.

That is the southern sector, on the south.

south of the Dead Sea (Josh 15:2) to its eastern bank. Since it is more likely that Tamar was added to the depiction rather than deleted, its appearance strengthens the supposition that the vision recorded in Ezekiel is later than Numbers, updating the description of Numbers to fit the author’s period. 21 21.  The scholars who argue that Numbers’ portrayal is later than Ezekiel’s frequently fail to explain why Tamar was omitted: see, for example, Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 2:530.

Ezekiel’s Vision of the Ideal Land

177

The following location is Meriboth/Meribath-kadesh—namely, Kadeshbarnea. This appellation appears in other biblical texts (see Num 27:14, Deut 32:51), its abbreviated form being “the waters of Meribah” (Num 20:13, 24; Deut 33:8; Ps 81:8; 106:32). The name recalls the incident for which the place is known according to P: the story of the Israelites’ strife with God, and Moses’ and Aaron’s sin in not believing God and treating him as holy in the sight of the people when he commanded them to bring forth water from the rock (Num 20:1–13). 22 The Priestly designation and the fact that Ezekiel is the only source to use it not in reference to the incident at Meribah manifest Ezekiel’s affinities with P, 23 and also the liberty that the author of Ezekiel afforded himself in reworking the source in his hands. The following section of the border is also described in abbreviated form: “the Wadi [of Egypt] to 24 the Great Sea.” The form ‫נחלה‬, with the locative hêh added to the noun, appears only here and in the other two parallel depictions; thus it is an additional witness to Ezekiel’s textual affinities with these passages. Ezekiel’s failure to identify the wadi by name may derive from his belief that it was well known and required no specification. 25 It appears that the condensed form that the author of Ezekiel elected to employ meant that he only included the places most important for delineating the border, omitting the Ascent of Akrabbim, Zin, Hazar-addar, and Azmon. He also neglected to identify the borderline in relation to the toponyms mentioned, such as adding “south of Kadesh-barnea.” Although his apparent lack of interest in the details of the southern boundary led him to keep the description as brief as possible, he was careful to mark the course of the line through Kadesh-barnea and across the Wadi (of Egypt), rather than sufficing with a general comment of the type “from sea to sea.” Since he uses this type of formulation in his schematic description of the tribal borderline—“from the eastern sector to the western sector” (see 48:1–8, 23–27)—the abbreviated form may best be understood as evidence that he was relying on the reader’s acquaintance with the borderline, thereby obviating the need to provide precise details. 22.  A different tradition links the name Meribah with another location in the desert: see Exod 17:7, Ps 95:8. It is unclear which episode Deut 33:8 refers to: see Samuel Rolles Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895) 399–400. 23.  See Menahem Haran, Ages and Institutions in the Bible (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1972) 45 n. 8 [Hebrew]. 24.  ‫ אל‬in Ezek 47:19, ‫ על‬in 48:28. 25.  Compare with the reference to another wadi in the Judahites’ northern boundary: “Gilgal, facing the Ascent of Adummim which is south of the wadi ” (Josh 15:7). In Joshua 15, “the wadi” signifies the location of the border site rather than the boundary itself, although both there and here (Ezek 48:28) the wadi is presumed to be familiar enough that explicit identification is superfluous.

178

Chapter 6

The Western Border The designation “the Great Sea” appears in all three of the western border descriptions, accompanied by the term ‫( לובג‬gĕbūl). While Ezekiel’s terminology, “shall be the boundary [lit.: from the boundary] opposite Lebo-hamath (‫ חכֹנ דע לובגמ‬.  .  .),” suggests that the noun serves here as the name of the place where the western border commences, we know of no location called “Gebul” at the southwestern end of the land. A comparison with the parallel text in Numbers and the Judahite boundary description (see table 6.4) indicates that the original formulation was “And the western sector: The Great Sea and [its] border up to opposite Lebo-hamath (‫אובל חכנ דע לובגו לודגה םיה םי תאפו‬ ‫)תמח‬.” Since subsequent scribes were unfamiliar with the the expression ‫לובגו‬ (the translators of the Septuagint also had difficulty in rendering it), 26 the development of the corruption is clear. Ezekiel added the phrase “up to opposite Lebo-hamath” to his delineation of the border, thereby creating a link between the western and northern limits. Because the western boundary was the final side of his depiction, he appears to have sought to complete the borderline by bringing it back to its point of origin with this phrase. The southern and western borders, which appear one after the other, seem to reflect the same textual process: Ezekiel’s portrayal depended on that of the “land of Canaan,” although the writer allowed himself a large degree of license in reworking his source and did not feeling obliged to follow its details closely.

North and South: The Disparities in the Descriptions and Their Significance The above analysis of the southern border has demonstrated that Ezekiel’s description was dependent on that of the “land of Canaan,” with a reduction in the number of locations (four) used to delineate the boundary. This condensed version served the author of Ezekiel both as his full depiction of the land’s continuous borderline (Ezek 47:19) and as his portrayal of the southern tribal allotment, which he assigned to the Gadites (48:28). Although he could have employed the same method in demarcating the northern boundary—such a description following the complete border sketch (Ezek 47:17) and appearing 26.  In the places where this expression appears, the LXX adopts one of two methods of rendering it: occasionally, it interprets the sentence as though it were a nominal clause (“the wadi/Jordan is the border”—cf. Deut 3:16, 17; Josh 13:23), while at other times it reads the phrase as a verb (“the Jordan/Great Sea borders”—cf. Num 34:6; Josh 13:27; 15:12, 47; Ezek 47:20): see HALOT 1:172; see above, p. 175 , note a.

Ezekiel’s Vision of the Ideal Land

179

Table 6.4.  The Western Border Description Joshua 15:12

Numbers 34:6

Ezekiel 47:20

And the western boundary And the western boundary And the western sector you shall have the Great Sea (‫ )הימה‬and (its) border

the Great Sea and (its) border.

the Great Sea shall be the boundary up to opposite Lebo-hamath.

That shall serve as your western boundary

That shall be the western sector

in the depiction of the tribal allotment (Ezek 48:1)—he refrained from summarizing and “updated” the northern border sketch by inserting geographical locations and terminology. By thus delineating the boundary according to a disparate system, he differed widely from the parallel in Numbers. Ezekiel’s unique descriptive method is striking in its use of a literary form commonly adopted by border-demarcation officials in the ancient Near East. The border commences “from the sea,” as in the original depiction (see the identical delineation at the beginning of the border description between Ḫatti and Kizzuwatna in Tudḫaliya II’s treaty with Sunaššura, line 40: “in the direction of the sea [lit.: from the sea]”). It then passes Hethlon, Lebo-hamath, and Zedad, reference also being made to the places situated in the territory of the provinces it crosses—Berathah and Sibraim. As it continues, the eastern borderline passes north of the boundary of Damascus (the province of Hauran lying on the other side of the border) and between the land of Israel and the province of Gilead, the border being marked finally by the Jordan. 27 The use of the formula “between (the territory of) . . . and between (the territory of) . . .” also appears in the description of the location of the land given to the Temple, 27.  Our text evinces great similarity with Tudḫaliya II’s treaty with Sunaššura, an affinity that would be strengthened even more if the treaty had been a border delineation from the perspective of only one of the parties concerned—a Hittite version, for example—since we would then have been given a list of border places/districts and a river as demarcations of the boundary: in the direction of the sea, Lamiya, Aruna, Saliya, Anamusta; the districts on the city of Turutna’s side of the border and those on Ḫatti’s side; and the city of Sirika, with the Shamri River as the border. For a reconstruction of the unilateral Hittite perspective, see Giuseppe F. del Monte and Johann Tischler, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte (Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 6; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1978) 41, s.v. Aruna.

180

Chapter 6

priests, levites, and prince: “between the territory of Judah and (between) the territory of Benjamin” (Ezek 48:22). This text in turn resembles the delineation of the Benjaminite allotment in Joshua: “The territory which fell to their lot lay between the Judahites and (between) the Josephites” (Josh 18:11). The formulation and citation of the river as demarcating the border are characteristic of the language of boundary descriptions: “The Lord has made the Jordan a boundary between you and (between) us” (Josh 22:25) and “for the Arnon is the boundary of Moab, between Moab and (between) the Amorites” (Num 21:13), for example. Assuming that the author of Ezekiel was acquainted with contemporary demarcation norms is consistent with his association with books. This link is exemplified in his early symbolic act of eating the scroll when God calls him to the prophetic office (Ezek 3:1)—in contrast to Isaiah, whose lips are cleansed by fiery coals from the altar (Isa 6:7), and Jeremiah, whose mouth God touches with his hand (Jer 1:9). 28 Ezekiel’s prophecy contains numerous archaic expressions (principally in the passages about Tyre in chaps. 26–28), some of which are paralleled in Ugaritic literature. 29 His literary proficiency and command of technical terminology are two of the prominent features of the book that bears his name. The disparities in the length of the northern and southern border descriptions, the different methods they adopt, and the degree of detail they contain all are witnesses to Ezekiel’s particular interest in the northern border. This section may have been especially significant to him in light of the absence of a parallel depiction in the portrayals of the tribal allotments (see below, pp. 242–243)— which is in striking contrast to the clearly defined southern boundary that appears at the end of the Judahites’ sector (Josh 15:1–4). 28. Haim Gevaryahu, “Maʾaseh sophrim be-sepher yehezkel [Scribal Activity in the Book of Ezekiel],” in Iyunim be-sepher yehezkel (ed. Y. Avishur; Jerusalem: Society for the Study of the Bible in Israel, 1982) 27. 29.  See H. J. van Dijk, Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre: Ez. 26,1–28,19 (BibOr 20; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968) 48–91. A striking feature is the comparison between the king of Tyre and Dan(i)el (Ezek 28:3), the righteous figure who is familiar to us from the epic Ugaritic poem, together with the reference to Dan(i)el alongside Noah and Job in Ezek 14:14, 20: see Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983) 257. The dirge over Tyre in Ezekiel 27 compares Tyre to a magnificent ship that serviced the important Phoenician cities, apparently reflecting the period of Tyre’s prosperity under Ethbaal in the ninth century b.c.e.: see Hans J. Katzenstein, The History of Tyre (Jerusalem: Schocken, 1973) 154. According to Mazar, Ezekiel makes use of Phoenician literature in this passage: Benjamin Mazar, “Ancient Israelite Historiography,” IEJ 2 (1952) 82–83.

Ezekiel’s Vision of the Ideal Land

181

The vague sketch of the northern border in the tribal-allocation descriptions reflects true confusion with regard to the relationship between the promised territory and the actual region settled—confusion that may also have derived in part from a lack of information. Given these problems, the author of Ezekiel may have sought to present his own ideal definition of the land’s boundaries and internal tribal divisions simply and clearly. He describes the northern border of the land of Canaan explicitly and cogently by means of a literal map, which he delineates as a way to present anew the territory’s division among the tribes, and the northern border serves as the northern limit of the Danites, which was the northernmost tribe. Apart from Moses, Ezekiel is the only figure represented in the biblical texts as mediating divine laws to the Israelites. Moshe Greenberg notes that Ezekiel’s program of presenting ordinances is selective rather than comprehensive, and it contains only the topics whose existing significance he sought to alter. 30 We should therefore not attempt to understand his prophecy about the borders of the land and the tribal allotments without also taking its polemical background into account. In the “Book of Settlement,” God is responsible for dividing the land into tribal allotments. This distribution was recorded in a document for all generations. Even though this act was dependent on human involvement such as surveying, casting lots (Josh 18:1–10), local feats of conquest (Josh 15:13– 19), and forest clearing (Josh 17:14–18), the editor still stresses the fact that the tribal settlement west of the Jordan was executed in accordance with the divine command given to Joshua: “Therefore, divide this land into hereditary portions for the nine tribes and half-tribe of Manasseh” (Josh 13:7). 31 Numbers 34 reflects a similar world view, portraying God as the supreme ruler who granted sovereignty over the land to his people, Israel. Seen in this light, Ezekiel’s revision of the tribal borders is a revolutionary recasting of the boundary concept. The text is represented as a renewal of the original promise of the land to the patriarchs (Ezek 47:14: “As I swore to give it to your fathers”). While the author of Ezekiel demarcates it with the same external territorial 30.  Greenberg, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” 203, 208. 31. Contra Greenberg, who distinguishes between the tribal allotment in the days of Joshua, performed by casting lots, and the division in Ezekiel, which was based on the divine command: Moshe Greenberg, “Idealism and Practicality in Numbers 35:4–5 and Ezekiel 48,” in Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995) 320. Although Ezekiel focuses on the divine origin of the allocation in all its details, even in Joshua the casting of lots is done “before the Lord” (Josh 18:10), a phrase that attests the divine sponsorship of the act.

182

Chapter 6

boundaries, however, he significantly transforms its internal divisions, transferring the historical location of the two and a half tribes to the west side of the Jordan. In deliberately divorcing himself from the “Book of Settlement,” the author of Ezekiel is refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the Israelite settlement east of the Jordan, whether in its Priestly version (Numbers 32) or its most sympathetic Deuteronomistic description (Deuteronomy 3). He relocates all 12 of the tribes west of the Jordan, within the boundaries of the “land of Canaan”—“this land”—as well as reforming the status of the alien residents who are living in Israel so that they merge together with the Israelites and receive allotments equally with all the tribes: “This land you shall divide for yourselves among the tribes of Israel. You shall allot it as a heritage for yourselves and the strangers who reside among you. You shall treat them as Israelite citizens; they shall receive allotments along with you among the tribes of Israel” (Ezek 47:21–22). Another polemical element can also be adduced. According to Ezekiel, the tribal allocation is implemented by dividing the land into wide swaths, perhaps in order to create a full and optimal parity between the various geographical features—coast, mountains, and valleys—that fall into the area settled by each tribe. 32 In this way, every tribe receives equal territory: the ideal land is divided evenly among the tribes, and the divine promise to the patriarchs is thereby fulfilled explicitly: “and you shall share the rest equally. As I swore to your fathers, so shall this land fall to you and your heritage” (Ezek 47:14). In order to transform the earlier tribal division, the author of Ezekiel must also revise the divine command from which it originated. He does this by introducing the formula of the prophetic office at the beginning and conclusion of the unit: “Thus said the Lord God: These shall be the boundaries of the land that you shall allot to the twelve tribes of Israel” (47:13); “That is the land which you shall allot as a heritage to the tribes of Israel, and those are their portions—declares the Lord God” (48:29). 33 By fusing the traditional external borders (the boundaries given in the promise) with a new internal division, he gives his prophecy the proper amount of weight for a revolutionary, ideological revision of the future land. This step shows the position that the Promised Land and its precise borders held in the Priestly religious world view. 32.Greenberg, Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought, 321–22. 33. For Ezek 47:13–48:29 as representing a royal grant, see Engelhard, “Ezekiel 47:13–48:29 as Royal Grant,” where he correctly opposes commentators’ attempts to exclude any divine intervention from the description.

Chapter 7

The Dimensions of the Land in the “Book of Conquest” (Joshua 1–12) The book of Joshua describes the fulfillment of God’s promise of the land to the Israelites in two sections. Chapters 1–12 portray Joshua and the people as taking possession of all the land, while chaps. 13–20—the Book of Settlement— depict the land’s division into tribal allotments and settlement. The three resumés that conclude the taking-possession narratives provide details about the scope of the land. The first follows the description of the military campaign against the kings of the south (Josh 10:40–42); the second, more general, follows the story of the battle at the Waters of Merom and the conquest of the northern region (Josh 11:16–17); the third, a general summary, forms part of the preface to the list of the kings of the land whose cities were captured, in chap. 12 (Josh 12:7–8). All three resumés contain similar formulations, as table 7.1 shows: Table 7.1.  Comparison of Resumés First Resumé (Joshua 10:40–42)

Second Resumé (Joshua 11:16–20)

Third Resumé (Joshua 12:7–8) The following are the kings of the country

Joshua smote

Joshua took

the whole country:

the whole of this country:

the hill country, the Negeb, the hill country, the whole the Shephelah, and the Negeb, the whole land of slopes, Goshen, the Shephelah, the Arabah, and the hill country and coastal plain of Israel,

185

whom Joshua and the Israelites smote on the west side of the Jordan. From Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon to Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir—

186

Chapter 7

with all their kings; he let none escape, but proscribed everything that breathed—as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded. Joshua assigned as a possession to the tribal divisions of Israel: Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, all the land of Goshen, and up to Gibeon.

from Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir, to Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon at the foot of Mount Hermon.

in the hill country, in the Shephelah, in the Arabah, in the slopes, in the wilderness, and in the Negeb the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Periz­ zites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Joshua captured all those kings and their lands at a single stroke, for the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.

And he captured all their kings and smote them and executed them. Joshua waged war with all those kings over a long period. Apart from the Hivites who dwelt in Gibeon, not a single city made terms with the Israelites; all were taken in battle. For it was the Lord’s doing to stiffen their hearts to give battle to Israel, in order that they might be proscribed without quarter and wiped out, as the Lord had commanded Moses.

All three statements adopt a descriptive method that resembles the summary victory-and-conquest depictions found in Assyrian royal inscriptions. This technique combines generalities, meristic expressions, lists of nations, cities, geographic regions, and striking topographical features. The accounting of military victories via such parallel, complementary forms is designed to concretize and emphasize the magnitude of the Assyrian ruler’s accomplishments.

The Dimensions of the Land

187

The affinities that the biblical text shares with these royal inscriptions is not surprising, since the inscriptions are also summaries of acts of vanquishment performed by a heroic figure who was blessed with divine favor. However, the three resumés are distinguished from the Assyrian texts by the world view that infuses them. The conquests of the Assyrian kings are unconstrained by time or space: the rulers embark on annual military campaigns in order to subjugate the whole world, commencing from Assyria and extending their reach outward—an overtly monocentric perspective. In distinction, Joshua and the Israelites set out to conquer a delimited and defined area, at a specific historical moment in time, penetrating inward, into the Promised Land, with the goal of subduing it in order to settle there. While the biblical descriptions of the possession of the land thus employ the terminology of “imperialistic conquest,” they reflect a multicentric rather than monocentric world view. 1

The Resumé of the Conquest of the South (Joshua 10:40–42) The first resumé, in Joshua 10, comes after the war against the kings of the south and concludes the principal narrative sections on taking possession of the land in Joshua 6–10:   (40) Thus Joshua smote the whole country: the hill country, the Negeb, the Shephelah, and the slopes, with all their kings; he let none escape, but proscribed everything that breathed—as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded.   (41) Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, all the land of Go­ shen, and up to Gibeon.   (42) Joshua captured all those kings and their lands at a single stroke, for the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.

The general indicator “the whole country” (v. 40) is elaborated by a spatial merism consisting of four members: “from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, all the land of Goshen, and up to Gibeon.” The fact that all four of these sites are situated in the 1.  For a comprehensive comparison between the conquest descriptions in Joshua 9–12 and ancient Near Eastern literature, see K. Lawson Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing (JSOTSup 98; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). Younger fails to distinguish, however, between the boundary concepts in Joshua and in Assyrian inscriptions (p. 198), and regards the various conquest resumés in Joshua as complementary statements (see pp. 241–57).

188

Chapter 7

south of the country indicates that the verse does not intend at this juncture to claim that Joshua vanquished “the whole country” but that the territory already subjugated by Joshua encompassed the southern section. The four toponyms do not necessarily represent the “four winds of heaven,” nor do they mark the borders of the land conquered. 2 Likewise, the syntactical link between them cannot be taken as evidence of their nature or role in delineating the territory. 3 The merism must be assumed to refer to the territorial entity, the southern border of which is specified in the description of the Judahites’ allotment and “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document. 4 Although Gaza 2. Contra Galil, who asserts: “Kadesh-barnea represents the southern border of the territory Joshua conquered. . . . Gaza represents the western (southwestern) end; Gibeon represents the northern boundary, and Goshen the eastern or southeastern frontier”: Gershon Galil, “The Administrative Districts of the Judean Hill Area,” Zion 49 (1984) 209 [Hebrew]. While Galil seeks to base his identification of Goshen on this idea, as I have remarked above (pp. 80–81) meristic expressions customarily contain members with disparate qualities rather than necessarily representing the four winds. It is thus better to adopt Kallai’s proposal that Goshen be identified solely on the basis of geo-historical considerations: Zecharia Kallai, “The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible,” ErIsr 12 (Glueck Volume; 1975) 31 [Hebrew]. Although Kallai also endeavors to relate the locations mentioned to four directions, it is not for the purpose of identification. He regards Kadesh-barnea and Gibeon as representing the limits of the pertinent northern and southern territory vanquished by Joshua. Gaza is a secondary direction-indicator across the width of the land, and Goshen consists of the populated area in the center of this territory. 3.  The suggestion that the phrase “to Gaza” attests to the fact that Joshua did not subdue Philistia, of which Gaza was the principal city, is grounded in an attempt at harmonization: contra Yehezkel Kaufmann, Sepher Yehoshua [The Book of Joshua] (Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1963) 148; Shmuel Aḥituv, Joshua (Mikra LeYisraʾel; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1995) 39, 173 [Hebrew]. Gaza is one of the members of the general indicator “the whole country” and thus denotes here the southern region captured by Joshua—that is, Philistia. This view is adopted by Richard Nelson, although without use of the term “merism”: Richard D. Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 148. 4.  As does Naʾaman, for example: Nadav Naʾaman, “The Brook of Egypt and the Assyrian Policy on the Egyptian Border,” in Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction. Collected Essays, vol. 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005) 266. The reference to Gaza, however, does not necessarily mean identifying the “Wadi of Egypt” with Nahal Besor, as Naʾaman contends. In contrast to the borderline delineated in “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document (Num 34:1–12), the merism in the conquest resumé represents the cities struck by Joshua; it thus mentions towns rather than geographical features. Gaza is indeed the center of the representative settlement at the southwestern end of the country—even if the author conceived the southern territory of the Promised Land as stretching southward from the city, on Wadi El-Arish

The Dimensions of the Land

189

is not mentioned in these sketches and its proximity to the border is disputed, 5 Kadesh-barnea explicitly marks the southern borderline (Josh 15:3, Num 34:4) and is evidence that the scope of the land subdued—according to the resumé— reaches to the southern dimensions of the land of Canaan. It must nevertheless be noted that the resumé does not define territory. The predicate (verb) of the sentence and its object—“(Joshua) smote them”—indicate that the expression denotes the cities that Joshua captured, Kadesh-barnea and Gaza thus represent the towns subjugated. 6 While the biblical text provides us with no description of the defeat of Kadesh-barnea, the Judahites’ boundary depiction and the “land of Canaan” document that follows it assert that the border passed “south of Kadesh-barnea” (Josh 15:3, Num 34:4). Likewise, although Gaza is not mentioned in the conquest accounts in Joshua, Judges notes that it was captured by the Judahites (Judg 1:18). The southern Judahite boundary and that of the “land of Canaan” followed the “Wadi of Egypt,” which is consensually agreed to be south of Gaza. Gaza is also included in the Philistine section of the lists of cities belonging to the tribe of Judah: “Ashdod, its dependencies and its villages—Gaza, its dependencies and its villages, all the way to the Wadi of Egypt and the Great Sea” (Josh 15:47). Why did the author of this resumé elect to describe Joshua’s conquests in the south by means of Kadesh-barnea and Gaza, cities that are absent from the possession narratives? His choice appears to reflect variant conquest traditions that do not appear in the Book of Conquest. The last of the four members of the merism is Gibeon. Ostensibly, Gibeon is particularly suited to represent “the northern border of the southern conquest.” 7 Its appearance here is appropriate to its central role in the takingpossession narrative (Joshua 9–10) as well being the northernmost city mentioned up to this point. However, the resumé—which presents Gibeon as one of the cities that Joshua captured, killing its kings and proscribing all its residents (v.  40)—ignores the fact that the Gibeonites struck a pact with the Israelites (the common identification of the “Wadi of Egypt”). For a critique of Naʾaman’s theory, see Anson F. Rainey, “Toponymic Problems (cont.): The Brook of Egypt,” Tel Aviv 9 (1982) 131–32. 5.  Gaza was the most important Egyptian administrative center in the southwest part of the country: see Hans Katzenstein, “Gaza in the Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdoms,” JAOS 102 (1982) 111–13. The city is also referred to in Neo-Assyrian conquest summary inscriptions and biblical spatial merisms: in the description of the Canaanite boundary in the Table of Nations (Gen 10:19), the depiction of the land raided by the Midianites in the story of Gideon (Judg 6:4), and the portrayal of the region of Eberhanahar (1 Kgs 5:4). 6.  For this sense of the Hiphil of the root ‫נכה‬, see BDB 646, §3. 7.  Aḥituv, Joshua, 174; Nelson, Joshua, 148.

190

Chapter 7

whereby their cities were annexed to Israel as a Hivite enclave. The conquest as a whole is portrayed as a miraculous event (v. 42) and contains no reference to places that remaining unvanquished. The second resumé, at the end of chap. 11, inserts a revision in this regard. Sensing an inconsistency between the complete conquest and the story of the Gibeonites, its author modified the unequivocal sentence, “not a single city made terms with the Israelites; all were taken in battle” (Josh 11:19) by adding the clause “apart from the Hivites who dwelt in Gibeon” (which is lacking in the LXX). The language of the first resumé, however, contains no such amendment, merely broad generalizations and a fivefold repetition of the word ‫כל‬ (“all”/“whole”): Thus Joshua conquered the whole country: the hill country, the Negeb, the Shephelah, and the slopes, with all their kings; he let none escape, but proscribed everything that breathed—as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded. Joshua conquered them from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, all the land of Goshen, and up to Gibeon. All those kings and their lands were conquered by Joshua at a single stroke.

The original text of the resumés thus appears not to have referred to the deception by means of which the Gibeonites avoided the fate of proscription. Gibeon appears parallel to Kadesh-barnea and Gaza because it was an important border site in northern Judah, both in reality and in historical consciousness. 8 This representation is consistent with the fact that the Book of Settlement itself contains no hint of a tradition that the Gibeonites were a Hivite enclave. The list of Benjaminite cities does not distinguish between the Gibeonite towns and the other Benjaminite cities; it lists the Gibeonite towns indiscriminantly as part of the tribal allotment (Josh 18:25). While the notation of Gibeon in the merism summarizing Joshua’s southern conquests may be indirectly linked to the role that the story plays in Joshua 9–10, it portrays precisely the opposite view—namely, that Gibeon was an inseparable part of Israel’s inheritance and was not a Hivite enclave. 8.  Compare the description of David’s conquest of Philistia: “David did as God had commanded him; and they routed the Philistines from Gibeon all the way to Gezer” (1 Chr 14:16). While the parallel text reads “from Geba all the way to Gezer” (2 Sam 5:25), the LXX reading of Gibeon should be preferred here (see BH). Demsky’s suggestion that the phrase “from Geba to Beer-sheba” in 2 Kgs 23:8 (which describes the scope of Josiah’s reform throughout the cities of Judah) in fact refers to Gibeon is persuasive: Aaron Demsky, “Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon: An Historico-Geographic Riddle,” BASOR 212 (1973) 26–31. It is possible that the author chose the abbreviated form of the name (Geba) in his depiction of Josiah’s reform in order to rhyme with Beer-sheba (see above, p. 79).

The Dimensions of the Land

191

The general indicator “all the (land of) 9 Goshen” recurs at the end of the second resumé, which separates the descriptions of the various regions of the land (Josh 11:16). This site—not to be identified with the Goshen of Egypt (Gen 46:28, etc.)—is not mentioned in the taking-possession traditions and indeed is known from no other sources. Its citation alongside Kadesh-barnea, Gaza, and Gibeon in a merism indicating the area of Joshua’s southern conquests points to the importance of this strip of land in the summarizing author’s eyes—a significance that remains obscure to us. According to the majority of commentators, Goshen represents a region known by the same name that was located in the first district of Judah (Josh 15:51). It is thus possible that this place also implies a link with the Book of Settlement. 10 The fact that a conquest resumé exists in this form and at this juncture in the text is rather surprising in itself. At this point in the narrative, despite the Israelites’ victory over the kings of the south, the people have not yet taken full possession of the land. The general term “the whole country” and the list of regions in v. 40 (“the hill country, the Negeb, the Shephelah, and the slopes”) both suggest a total conquest; 11 these elements are also repeated in the subsequent resumés at the conclusion of the whole possession narrative (Josh 11:16, 12:8; for the list, see Deut 1:7). What prompted the author to halt at precisely this specific moment in his description of the conquest of the land to summarize Joshua’s feats and depict them as though portraying the complete possession of the land? The delineated area is congruent with the territory of the Kingdom of Judah. The fact that the author appears to display a special interest in this district helps to elucidate his designation of the southern region as “the whole country,” as though in reference to the Promised Land in its entirety. Support for 9.  The word “land” is missing in the LXX. 10.  See Robert G. Boling, Joshua (AB 6; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982) 298. For a review of the proposed identifications of Goshen, see Yigal Levin, “The Land of Goshen, Gibeon and the Southern Frontier of Saul’s Kingdom,” Judaea and Samaria Research Studies 11 (2002) 53–54 [Hebrew]. According to Levin, “The demarcation ‘all the land of Goshen, and up to Gibeon’ is intended to signify the southern border of Joshua’s conquests in reality—in contrast to the ideal delineation of ‘from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza’” (p. 54, italics his). This claim has no basis, however, either in traditional historical-geographical methodology or in an analysis of the spatial merism such as I have presented above. 11.  The “hill country” and the Shephelah are general topographical terms frequently used to designate the mountains of Judah and the lower hills as one descends toward the coast. The Negeb is the desert area of southern Judah, while the “slopes” represent the eastern inclines of the Judean Desert: see Aḥituv, Joshua, 173. The inclusion of these locations does not indicate that this resumé relates exclusively to the southern region.

192

Chapter 7

this explanation can be found in v. 42, 12 which states that the conquest was accomplished “at a single stroke.” The normal meaning of this expression is “once” (see Josh 6:3, 11, 14; 1 Sam 26:8; compare the plural ‫פעמים רבות‬, which means “many times,” Ps 106:43, Qoh 7:22). Since this sense is not appropriate here, given the magnification of the conquest and the attribution of the victory to God, it should instead be understood as an adverbial form: “at once/in one go”—that is, in one military campaign, as though the author had written ‫בפעם‬ ‫( אחת‬cf. 2 Sam 23:8//1 Chr 11:11). 13 The language of the resumé thus describes the conquest of the territory of the Kingdom of Judah in the most fervent terms: Joshua subdued the whole country (i.e., the territory of the Kingdom of Judah) at a single stroke, “for the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel” (v. 42; cf. v. 14). The placement of the first resumé is thus elucidated in light of the premise that its author was a Judahite who sought to delineate the conquest of Judah separately from the taking-possession of the land in its entirety.

The Resumé of the Full Conquest (Joshua 11:16–17) The second conquest resumé appears in Joshua 11, following the description of the battle at the Waters of Merom—the last war depicted in the Book of Conquest:   (16) Joshua took the whole of this country:

12.  It is difficult to determine whether v. 42 belongs to the original version of the resumé or whether it was added (the phrase “all those kings” repeats “with all their kings” in v. 40, and the expression “and their lands were conquered by Joshua” repeats “thus Joshua smote the whole country,” also in v. 40). 13.  This is also the understanding of the LXX (εἰς ἅπαξ), as well as the majority of translations and modern commentators. The Vulgate’s rendering—“uno impetu”—also approximates this meaning. Niehaus correctly argues that biblical prose does not employ the phrase ‫ פעם אחת‬in the sense of “at one time” (for poetic usage, see Isa 66:8), but his conclusion that we should not understand the expression in this sense here would mean that this conquest was merely an initial, partial victory and Joshua (and subsequent figures) was still facing the challenge of conquering some of the sites a second time: Jeffrey Niehaus, “Paʿam ʾehāt and the Israelite Conquest,” VT 30 (1980) 236–39. This understanding is inconsistent with the character of the passage, which stresses the conquest’s miraculous character; the interpretation appears to derive from Niehaus’s attempt to validate the historical veracity of the text and harmonize it with the archaeological findings with which he is familiar. The phrase should be compared with the expression ‫יום אחד‬, which appears in biblical prose both as meaning “one day” (cf. Num 11:19, Jonah 3:4) and as an adverb meaning “in one day” (Gen 33:13; in poetic language, Isa 9:13), as though it were written ‫( ביום אחד‬Isa 10:17; 47:9).

The Dimensions of the Land

193

The hill country, the whole Negeb, the whole land of Goshen, the Shephelah, the Arabah, and the hill country and coastal plain of Israel   (17) —from Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir, to Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon at the foot of Mount Hermon; and he captured all their kings and smote them and executed them.

The structure of this resumé resembles that of the first. It commences with a general statement, “the whole of this country,” followed by an enumeration of the regions that constitute the vanquished territory, and concluding with a spatial merism. This resumé describes Joshua’s conquests in terms of “taking (‫ ”)ויקח‬rather than “smiting (‫)היּכָה‬.” ִ Both of these roots relate to taking possession of the land, although ‫ ִהיּכָה‬primarily refers to a military action, and ‫ויקח‬ principally designates the consequences of the fighting—the capture of the cities and territory (cf. Gen 48:22, Num 21:25, Deut 3:14). The general list of conquered areas is more extensive than the resumé of the southern conquest. Alongside the “hill country, the Negeb, the whole land of Goshen, the Shephelah, and the Arabah”—a description that closely parallels Josh 10:40–42 14—it also mentions the “hill country of Israel and coastal plain of Israel.” The latter designations are both uncommon in the biblical texts. The term “hill country of Israel” appears elsewhere only in v. 21, 15 and the “coastal plain” in relation to the “hill country of Israel” is a hapax legomenon. The inclusion of the two descriptions is, moreover, unnecessary because the combined denotations “the hill country” and “Shephelah” customarily suffice to represent the whole country (compare the account in the third resumé—Josh 12:8; cf. also Deut 1:7, Josh 9:1). Joshua’s allusion to them is intended to distinguish the present enumeration from the preceding one, which reflects the author’s anachronistic awareness that his account includes the kingdoms of both Judah and Israel. 16 The spatial merism completes the general description and the enumeration. The two places it mentions are unusual representatives of the land’s dimensions. 14.  The Arabah replaces the “slopes,” and the unidentified “whole land of Goshen,” which appears in the spatial merism that delineates the southern conquest (Josh 10:41), is added. 15.  The term does not correspond to the designation “the mountains of Israel,” which is characteristic of Ezekiel’s language (cf. Ezek 36:1–4) and refers to the whole country. Morag suggests that Ezekiel contains an echo of Akkadian usage: the word “mountains” in fact indicates “strips of land” or “regions”: Shelomo Morag, Studies in Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996) 292–98 [Hebrew]. 16.  A similar consciousness is apparent in the elaboration of Joshua’s annihilation of the Anakites to the land as a whole, as is evident in the addition of the phrase “from the entire hill country of Israel” to the description of their elimination from the region around Hebron: “from the entire hill country of Judah” (see Josh 11:21).

194

Chapter 7

“Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir” only appears in the resumés of Joshua’s conquest (here and in the parallel Josh 12:7). It is traditionally identified with Jebel Halak, 17 a mountain that rises over Wadi Zin on the southern border of the “land of Canaan” (see Num 34:4: “and continue to Zin”; see also Num 13:21). The depiction of the mount as “which ascends to Seir”—that is, on the border of Edom—recalls the language of the preface to the Judahite allotment, which itself appears again at the beginning of the city roster of the tribe of Judah: “down to/near the border of Edom” (Josh 15:1, 21). 18 Although apparently Mount Halak represents the southern boundary of the land of Canaan where it borders Edom, its selection here may, rather, indicate the lack of literary dependence between this resumé and the Priestly depiction of the boundaries of the Promised Land. The author appears to have chosen a representative location that lay on the border but was not well known from the precisely detailed border delineation. The northern site that corresponds to Mount Halak is “Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon at the foot of Mount Hermon.” Baal-gad is also mentioned in the parallel text in the third resumé, although there it is associated solely with the first geographical notation: “Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon” (Josh 12:7). Apart from these two verses, the site only appears elsewhere in the description of the northern part of “the land that still remains”; in that passage, it is linked to the second geographical notation: “and the land of the Gebalites, with the whole Lebanon on the east, from Baal-gad at the foot of Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath” (Josh 13:5). The “Valley of the Lebanon” (Biqʿat Ha­ Lebanon) is the valley that separates the Lebanon mountain range from the Anti-Lebanon, which is still known today by a similar name (El-Beqaʿ). In the biblical texts, “Mount Hermon” denotes the Anti-Lebanon (cf. Deut 3:8–9, Josh 12:1). 19 Despite its detailed specification (“in the Valley of the Lebanon at the 17.  See Alois Musil, Arabia Petraea (Vienna, 1907–8) 1:170, 179; 2:32. Although the term ‫ החלק‬is an adjective (cf. Deut 3:25: “this good mountain [‫)]ההר הטוב הזה‬,” it is better to understand the whole expression as a proper name (in similar fashion to the parallel, “Mount Hermon”)—contra Zeʾev Meshel, “The Southern Border of Canaan and Judea: The Geographical Aspect,” Judaea and Samaria Research Studies 9 (2000) 35 [Hebrew]. 18.  “Seir” may have been substituted for “Edom” here because of the world play with “Halak”—as in Jacob’s words to Rebekah: ‫ׂש ִער ואנכי איש חלק‬ ָ ‫ֵׂשו אחי איש‬ ָ ‫“( הן ע‬But my brother Esau is a hairy man and I am smooth-skinned,” Gen 27:11). For the relation between the southern border and Edom, see above, pp. 151–153. 19.  Some scholars regard Mount Hermon as denoting merely the southern part, known today as Jebel al-Sheik. For the various proposals, see Benjamin Mazar, ‫גד‬ ‫ בעל‬ / ‫בעל חרמון‬, EncBib 2:286–89. See also “Mount Baal-hermon” in the parallel text to the

The Dimensions of the Land

195

foot of Mount Hermon”), Baal-gad has not been definitively identified. In the first half of the twentieth century, scholars were inclined to associate it with Baalbeq in the Lebanese Beqaʿ. 20 This proposal supports the theory that this conquest resumé refers to the same territory as the “land of Canaan.” The opening sentence, “Joshua took the whole of this country” (Josh 11:16), indicates that the second resumé refers to the scope of the territory subjugated rather than to the captured cities. The places mentioned do not necessarily lie precisely on the boundary. The northern border of the “land of Canaan” passed from one of the peaks of the mountains of Lebanon, through the Valley of the Lebanon, and up to the eastern desert border. Even if Baal-gad was not right on the boundary, it could have represented the northern mountainous area stretching to Lebo-hamath. The author’s selection of a site not mentioned in the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document should not surprise us, given its parallel to Mount Halak in the south—which also essentially lay on the border of Canaan—although it does not derive from the literary description of the boundaries of Canaan. The only doubt about the congruence between the northern vanquished territory and the area of the land of Canaan arises due to “the land that still remains” document (Josh 13:2–6) and its abbreviated resumé (Judg 3:3). Analysis of the comprehensive resumé per se fails to demonstrate that the territory Joshua subjugated was substantially different from that of the “land of Canaan.” God fulfilled his oath and gave Israel possession of “the whole of this country”—identical in scope (if not in terminology) to the “land of Canaan” from the north and south. Why, then, did the author choose to employ these unusual sites to represent the perimeters of the land? The formulation “Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon at the foot of Mount Hermon” displays affinities with the story of the battle at the Waters of Merom in Joshua 11. To the list of local kings invited by the head of the league to take part in the war (v. 1: Jobab, king of Madon, the king of Shimron, and the king of Achshaph), the author added rosters detailing regions and nations, an account designed to present the battle against the northern alliance as an all-embracing description of “the land that still remains” (Judg 3:3; see the discussion below, p. 228) and “Baal-hermon” in the depiction of the territory settled by the half-tribe of Manasseh: “The members of the half-tribe of Manasseh dwelt in the land; they were very numerous from Bashan to Baal-hermon, Senir, and Mount Hermon” (1 Chr 5:23). 20. See Mazar, ‫ בעל גד‬/ ‫בעל חרמון‬, EncBib 2:286–89. Another view links Baal-gad with the southern tip of the Hermon above Dan: see Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 238–39. Compare with Benjamin’s suggestion that it be identified with Banias: Paul Benjamin, “Baal-Gad,” ABD 1:551.

196

Chapter 7

campaign that was a full and complete conquest. 21 This is the significance of the verse “to the Hivites at the foot of Hermon, in the land of Mizpah” (Josh 11:3). The location of the Hivites may derive from the description of the enemy’s rout in the battle: “The Lord delivered them into the hands of Israel, and they defeated them and pursued them all the way to Great Sidon and Misrephothmaim, 22 and all the way to the Valley of Mizpah on the east” (Josh 11:8). The author of the general conquest resumé (Josh 11:16–17) appears to have stamped a unique phrase in order to delineate the dimensions of the territory captured by Joshua. Two mountains—natural landmarks marking the extent of the ancient leader’s victories—signify this area in the south and in the north. This reflects the time-honored imperial custom of engraving royal inscriptions on the face of such lofty mountains as the Lebanon in the ancient Near East (see above, pp.  45–47). The southern point is the mountain situated on the border of the land of Canaan, opposite Edom. The northern point lies in the Valley of the Lebanon, although the phrase “at the foot of Mount Hermon” is also intended to link the resumé to the extant narrative of the battle at the Waters of Merom (11:1–9) and to form a meristic parallel to “Mount Halak” in the south. Jointly, the two mountains represent the scope of the territory of the land of Canaan that Joshua conquered fully. The second resumé concludes with the following passage (Josh 11:18–20): (18) Joshua waged war with all those kings over a long period. (19) Apart from the Hivites who dwelt in Gibeon, not a single city made peace with the Israelites; all were taken in battle. (20) For it was the Lord’s doing, to stiffen their hearts to give battle to Israel, in order that they might be proscribed without quarter and wiped out, as the Lord had commanded Moses.

The information that the war was fought “over a long period” is inconsistent with the detail that the conquest of Judah was accomplished “at a single stroke” (10:42). Ehrlich contends that the former phrase is a later addition, designed to explain how “Joshua was suddenly struck with old age” at the beginning of Joshua 13. 23 I suggest that its insertion was the author’s way of distinguishing 21. See Aḥituv, Joshua, 185–86. 22.  Noth amends to “Misrephoth-miyyam [= on the west]” based on Symmachus’s translation (cf. also Josh 13:6): Martin Noth, Das Buch Josua (2nd ed.; HAT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953) 43. 23.  Arnold B. Ehrlich, Mikra kiphshuto [The Literal Exegesis of the Bible] (Berlin, 1899–1901) 2:23 (on Josh 11:18). Weinfeld’s harmonistic suggestion that Josh 11:18 reflects the concept of a swift victory “because the fact that the conquest was performed by Joshua—even if it lasted ‘many days’—indicates that it was an expeditious campaign

The Dimensions of the Land

197

between the conquest of the “Kingdom of Judah”—which proceeded quickly and smoothly—and the conquest of the “Kingdom of Israel,” which required “a long period.” The description of an uninterrupted, unimpeded, swift conquest over the course of a year—or even within a day—is a familiar literary motif in the royal Mesopotamian inscriptions. 24 In addition to its rapid execution, the conquest of the territory that would subsequently become the Kingdom of Judah was also engraved in memory as a unique period, from the initial crossing of the Jordan, accomplished by the heaping up of its full-flowing waters at the height of the harvest season (3:15), to the occurrence of unprecedented signs and wonders: God’s overthrowing of the walls of Jericho, the capture of Ai through the holding out of a javelin toward the city, and God’s raining great stones from heaven and halting the celestial elements until Joshua and the Israelites had defeated the kings of the south—“for the Lord [God of Israel] fought for Israel” (10:14, 42). In contrast, the final account of Joshua’s conquest lacks any miraculous element. Joshua employs customary military methods, coming upon his enemy “suddenly” (Josh 11:7), and while God encourages him and the Israelites and “delivers them into their hands” (11:6–8), no earth-shattering divine assistance occurs. The “ordinary” aspect of the war to conquer the north and the extended relative to the difficulties involved and the size of the territory” must be rejected: Moshe Weinfeld, “Tequphat ha-kibush ve-tequphat ha-shophtim ba-historiographia ha-israelit [The Period of the Conquest and Judges in Israelite Historiography],” in Sepher Shmuel Yeivin (ed. S. Abramsky et al.; Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1970) 192 n. 15 [Hebrew]. The phrase ‫ ימים רבים‬always signifies a long interval of time in the biblical texts (cf. Gen 21:34, 37:34; Num 20:15)—as it also does in the analysis here. The concept of the conquest’s lasting a significant period appears, together with an explanation, in the Pentateuch: “I will not drive them out before you in a single year, lest the land become desolate and the wild beasts multiply to your hurt. I will drive them out little by little, until you have increased and possess the land” (Exod 23:29–30); “The Lord your God will dislodge those people before you little by little; you will not be able to put an end to them at once, else the wild beasts would multiply to your hurt” (Deut 7:22). In the preface to the book of Judges, the idea of the protracted possession is linked to the remaining nations: “the Lord had left those nations, instead of driving them out at once, and had not delivered them into the hands of Joshua” (Judg 2:23). 24.  See Hayim Tadmor, “History and Ideology in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons (Orientis Antiqui Collectio 17; ed. F. M. Fales; Rome: Istituto per l’Oriente, 1981) 16–18 and nn. 13, 17. For the link between the speed of the conquest and its supernatural and miraculous character, see also Deut 9:3: “Know then this day that none other than the Lord your God is crossing at your head, a devouring fire; it is He who will wipe them out. He will subdue them before you, that you may quickly dispossess and destroy them, as the Lord promised you.”

198

Chapter 7

period it takes correspond to the Judahite author’s agenda of setting off the conquest of the territory of the Kingdom of Judah from that of the Kingdom of Israel. The second section of the passage, which concludes the resumé, contains an unusual perspective on the Israelites’ attitude toward the peoples of the land. Josh 11:19–20 is secondary and polemical in tone, introduced in order to explain the total ban and the reason that the Canaanites did not come to terms with the Israelites and thereby gain clemency. In distinction from the command of absolute proscription required in Deuteronomy—which according to the taking-possession narratives was fulfilled 25—this passage concludes that the residents of the land could have escaped slaughter had they made peace with the Israelites—had God not hardened their hearts. 26 The resumés of the conquests of the south and of the whole land derive from one school and may even have been composed by the same Judahite author. They distinguish between the capture of the land of “Judah” and the land of “Israel,” while reflecting the concept that Joshua vanquished all the Promised Land, the extent of which parallels the “land of Canaan.”

The Third Conquest Resumé (Joshua 12:7–24) Joshua 12 contains a detailed list of 31 kings. The heading preceding the roster includes the third resumé. This text also refers to the full conquest of the whole land:  (7) The following are the kings of the country whom Joshua and the Israelites smote on the west side of the Jordan— From Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon to Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir— Joshua assigned as a possession to the tribal divisions of Israel:   (8) in the hill country, in the Shephelah, in the Arabah, in the slopes, in the wilderness, and in the Negeb—the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 25.  Deut 7:1–2; 20:16–18; Josh 10:28, 30, 33, 37, 39, 40; 11:11, 14. See Moshe Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies 3; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 85–88; Aḥituv, Joshua, 189. 26.  According to the Deuteronomistic historiographer, a similar fate befell Sihon, king of Heshbon. Because God stiffened his will and hardened his heart, he refused the Israelites’ offer to cross in peace and thus fell in battle; Israel took possession of all his towns, proscribing all their inhabitants, and dispossessing him (Deut 2:26–36).

The Dimensions of the Land

199

  (9) They were: the king of Jericho, the king of Ai, near Beth-el . . .   (24) the king of Tirzah Total number of kings 31.

The list of the kings of the cities of Canaan (vv. 9–24) is not linked to the taking-possession narrative (Joshua 6–11) but apparently originated from an independent tradition. 27 The third resumé is presented in the heading that prefaces the list. Its syntactical structure differs from the first and second resumés. Joshua is the subject in both the first resumé of the conquest of the south (Josh 10:40, “Joshua smote the whole country . . . Joshua captured all those kings and their lands”) and the second, which depicts the conquest of the whole country (“Joshua took the whole of this country . . . he captured all their kings and smote them and executed them,” Josh 11:16–17). These two passages conclude the previous narrative section. The “kings of the land” form the subject of the third resumé, however: “And the following are the kings of the country whom Joshua and the Israelites defeated on the west side of the Jordan” (12:7). The heading is followed by a merism, “From Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon to Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir,” and a list of the regions that the land comprises (vv. 7–8). The merism is associated with the previous resumé (11:17). Furthermore, five of the six locations it contains also appear in the first two resumés: the hill country, the Negeb, and the Shephelah show up in both previous resumés, the “slopes” in the southern conquest resumé (10:40), and the Arabah in the full resumé (11:16). To these five regions, “the wilderness” is added, bringing the number to six, which is parallel to the six nations in the land. The list of nations appears in the conquest resumés with the same content and in the same order as the list given in the story of the war against the kings of the south: “When all the kings west of the Jordan—in the hill country, in the Shephelah, and along the whole coast of the Great Sea up to the vicinity

27.  This conclusion is based on two complementary factors. On the one hand, the list omits places mentioned in the taking-possession narratives in Joshua—such as Azekah (Josh 10:10–12). On the other hand, cities such as Bethel, Jerusalem, and Gezer— about which there exist conquest traditions outside the book of Joshua—do appear, and the roster also mentions sites such as Geder and Adullam, about which no conquest traditions exist in the biblical texts at all: see Kaufmann, Sepher Yehoshua, 158. According to Fritz, the list was composed during the reign of Solomon: Volkmar Fritz, “Die sogenannte Liste der besiegten Könige in Josua 12,” ZDPV 85 (1969) 136–61. In another view, it closely follows the conquest narratives in Joshua: Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 230–32; Aḥituv, Joshua, 200–201.

200

Chapter 7

of Lebanon, the [land of the] Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites” (Josh 9:1). 28 The merism is virtually identical to the merism in the previous resumé (compare Josh 12:7 with 11:17). A direct literary affinity almost certainly exists between the comprehensive resumé in Joshua 12 and its predecessor in Joshua 11—one quoting the other. In the normal manner of citations such as these, the verses appear in chiastic parallelism to the source—even a double chiasmus: a reverse ordering of the meristic members (Mount Halak and Baal-gad) and the chiasmus between the merisms and the list of regions (see table 7.2). 29 Since the toponyms mentioned are more appropriate to the description of the subjugated land than to an introduction to the list of defeated kings, the original context appears to have been “the whole of this country” that Joshua vanquished (Josh 11:17), which then forms the basis for the third resumé. The third resumé is also distinguished from the two preceding resumés by the scope of the land it reflects, particularly in respect to the Transjordan. The first two resumés both locate all the land west of the Jordan. This view is consistent with the attitude exhibited in the primary stratum of the Deuteronomistic school, which considers the Jordan to be the border of the land. Because Moses was ordained to die outside the Promised Land, he was forbidden to cross the Jordan: “Now the Lord was angry with me on your account and swore that I should not cross the Jordan and enter the good land that the Lord your God is assigning you as heritage. For I must die in this land; I shall not cross the Jordan. But you will cross and take possession of that good land” (Deut 4:21–22; cf. 3:23–29, 34). The root ‫“( עבר‬cross”) in this passage—and in Deuteronomy as a whole—serves as a technical term to denote the entry into the land “that the Lord our God is giving us” 30 (Deut 2:29). This is the fixed formula that accom28.  An identical description and order also appear in Deut 20:17 in the elaboration of the laws governing war, which state that Israel may offer peace only to distant cities, not to “the nations hereabout.” 29.  The order of the items in the list of geographical regions may also be reversed, although the rosters are not completely parallel: “the whole land of Goshen” does not appear in the resumé in Joshua 12, while the “slopes,” the wilderness, and the Negeb are omitted in Joshua 11. 30. Peter Diepold, Israels Land (BWANT 5/15; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972) 29. Weinfeld differentiates between the view expressed in the body of Deuteronomy, which presents the Jordan as the boundary, and the view in the Deuteronomistic framework in which the book is set, which considers the Transjordan to be part of the Promised Land. He thus argues that Deut 2:29 “follows (unconsciously) the old traditional notion that the promised land includes only the territory west of the Jordan River”: Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 (AB 5; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991) 172.

The Dimensions of the Land

201

Table 7.2.  Chiasmus between Joshua 11, 12 Resumés Joshua 11:16–20 Joshua took

the whole of this country the hill country, the whole Negeb, the whole land of Goshen, the Shephelah, the Arabah, and the hill country and coastal plain of Israel

Joshua 12:7–8 The following are the kings of the country whom Joshua and the Israelites smote on the west side of the Jordan from Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon to Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir—

Joshua assigned as a possession to the tribal divisions of Israel from Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir, to Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon at the foot of Mount Hermon

in the hill country, in the Shephelah, and in the Arabah, in the slopes, in the wilderness, and in the Negeb

panies Deuteronomy’s commandments that are supposed to be performed “in the land that you are about to cross into and occupy.” 31 The language employed in Deuteronomy consistently state that the ordinances given to the Israelites are to be observed in the future—once the Israelites cross the Jordan: “For you are about to cross the Jordan to enter and possess the land that the Lord your God is assigning to you. When you have occupied it and are settled in it, take care to observe all the laws and rules that I have set before you this day” (Deut 11:31–32; see also the heading to the collection of commandments in Deut 12:1 and elsewhere). Most of the Deuteronomistic historiography also presents the Jordan as being the border of the Promised Land, and to cross it was to enter into the land. 32 31.  Either in the 2nd-person singular or the plural: see Deut 4:14, 22, 26; 6:1; 9:1; 11:8, 11, 31; 30:18; 31:13; 32:47; see also Josh 1:11. Weinfeld lists this expression among characteristic Deuteronomistic phrases: Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 342. Its appearance also in historiographical Deuteronomistic texts (such as Josh 1:11) shows the dominance of the view that the Jordan formed the border of the land, further indicating that Weinfeld’s endeavor to ascribe its appearance in Deut 2:29 to a slip of the pen cannot be entertained. 32. See Diepold, Israels Land, 29.

202

Chapter 7

The book of Joshua commences with the first command given to Joshua: “Prepare to cross the Jordan, together with all this people, into the land that I am giving to the Israelites” (Josh 1:2). The crossing of the Jordan (Joshua 3–4) also occupies a considerable part of the Book of Conquest (chaps. 1–12). The Jordan not only constitutes a physical barrier but its crossing symbolizes a transition from “promise” to “fulfillment,” and the formation of the people in their wanderings in the wilderness is a transition to the conquest and settlement of the Promised Land. The transition is accompanied by ritual ceremonies and signs and wonders that reenact the crossing of the Red Sea during the exodus from Egypt (Josh 4:23). Additional preparation of the land for its miraculous conquest is accomplished when its inhabitants “lose heart” (5:1). Special rites mark the crossing over and entry into the land: the founding ceremony at Gilgal (chaps. 3–4), the cessation of the manna (5:12), the Israelites’ circumcision (5:2–9), and the erection of stones on Mount Ebal in accordance with the commandment in Deut 27:2–3 (Josh 8:30–35). Judges likewise assumes that the Jordan serves as the border. Although some of the wars described in Judges occur in the Transjordan, the fords of the Jordan nonetheless function as the boundary between Israel and its eastern neighbors (Judg 3:28, 7:24, 12:5). In contrast, Joshua 12 places the entire earlier literary section within a broader and more comprehensive context: the whole course of events is presented as the second part of a lengthy conquest process that commences during Moses’ lifetime, on the east side of the Jordan. This impression is created by depicting the two acts of conquest on both sides of the Jordan in equivalent terms: The following are the kings of the country whom the Israelites smote and whose territories they took possession of on the east of the Jordan . . . (Josh 12:1) Moses, the servant of the Lord, and the Israelites, smote them; and Moses, the servant of the Lord, assigned that territory as a possession to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. (Josh 12:6)

And the following are the kings of the country whom Joshua and the Israelites smote on the west side of the Jordan . . . (Josh 12:7a)

Joshua assigned as a possession to the tribal divisions of Israel . . . (Josh 12:7b)

A citation from the previous resumé was inserted into the heading of the list of kings west of the Jordan—apparently as an interpretation reflecting a divergent geo-ideological perspective, which both revised and updated the preceding resumé. Here, the scope of the land west of the Jordan corresponds to that of the “land of Canaan,” although this known territory formed only part of the Promised Land. According to Joshua 12, the Transjordan formed an integral part of

The Dimensions of the Land

203

the Promised Land from the very beginning, and the taking-possession of the land described in Joshua was merely a natural extension of the conquest that had already begun during Moses’ lifetime. Joshua’s statements to the tribes east of the Jordan (Josh 1:12–18) similarly revise the previous description of the Jordan as the border of the Promised Land. In their depiction of the taking-possession of both sides of the river, identical terms serve to represent the territories as a divine gift: “‘The Lord your God is granting you a haven; He has assigned this territory to you’ . . . until the Lord your God has given your kinsmen a haven, such as you have, and they too have gained possession of the land that the Lord your God has assigned to them. Then you may return to the land on the east side of the Jordan, which Moses the servant of the Lord assigned to you as your possession, and you may possess it” (Josh 1:13, 15). 33 Perhaps the same hand was responsible for the amendments—the first at the beginning of the Book of Conquest and the second at its conclusion—thus enclosing the taking-possession narratives and presenting them as a direct continuation of Moses’ conquests east of the Jordan. This perspective also appears in other Deuteronomistic strata, principally (as Weinfeld has demonstrated) within the Deuteronomistic description of the conquest of the Transjordan (Deuteronomy 1–3). This account employs language that recalls the taking-possession of the Promised Land, applies the laws of proscription to the nations in the land (Deut 2:34–35, 3:6–7), and is void of the apologetic tone that is characteristic of the depiction of the conquest of this strip of land in Numbers 32, where a distinction is made between the cattlerearing land as that which “the Lord smote for the community of Israel” (east of the Jordan, Num 32:4) and “the land that the Lord has given them” (west of the Jordan, Num 32:7). 34 The same idea also becomes evident through a comparison of the versions of the commandment to establish cities of refuge. Numbers makes a clear distinction between the three cities allocated “beyond the Jordan” and the three in the “land of Canaan” (Num 35:14). In contrast, Deuteronomy speaks theoretically of two stages: initially, three cities of refuge were to be set aside “in the land that the Lord your God is giving you to possess” (Deut 19:2b); subsequently, 33.  See Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull et al.; JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981) 14. 34. Moshe Weinfeld, “The Extent of the Promised Land: The Status of Transjordan,” in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit (ed. G. Strecker; Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten 25; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 67–68; idem, The Promise of the Land, 69–75; cf. Deut 20:15. For the apologetic tone informing Numbers 32, see also Samuel Loewenstamm, “The Settlement of Gad and Reuben as Related in Nu. 32:1–38: Background and Composition,” From Babylon to Canaan (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992) 109–30.

204

Chapter 7

“when the Lord your God enlarges your territory, as He swore to your fathers, and gives you all the land that He promised to give your fathers . . . then you shall add three more towns to those three” (Deut 19:8–9; the fulfillment of the promise is also represented as an extension of the border in Deut 12:20). If the second phase indeed relates to the conquest of the land west of the Jordan, only this territory is thus identified as the land promised to the patriarchs—although the east side of the Jordan is mentioned first and also forms part of the land given by God to the Israelites as a possession. The endeavor to raise the prestige of the Transjordan won only partial ground. The idea that the Jordan is the border of the Promised Land was so embedded and dominant in Israelite thought that the later Deuteronomistic historiography was unable to ignore or replace it, even when it attempted to do so. The revamping of the status of the Transjordan thus appears only in a relatively late Deuteronomistic literary stratum (both in Deuteronomy and in the Deuteronomistic historiography), which was added to its predecessors but did not supplant them, despite the discrepancy between them. 35

35.  In another view, the two ideological strata in the Deuteronomistic tradition are distinguished from one another by the place of their formation: the Shechemite “stream of tradition,” which restricts the area; and the Gilgalite tradition, which holds to a “broad land scheme”: see J. N. M. Wijngaards, The Dramatization of Salvific History in the Deuteronomic Schools (OtSt 16; Leiden: Brill, 1969) 90–100. Alternatively, these traditions are considered to derive from the northern tribes, as distinct from the southern Judahite traditions: see Diepold, Israels Land, 29–41, 56–64. Another, more standard opinion, is that the divergence is diachronic rather than geographical in nature. Following Noth, Weinfeld argues that the introductory speeches in Deut 1:1–4:43 are not a preface to the book of laws but a preamble to the Deuteronomistic History. He thus differentiates between the body of the book of Deuteronomy and the opening chapters, which he ascribes to the Deuteronomistic historiographical framework dated to the exile: Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 13–14; Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 13. Noort follows the same view, although distinguishing three border notions within the Deuteronomistic sources: one that reaches the Jordan (Deut 12:10; Joshua 3, 4; etc.); a second that includes the territory across the Jordan (Deut 4:45–49); and a third that extends to the Euphrates (Gen 15:18; Exod 23:31; Deut 1:7, 11:24; Josh 1:3). He maintains—without explaining on what basis—that the disparities derive from the “several stages” and “several parts” of the units within the Deuteronomistic text: Edward Noort, “‘Land’ in the Deuteronom(ist)ic Tradition,” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (ed. J. C. de Moor; OtSt 34; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 135. As I have remarked above, however, the division between the strata regarding this issue is not clear and sharp, and even in the principal Deuteronomistic historiographical layer the Jordan was the border of the land.

The Dimensions of the Land

205

The Relations between the Conquest Resumés The three resumés all view that the conquest as full and complete: Joshua conquered the whole land without leaving any enclaves, holes, or remaining nations of any kind. 36 Behind them, however, two stages of composition may be discerned. In the first, a Judahite author penned the initial two resumés, inserting the first following the principal narrative block relating to the southern campaign (that is, the Kingdom of Judah) and the second after the story of the battle at the Waters of Merom. The first resumé indicates that its author was familiar not only with the conquest narratives but also with traditions of the type found in the Book of Settlement. While the sites included are not mentioned in the full Priestly description of the “land of Canaan” (and rarely appear in the expressions relating to this territory), “this land” that Joshua vanquished in its entirety reflects the dimensions that are regularly attributed to the Promised Land, the “land of Canaan.” At a second stage, the resumé of the conquest of the Transjordan and the list of kings in chap. 12 were added to this composition. The author of the chapter transformed the story of Joshua’s conquest into the second phase of the Israelites’ taking-possession of the Promised Land. At an even later editorial stage, an abbreviated resumé was appended at the end of Joshua 11 after the addition about the Anakites’ remaining in part of the land (11:21–22). 37 This resumé contains formulations that recall both resumé forms. It begins with the same language as the resumé in 11:16 (“Joshua took”) 38 and concludes with the terminology of the resumé in Joshua 12: “Joshua took the whole country, just as the Lord had promised Moses; and Joshua assigned it to Israel to share according to their tribal divisions [and the land had rest from war]” (11:23; cf. 11:16, 12:7—“Joshua assigned as a possession to the tribal divisions of Israel: . . .”). The substitution of the term “inheritance (‫)נחלה‬,” which 36.  The harmonizing theory that the descriptions reflect gaps in the conquest (“the length of the coast was not vanquished, nor the north from Baal-gad to Lebo-hamath or to the Euphrates, as promised in 1:4. The Lebanon remained outside the conquered area” [Kaufmann, Sepher Yehoshua, 154]) is based on an argument from silence. The theory is designed to approximate the passages to the depictions of “the land that yet remains” in Joshua 13 and the promise of the imperialistic reach in Joshua 1. The explicit statement in the resumés about a full and complete conquest, however, paints a clear picture and cannot be understood ambiguously. 37.  For the secondary character of this passage on the Anakites, see Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 38–39; Aḥituv, Joshua, 187. 38.  ‫ויקח‬. For the wayyiqtol form in summary sentences, see 1 Sam 17:50, 31:6; GKC 111k.

206

Chapter 7

is characteristic of P, for “possession (‫( ”)ירושה‬compare 12:6–7) also shows the compilatory character of this summary statement, which was appended during the final editorial stage of the book’s composition. 39 The person who compiled the conquest traditions into a broad narrative appears to have brought it to a close with a verse summarizing all the events: “and he captured all their kings and smote them and executed them” (Josh 11:17), together with the statement “and the land had rest from war” (Josh 11:23). In the extant form of the text, this verse concludes the whole chapter (following the note inserted about the Anakites and a second resumé—Josh 11:23). Similar formulations appear in the framework of the stories of the judges, although there they relate to temporary periods of peace following the judges’ victories: “and the land had peace for [x] years” (Judg 3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28). In contrast, the book of Joshua does not signify any interludes of peace; the root ‫“( שקט‬be quiet”) appears there in the qatal (perfect) form. This usage indicates its view of peace as a permanent rather than provisional state. 40 In this view, Joshua the commander conquered all of the Promised Land—the territory of which corresponds to the “land of Canaan”—defeated all its kings, and realized God’s promise to his people in full. An explicit description of this status appears at the end of Joshua 21: (41) The Lord gave to Israel the whole country which He had sworn to their fathers that He would assign it to them; they took possession of it and settled in it. (42) The Lord gave them rest on all sides, just as He had promised to their fathers on oath. Not one man of all their enemies withstood them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hands. (43) Not one of the good things which the Lord had promised to the House of Israel was lacking. Everything was fulfilled. 39.  For the nature of these verses as a “resumé on top of a resumé ” (one after another), see Aḥituv, Joshua, 188. 40.  This sentence recurs at the end of Joshua 14. Here, too, it follows the story of the conquest of the land of the Anakites. Thus, two parallel, contradictory traditions appear about who captured Hebron from these people—Joshua (Josh 11:21–22) or Caleb, son of Jephunneh (Josh 14:12–15). Both accounts conclude with the words “and the land had rest from war.”

Chapter 8

“The Land That Yet Remains” (Joshua 13:1–6) As we have seen, the first part of the book of Joshua—the Book of Conquest—contains fervent victory accounts followed by resumés affirming the fact that the Israelites’ taking-possession of the land was full and complete: “The whole country” was conquered, “all the kings” were defeated, and “everything that breathed” was destroyed (Josh 10:40, 11:12–17). These statements are closely conjoined, however, to a passage that describes the “land that still remains”—territory in the Promised Land that Joshua and the Israelites very surprisingly, in the context, failed to conquer: Introduction

(1) Joshua was now old, advanced in years. The Lord said to him, “You have grown old, you are advanced in years; and very much of the land yet remains to be taken possession of.

Heading

(2) This is the land that still remains:

Southern side

All the districts of the Philistines and all the Geshurites, (3) from the Shihor, which is close to Egypt, to the territory of Ekron on the north, are accounted Canaanite, namely, those of the five lords of the Philistines—the Gazites, the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites—and those of the Avvim (4) on the south;

Northern side all the Canaanite country from Mearah of the Sidonians to Aphek to the Amorite border (5) and the land of the Gebalites, with the whole Lebanon on the east from Baal-gad at the foot of Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath (6) with all the inhabitants of the hill country from the Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim, all the Sidonians. Conclusion

I Myself will dispossess them for the Israelites; you have only to bequeath it to Israel, as I have commanded you.”

This passage (which we shall refer to henceforth as “the document”) opens with a comment about Joshua’s advanced age (Josh 13:1a), followed by the

207

208

Chapter 8

pronouncement that “very much of the land still remains to be taken possession of ” (Josh 13:1b) 1 and a specification of the regions constituting the “land that yet remains.” The relationship between the act of taking possession and the settlement of the land described in this document differs from the relationship between them in the Book of Conquest. According to Joshua 1–12, the two processes comprised separate events: the conquest was concluded in full before the settlement began, as indicated by the language of the general summary. The first half states that “Joshua conquered the whole country, just as the Lord had promised to Moses.” This is immediately followed by the notation that “Joshua assigned it to Israel to share according to their tribal divisions” (Josh 11:23). The present document, in contrast, indicates that, even as God commanded the people to allocate the land, wide swaths of the area captured remained unconquered in both the north and the south. The most unexpected aspect of the document is also its principal theme: the rebuttal of the very idea of a complete conquest. 2 Although other biblical texts also recognize that the conquest was partial and discuss its extent, this is the only passage that does not employ the narratorial voice—God directly addressing the people’s leader. 3 The other texts also refer to ethnic groups rather than to prominent geographical features, typically speaking of the former in the 1.  Numerous scholars divide v. 1 into two halves, arguing that the reference to Joshua’s senescence (noted again in Josh 23:1) is not part of the unit that begins with the words “very much of the land that yet remains”: see Martin Noth, Das Buch Josua (2nd ed.; HAT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953) 10; idem, The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull et al.; JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981) 40. Some even maintain that the unit commences in v. 2: see Arnold B. Ehrlich, Mikra kiphshuto [The Literal Exegesis of the Bible] (3 vols.; Berlin, 1899–1901) 2:25; Rudolf Smend, “Das Gesetz und die Völker,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie (ed. H. W. Wolff; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971) 499 n. 24; J. Alberto Soggin, Joshua: A Commentary (OTL; London: Westminster, 1972) 131–52. As we shall see below, however, both Joshua’s advanced age and the notation about the unconquered land have direct associations with the “land that yet remains,” a fact that indicates that vv. 1–6 should be viewed as a single literary unit. 2.  See Rudolf Smend, “Das uneroberte Land,” in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit (Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten 25; ed. G. Strecker; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 91–92. 3.  Ehrlich argues that this verse is exceptional, concluding that “this is the land that yet remains” and up to the end of v. 5 “represent the words of the author himself and not what he places in God’s mouth . . . a saying within a saying” (Mikra kiphshuto, 2:25). Despite the fact that the statements in this text are not characteristic of God’s speech, Ehrlich’s proposal is not warranted by the text itself, which links the description of the “land that yet remains” to the introduction, “The Lord said to him” (v. 1), and concludes the depiction of the land with the divine declaration, “I Myself will dispossess those peoples . . . you have only to bequeath it to Israel” (v. 6).

“The Land That Yet Remains”

209

plural: “those peoples” (Deut 7:22), “these peoples that still remain” (Josh 23:4, 7, 12), “any of the peoples that Joshua left when he died” (Judg 2:21, 23), or “the peoples that the Lord left” (Judg 3:1). Likewise, their principal concern is the danger of spiritual contamination by the remaining nations—assimilation and the idolatry that follows in its wake (Josh 23:7, 12, 16; see also Exod 23:32–33; Deut 7:22–26; Judg 2:22, 3:4–6). 4 The present document mentions neither assimilation nor idolatry, focusing instead on territory and formulating its statements in the singular. Thus, for example, it speaks not of “the peoples that still remain” but of “the land that remains.” The geographical locations mentioned also stress the territorial aspect: “all the districts of the Philistines (v. 2) and “the territory of Ekron on the north” (v. 3), 5 as do the phrases “all the Canaanite country,” “the Amorite border” (v. 4), and “the land of the Gebalites” (v. 5). Although the document is aware of the nations (in the plural) inhabiting the land (“the five lords of the Philistines,” “all the inhabitants of the hill country,” “all the Sidonians”), and God promises “I Myself will dispossess them” (v. 6), following these references it immediately resumes the theme of the single land that still remains: “you have only to bequeath it by lot among Israel” (v. 6). 4.  The notation “the peoples that still remain” in Joshua’s farewell speech (Josh 23:4, 7, 12) recalls the people’s disregard of God’s will. In distinction, Judges designates them “the peoples that the Lord left” (Judg 3:1), explaining the historical phenomenon on the basis of an educational ethos: God himself left the nations for his own purposes, whether “to test Israel by them—to see whether they would walk in the ways of the Lord, as their fathers had done” (Judg 2:22; cf. Judg 3:4) or “so that He might test by them all the Israelites who had not known any of the wars of Canaan, so that succeeding generations of Israelites might be made to experience war” (Judg 3:2; for a similar explanation in a different formula, see Exod 23:29–33). 5.  For the term ‫( גבול‬gĕbûl) in the sense of “territory” in relation to the Philistines, see 1 Sam 7:14a: “The towns which the Philistines had taken from Israel, from Ekron to Gath, were restored to Israel; Israel recovered all her territory (‫ )גבולן‬from the Philistines.” The noun ‫( גלילות‬gĕlîlôt) is only found elsewhere in reference to the Philistines in Joel 4:4a (“What is this you are doing to Me, O Tyre, Sidon, and all the districts of Philistia?”). It also appears with the same meaning, although not in a Philistine context, in the late Priestly narrative about the erection of the altar on the banks of the Jordan: “When they came to the region of the Jordan (‫גלילות הירדן‬-‫ )אל‬in the land of Canaan” (Josh 22:10); for the Priestly character of this story and its alleged date, see Ronnie Goldstein, “Joshua 22:9–34: A Priestly Narrative from the Second Temple Period,” Shnaton 13 (2002) 43–81 [Hebrew]. The singular ‫( גלילה‬gĕlîlâ) appears in Ezek 47:8, while the form ‫ גלילות‬serves as a toponym in the description of the borders of the Benjaminite allotment (Josh 18:17)—in place of ‫( גלגל‬Gilgal) in the parallel depiction of the Judahite allotment (Josh 15:7).

210

Chapter 8

Nor does the document resemble the descriptions of the parts of the land unconquered or left uncaptured that are characteristic of the Book of Settlement and Judges 1. The latter texts portray both (1) foreign enclaves located within Israel, depicting them via a list of cities and nations in the formula “they failed to/could not dispossess x . . . y . . . and they remain . . . among . . .” 6; and, in the case of the Asherites and Naphtalites, (2) Israelite enclaves within a Canaanite populace (Judg 1:32–33). In contrast, the present document (Josh 13:1– 6) refers to unvanquished strips of land located on the northern and southern peripheries of the land. The expression “the land that yet remains” is also exceptional from a semantic perspective. The term “the peoples that still remain” is well suited to the root ‫ שאר‬in its other occurrences in the Niphal participial form: “the remaining survivors,” “the people rescued from the destruction,” the “remnant.” 7 Here, however, it is not the nations who remain—who survive Joshua’s conquest— but the land itself. The territory is what “remains” and is preserved for future possession. The author of this document thus appears to introduce an innovative idea by borrowing existing terms and giving them a novel meaning. This method of transformation via existent models also appears in other parts of the description, as the following analysis demonstrates.

The Southern Sector The account of the southern prospect of the “land that yet remains” commences with two general statements, followed by a spatial merism and an ethnic comment, and concludes with a list of nations in the stereotypical model of the list of the Canaanite nations:  (2) all the districts of the Philistines and all the Geshurites,  (3) from the Shihor, which is close to Egypt, to the territory of Ekron on the north, are accounted Canaanite, namely, 6.  See Josh 13:13 (which mentions peoples—the Geshurites and the Maacathites— rather than cities), 15:63, 16:10, 17:12 (these all combining nations and cities—for example, the Jebusites in Jerusalem, the Canaanites who dwelt in Gezer); Judg 1:21, 27–35. Although these rosters are similar in style, they possess divergent agendas: see Moshe Weinfeld, “Tequphat ha-kibush ve-tequphat ha-shophtim be-historographia ha-israelit [The Period of the Conquest and Judges in Israelite Historiography],” in Sepher Shmuel Yeivin (ed. S. Abramsky et al.; Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1970) 188–89 [Hebrew]. 7.  The root ‫ שאר‬is synonymous with ‫—יתר‬compare the phrase “not a soul survived (‫( ”)לא נותר‬Josh 11:11, 22). The “peoples that still remain” are thus also designated “the remnants of those peoples” (Josh 23:12). For this issue, see Hans Wildberger, “‫ שאר‬šʾr to remain,” TLOT 3:1284–92 and n. 66.

“The Land That Yet Remains”

211

those of the five lords of the Philistines—the Gazites, the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites—   and those of the Avvim (4) on the south. (Josh 13:2–4) 8

The general statement “all the districts of the Philistines” is followed by the second notation “all the Geshurites”—a more obscure reference. The context suggests that the expression does not allude to the Kingdom of Geshur in the Transjordan (which appears in the continuation of the chapter). 9 Its more obvious substantive and stylistic affinities are with the “Geshurite” mentioned in the description of David’s raid on the Geshurites, Gizrites, and Amalekites from Ziklag (1 Sam 27:8): Description of the “Land That Yet Remains” (Joshua 13:2–4)

The Territory Raided by David (1 Samuel 27:8)

All the districts of the Philistines and all the Geshurites,

David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Gizrites, and the Amalekites—

from the Shihor, which is close to Egypt, to the territory of Ekron on the north.

who were the inhabitants of the region from Olam all the way to Shur and to the land of Egypt.a

a.  The text of this verse has undergone various corruptions. The “Geshurite” and the “Gizrite” (according to the Qere) appear to be variants; the LXX only mentions the former, together with the inclusive particle (πάντα τὸν Γεσιρι). Its Hebrew source (which can be reconstructed as: ‫ויפשטו אל‬ ‫ )כל הגשורי והעמלקי‬apparently contained the inclusive expression “all the Geshurites” that appears in our document. The term ‫( מעולם‬me-ʿolam) which appears in the continuation of 1 Sam 27:8 also appears to be a corruption, the original containing the phrase ‫ מ‬+ toponym, which is common in spatial merisms. The LXX thus renders ἀπὸ Γελαμψοὺρ (“from Gelampsur”); this version apparently reflects a corrupt combination of the names “Shur” and “Telem,” the latter being a city in southern Judah (Josh 15:24) whence Saul departed to attack the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:4): see Samuel Rolles Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895) 211–12.

Two closely linked additional definitions should be taken into consideration when one endeavors to understand the term “all the Geshurites”: the territory inhabited by the nomadic Ishmaelite tribes (Gen 25:18: “They dwelt from Havilah, by Shur, which is close to Egypt, all the way to Asshur”); 10 and 8.  For spatial merisms, see chap. 2. 9.  Josh 13:11, 13; cf. Deut 3:14; Josh 12:5; 2 Sam 13:37–38—contra Éduard Dhorme, La Bible: l’Ancien Testament (Paris: Gallimard, 1959) 667. Likewise, Edelman’s proposal that Talmai, king of Geshur, who allied himself with David should be identified with the “southern Geshurites” (a diminutive Geshurite kingdom reconstructed in the south of the country) should be rejected: Diana Edelman, “Tel Masos, Geshur and David,” JNES 47 (1988) 253–58. 10.  The words ‫ באכה אשורה‬appear to be a corruption of ‫באכה שורה‬, which is thus a repetition of ‫ עד שור‬in the body of the text: see Shmuel Aḥituv, ‫ מדבר שור‬,‫ דרך שור‬,‫שור‬,

212

Chapter 8

the Amalekite territory attacked by Saul (1 Sam 15:7: “Saul destroyed Amalek from Havilah 11 all the way to Shur, which is close to Egypt”). The expression “Shur, which is close to Egypt” in these two texts closely resembles “the Shihor, which is close to Egypt” in our document. Although Meyer suggests that “Shihor (‫ ”)שיחור‬is a corruption of “Shur (‫)שור‬,” in my opinion the divergence represents a deliberate alteration. 12 The author of our document exploited the proximity of the two names in order to shift the border of the land from the “Wadi of Egypt” mentioned in the boundaries of the “land of Canaan” to “Shihor of Egypt.” According to Gen 25:18 and 1 Sam 15:7, the nomadic tribes in the south of the land, including the Geshurites, controlled the desert region bordering (‫ )על פני‬Egypt. 13 Calling this territory “Shur,” which signifies a “wall,” shows its affinities with the chain of Egyptian fortresses erected to defend the eastern border of the country from nomadic invasions. The term “Shihor” (= “the waters of Horus”) in our document is in fact Egyptian and in Egyptian sources designated the Pelusic branch of the Nile or the lakes in the northeastern Nile Delta. 14 Our document contains a chiastic parallel between the general statement and the following merism: all the districts of the Philistines From the Shihor, which is close to Egypt

all the Geshurites to the territory of Ekron (on the north)

EncBib 7:600. The reading ‫( אשורה‬ʾašura) may derive from the common couplet Egypt/ Assyria: compare Isa 19:23, Hos 7:11, etc. 11.  The identification of Havilah as a site in northeastern Arabia (Gen 2:11, 10:29) is appropriate to the description of the Ishmaelite territory but not to the Amalekite territory destroyed by Saul. The reference may be to another Havilah, in the region of the Negeb, and this corruption may have occurred due to the influence of the depiction of the Ishmaelite encampment (Gen 25:17). The original reading may therefore have been “from Telem”—the starting point of Saul’s assault on the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:4); see above, p. 211 note a. 12. Eduard Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme (Halle, 1906) 333 n. 2. The Chronicler clearly had the present text before him, since it forms the basis of his unique merism “from Shihor of Egypt to Lebo-hamath” (1 Chr 13:5; see below, p. 231). 13.  For the use of the expression ‫( על פני‬ʿal pĕnei) in the sense of “bordering on,” see Num 21:11; see HALOT 944. 14.  See Nadav Naʾaman, “The Shihor of Egypt and Shur That Is before Egypt,” Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction. Collected Essays, vol. 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005) 265, and the bibliography cited therein. Naʾaman himself proposes that the biblical “Shihor of Egypt” should be identified with Nahal Besor (see below, n. 16). For the customary identification of Shihor with the eastern arms of the Nile, see Shmuel Aḥituv, ‫שור‬, ‫שור דרך‬, ‫מדבר‬, EncBib 7:600–602. See also Jer 2:18: ‫“( מה לך לדרך מצרים לשתות מי שחור‬What, then is the good of your going to Egypt to drink the waters of the Nile?”); Isa 23:3.

“The Land That Yet Remains”

213

According to this delineation, the Shihor represents the southern limit of the area of “all the Geshurites”; the “territory of Ekron (on the north)” is the northern limit. The merism thus represents “all the districts of the Philistines.” This depiction reflects a territorial unit that far exceeds the dimensions of the “land of Canaan.” The text demarcates an area that covers the Sinai Desert (or at least the whole of the northwestern Sinai), whereas the southern border of the “land of Canaan” (Num 34:3–4) and the southern Judahite border (Josh 15:2–4) pass along the edge of the populated region; its western side follows the course of the “Wadi of Egypt” up to the Mediterranean Sea. Scholars who identify the southern boundary of the “land that yet remains” with the southern border of the “land of Canaan” generally ignore this inconsistency. 15 Others recognize the difficulty and propose identifying “the Shihor, which is close to Egypt” with the Wadi of Egypt. 16 This sort of harmonizing solution ignores several issues, however. It does not take into consideration the general signification “all the Geshurites”; nor does it explain the relationship between the merism and the general statement. It also fails to deal with the parallel definitions of the Geshurite, Ishmaelite, and Amalekite territories—all of which 15.  Aharoni, for example, defines the “land that yet remains” thus: “This document is an account of the regions which actually ‘remained’ foreign and which were still outside the limits of Israelite occupation, although they were included in the traditional borders of Canaan (Num. 34)”—without relating in any fashion to Shihor of Egypt: Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 236 (see also n. 42). Aḥituv provides a lucid examination of the disparity between the two presentations in the introduction to his commentary on Joshua: “The southern boundary of the Land of Canaan is described in Joshua according to two principal concepts. The first regards Kadesh-barnea as the southern border of the Land of Canaan, while the second extends it to Shihor. . . . It is possible that the early Egyptian model of the boundary between Egypt and the ‘foreign lands of the Kharu’ [= Canaan] is reflected in this expansionist description of the southern border of the Land of Canaan” (Shmuel Aḥituv, Joshua [Mikra LeYisraʾel; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1995] 54 [Hebrew]). In the commentary itself, however, he delineates the southern boundary of the “land that yet remains” as passing through the Wadi of Egypt and Kadesh-barnea (p. 213). The problem is also neglected in other scholarly works, including Weinfeld, “Tequphat ha-kibush,” 194; and Jacob Liver, ‫כנען במקרא‬, EncBib 4:203: “The description of the borders of the Land of Canaan are also given in Josh 13:4.” 16.  See John Bright, “Joshua,” IB 2:620. Abel maintains that the meaning of the Egyptian term is “water-course”: Félix-Marie Abel, La Sainte Bible: Le livre de Josué (Paris: Cerf, 1958) 65. Naʾaman compares the expression with “Shihor-libnath,” which appears in Josh 19:26 in the depiction of the Asherite allotment and attests that the general meaning of “Shihor” is a “water-course” or “wadi”: Nadav Naʾaman, “The Inheritances of the Cis-Jordanian Tribes of Israel and the ‘Land That Yet Remaineth,’” ErIsr 16 (Orlinsky Volume; 1982) 152–58 [Hebrew].

214

Chapter 8

refer to “Shur, which is close to Egypt.” While the term “Shihor” may occur in the biblical texts with the general meaning of “wadi” (see Josh 19:26), this is unlikely to have been the author’s intention in the present phrase, especially since he does not use the compound ‫ שיחור מצרים‬but a nominal syntagm—a toponym + adjunct (serving as a relative clause): “the Shihor (name), which is close to Egypt (relative clause).” The original signification of “Shihor” was the Nile, which is the sense that fits most naturally here, appearing as it does in conjunction with “Egypt” (cf. Jer 2:18). It is implausible that the author wrote “the Shihor, which is close to Egypt” (= the Nile) when he actually intended the “Wadi of Egypt,” because the compound “Wadi of Egypt” is a fixed phrase both in the biblical texts and the royal Assyrian inscriptions from the eighth and seventh centuries b.c.e. (see below, pp.  283–288). He instead appears to have selected the site “Shihor, which is close to Egypt” precisely in order to re-relocate the border by incorporating the area belonging to the nomadic tribes, which stretched “all the way to Shur, which is close to Egypt.” He thus indirectly refers to the regular line of the southern boundary running through the “Wadi of Egypt.” The merism concludes with the unusual notation, “are accounted as Canaanite.” This clause possesses no explicit subject, and it may refer to the southern strips of the “land that yet remains” which the previous verse delineates as “all the districts of the Philistines and all the Geshurites . . . to the territory of Ekron on the north.” 17 Since the verb takes the feminine form, however (‫)תחשב‬, it is more feasible to understand the clause as alluding to the whole of the “land that yet remains” (mentioned in the heading to the description—v. 2a) rather than exclusively to the southern region. 18 A similar formula appears in the pseudo17.  George A. Cooke, The Book of Joshua (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1918) 118–19. Yehezkel Kaufmann regards the specifications given at the end of v. 2 (“all the districts of the Philistines and all the Geshurites”) as being interrupted by the narrative comment in v. 3, the merism and subsequent list thus constituting a parenthetic clause designed to denote that that this strip of land was considered part of the “land of Canaan”—despite the fact that its inhabitants were Philistines, Geshurites, and Avvim rather than Canaanites: see Yehezkel Kaufmann, Sepher Yehoshua [The Book of Joshua] (Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1963) 161; see also Aḥituv, Joshua, 210. A comparison with the other parts of the description of the “land that yet remains,” however, demonstrates that the alternation between general indicators and meristic expressions is a standard feature of this document. The merism thus forms an integral part of the depiction rather than an elucidatory addition. 18.  Noth, Das Buch Josua, 75. Kaufmann attempts to solve the syntactical problem by arguing an elliptical secondary subject: “The logical subject is the land, from the Shihor, etc.” (Sepher Yehoshua, 161).

“The Land That Yet Remains”

215

historical comment regarding the Ammonites in Deut 2:20: “It, too, is counted as Rephaim country (‫הוא‬-‫ַף‬ ִ ‫רפאים תֵ חָשֵ ב א‬-‫( ”)ארץ‬see also v. 11). On this reading, we receive the impression that the “land that yet remains” is a single, unified unit, Canaanite in identity, and extending to Egypt. Josh 13:3 subsequently resumes its reference to the Philistines, listing their five “lords”—the Gazites, Ashdodites, Ashkelonites, Gittites, and Ekronites. This full description of the Philistines, accompanied by an explicit designation of their number, is modeled on the ethnic “lists of the peoples” of the land (formed by the gentilic suffix ‫ י‬x̣- [“-ite”]), as in the example of “the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven peoples much larger than you” (Deut 7:1). The Philistines are never listed elsewhere among the nations of Canaan, which suggests that the combination of the content (the five lords of the Philistines) and the form (the rosters of the nations of Canaan) constitutes a stylistic and ideological innovation on the part of the author. As noted above, his coining of the expressions the “land that yet remains” and “the Shihor, which is close to Egypt” likewise gives new meaning to an existing form. To the list of the Philistines, the author adds the “Avvim.” This obscure reference differs both conceptually and linguistically from the remainder of the text. Not only does it increase the number of nations to six, it uses a plural noun rather than using the gentilic “-ite” form. It thus appears to be a secondary, late gloss. The region inhabited by the Avvim and their fate are described in a relative clause which also appears in the framework to Deuteronomy: “So, too, with the Avvim who dwelt in Hazerim 19 to Gaza: the Caphtorim, who came from Crete, wiped them out and settled in their place” (Deut 2:23). According to this text, the Avvim inhabited the south and Philistia—until the “Caphtorim” (that is, the Philistines—see Jer 47:4, Amos 9:7) replaced them. 20 19.  While the phrase ‫ היושבים בחצרים‬is generally understood to signify the type of settlement of the Avvim—rendered “who dwelt in villages” (njps)—a comparison with other spatial merisms suggests that it is more plausible that the term ‫ בחצרים‬refers to a place. One of the Septuagint versions has the term “Aseroth (Ασηρωθ)” (see BHS), the name of one of the stations at which the Israelites encamped in the wilderness (Num 11:35). Other Septuagint mss read “from Ashdod to Gaza” (BHS), a particularly interesting text in light of the association between the Avvim and the Anakites and the comment regarding the Anakites who remained in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Josh 11:22). For the Avvim and scholarly conjectures about their identity, see Shmuel Aḥituv, ‫עוים‬, EncBib 6:100. 20.  The remark about the Philistines and Avvim resembles the ethnohistorical comments about the ancient nations of the Transjordan—the Emim and Rephaim—who were also “a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakites” (Deut 2:10, 21),

216

Chapter 8

The addition of this name to the “land that yet remains” reflects an alternate historical concept that recognizes a synchronic rather than diachronic relationship between the Avvim and the Philistines: the Avvim were not the early residents of the land who were wiped out by the Philistine settlement; instead, they lived alongside the Philistines in the same region. Only in the list of peoples in our present document do we find the idea that one of the ancient chthonic nations—from the period of the Anakites, Emim, Horites, Zamzummim, and Rephaim, who populated the area before the arrival of the “younger” nations (the Israelites, Philistines, and Transjordanites)—continued to exist contemporaneously with the Israelites and Philistines. The insertion of the reference to the Avvim may derive from the author’s wish to link to his description the sole allusion to the only place left where Anakites remained after their removal by Joshua from the hill country—“No Anakites remained in the land of the Israelites; but some remained in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod” (Josh 11:22). 21 Since the early inhabitants of the land were portrayed as people of huge stature (see Deut 1:28, 9:1–2) and the early residents of Philistia were known to have been the Avvim, the author may have deduced that the Anakites who remained in Philistia were the Avvim and thus listed them alongside the five “lords” of Philistia. 22 like the other early inhabitants of the land (Deut 1:28; see also Deut 9:1–2). From the perspective of the context in which this remark occurs in Deuteronomy, however, it appears secondary: it possesses a different geographical background (Philistia lies west rather than east of the Jordan), and no prohibition on going to war with the Philistines appears, as happens in other comments of this type. 21.  The tradition about the Anakites’ removal from the hill country and their remaining in the Philistine area is a unique passage that is set off from the framework in which it occurs in our extant text. For its secondary character, see Aḥituv, Joshua, 187. This tradition parallels the narratives portraying Caleb’s and Othniel’s prowess in the region of Hebron (Josh 14:12–15, 15:13–17). Its interpolation in the complete-conquest resumés is apparently intended to stress the fulfillment of the promise/command to destroy and subdue all the Anakites and take possession of their land (Deut 9:1–3): see Richard S. Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996) 218. The remark about the continued dwelling of the Anakites in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod, however, recalls the list of the “gaps” in the conquest (such as Josh 16:10), although it is formulated in a different manner. The secondary nature of the Joshua-Anakite tradition is revealed by the opening statement: “In that time, Joshua went . . .” (Josh 11:21); cf. Samuel Loewenstamm, “The Formula ‘In That Time’ in the Opening Speeches of Deuteronomy,” in From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible and Its Oriental Background (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992) 42–50. 22. According to other traditions, Anakites (known as the “descendants of the Raphah”) also existed among the Philistines themselves (2 Sam 21:15–22); indeed, Goliath the Gittite was gigantic (1 Samuel 17).

“The Land That Yet Remains”

217

The Northern Sector The northern prospect of the “land that yet remains” is delineated three or four times in Joshua 13: First definition

all the Canaanite country, from Mearah of the Sidonians to Aphek to the Amorite border (v. 4)

Second definition

and the land of the Gebalites, with the whole Lebanon on the east, from Baal-gad at the foot of Mount Hermon to Lebohamath, (v. 5)

Third/fourth definition with all the inhabitants of the hill country from the Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim, all the Sidonians. (v. 6)

Are these demarcations parallel, complementary, or contradictory? Kallai argues that the three northern descriptions relate to different areas: v. 4 gives a general view of the “land that yet remains,” v. 5 specifies “the undivided land that yet remains,” and v. 6 details the “land that yet remains which was divided.” 23 The first definition thus effectively includes the second and third/ fourth. Kallai finds corroboration for his view in the statement “you have only to bequeath it to Israel” in v. 6, which refers to the third/fourth definition alone. 24 In my opinion, however, the document before us does not discuss the division of the land into allotments in any fashion. Kallai’s conclusion is dependent on the accepted understanding of the imperative “(you shall) bequeath” (v. 6) as “divide by lot.” As Greenberg has demonstrated, however, this phrase refers not to the division of the land into portions but to the actual taking possession of it. 25 The direct object (in the form of a feminine-singular pronoun conjoined 23. Zecharia Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986) 102–3, 112. According to this theory, the “divided land that yet remains” formed part of the area of the tribal allotments, but the “undivided land that yet remains” lay outside the system of tribal territories: see also Weinfeld, “Tequphat hakibush,” 195 n. 25a; Gershon Galil and Yair Zakovitch (eds.), Yehoshua (Olam ha­tanakh; Tel Aviv: Davidson-Ittai, 1994) 122–24. Kaufmann early on differentiated among three “territories,” employing similar terminology: territory conquered and divided, “territory which was allotted but not conquered . . . and territory which was neither allotted nor conquered” (Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine [2nd ed.; trans. M. Dagut; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1953] 92–93; italics his). 24.  Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 226 n. 266. 25. Moshe Greenberg, “The Terms ‫ נפל‬and ‫ הפיל‬in the Context of Inheritance,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levin (ed. R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo, and L. H. Schiffman; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 251–59. The commandment to divide the land (Josh 13:7: “Therefore, divide this territory into hereditary portions for the nine tribes and the half-tribe of Manasseh”) does

218

Chapter 8

with a verb [ָ‫ )]ה ִַּפ ֶלה‬likewise attests that the reference is to the “land that yet remains” mentioned in the heading of the paragraph as a whole (v. 2). Kallai’s complementary labels, the “land that yet remains which was divided” and “the undivided land that yet remains,” are intended to harmonize the inconsistencies between the “land that yet remains” document and the chapters describing the tribal allocations; they do not appear in the text itself, either explicitly or implicitly. Other considerations indicate that the “land that yet remains” and the tribal allotments reflect alternative—and to a certain degree, conflicting—concepts: 1. The Book of Settlement in general possesses no concept of the “land that yet remains.” Instead, it contains information about a different sort of “gap” in the conquered area: Canaanite enclaves within the two and a half largest tribes, Judah and the Josephites (Josh 13:13, 15:63, 16:10, 17:11– 13). Our document, on the other hand, speaks neither of the division of the land nor of Canaanite or Jebusite enclaves. 2. The two sources have independent geographical concepts. The “Geshurites” and “Avvim” are not alluded to in the description of the Judahite allotment, while many of the toponyms listed in the detailed delineation of its southern border naturally do not appear in our document. The northern designations, “Baal-gad at the foot of Mount Hermon” and “Misrephoth,” likewise do not appear in the depictions of the tribal allotments but in the conquest narratives and resumés (Josh 11:8, 17; 12:7). 3. Our document and the Book of Settlement are in disagreement over the issue of whether or not significant regions were subjugated. The delineation of the Judahite borderline indicates that Philistia was considered part of the southern strip of the land (Josh 15:4). Three of the five Philistine cities appear in the list of the Judahite cities, and no hint is given that they do not fall under that tribe’s governance: “Ekron, with its dependencies and villages. From Ekron westward, all the towns in the vicinity of Ashdod, with their villages—Ashdod, its dependencies and its villages—Gaza, its dependencies and its villages, all the way to the Wadi of Egypt and the Great Sea” (Josh 15:45–47). Had the author of the description of the Judahite boundary regarded the Philistine cities as falling within the tribal territory, without having been captured, he could not constitute “an emphatic repetition of the command in the previous verse” (Galil and Zakovitch, Yehoshua, 126) since, as Greenberg has demonstrated, there is a crucial distinction between the terms “bequeath (‫ ”)הפיל בנחלה‬and “divide into portions (‫חילק‬ ‫)בנחלה‬.” The command thus is not part of the “land that yet remains” document but is a preface to the portrayal of its distribution, as its opening word “and now (‫ ”)ועתה‬implies.

“The Land That Yet Remains”

219

have stated this fact—as he did in regard to Jerusalem (Josh 15:63). Sites occurring in the depiction of the northern part of “land that yet remains” also fall within the tribal territories. Sidon appears in the account of the Asherite allotment (Josh 19:28: “up to Great Sidon”). 26 Acco, which may be alluded to in the corrupt description of the “land that yet remains” (the extant text is: ‫)ומערה אשר לצידנים‬, is listed (also in corrupt form) among the Asherite cities (Josh 19:30: ‫עמָה‬ ֻ ‫—ו‬Ummah). 27 Next to Acco is “Aphek,” although scholars are divided about whether this should be identified with the Aphek (‫ )אפקה‬in our document (v. 4). 4. As remarked above, the two territories depicted—the southern strips of the “land that yet remains,” which reach Shihor of Egypt (the eastern arms of the Nile), and the southern Judahite boundary, which follows the Wadi of Egypt to the Mediterranean—do not have the same dimensions. These factors suggest that the second section of Joshua contains two conflicting perspectives on the extent of the land and the conquest of Philistia. Although they are presented side by side, they are not easily reconciled. According to our document, the land promised to the Israelites reached the Nile, despite the fact that its southern part remained in the hands of the Geshurites, Philistines, (and Avvim). However, according to the delineations of the tribal allotments, it only extended to the Wadi of Egypt, and the whole area, including Philistia, was under Israelite control. The two passages also disagree about the parameters of the northern part of the “land that yet remains” and the tribal boundaries: the Asherite allotment partially overlaps with the “land that yet remains,” thus rebutting the contention that these areas remained outside Israelite control; however, the Naphtalites’ allotment does not even reach this territory. 28 26.  According to Noth, the notations “up to Great Sidon” and “on to the fortified city of Tyre” are elaborations due to the influence of David’s census: “They continued to Gilead and to the region of Tahtim-hodshi, and they came to Dan-jaan and around to Sidon. They went onto the fortress of Tyre and all the towns of the Hivites and Canaanites, and finished at Beer-sheba in southern Judah” (2 Sam 24:6–7): Martin Noth, “Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches,” ZDPV 58 (1935) 222; idem, Das Buch Josua, 119. 27. The LXX apparently reflects the original text: ‫עַּכֹה‬: see Lea Mazor, The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua: Its Contribution to the Understanding of the Textual Transmission of the Book and Its Literary and Ideological Development (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994) 361–62 [Hebrew], and below, n. 31. 28. As Kallai notes, without explanation. He refuses to concede that the defective list of the Naphtalite cities reflects a different period, “for this assumption pertains only to a single particular and this would render Naphtali’s list deviant from this viewpoint from the whole framework” (Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 437). He thus

220

Chapter 8

Thus, no conceptual or literary link exists between the scope of the land in our document (Josh 13:1–6) and that of the tribal allotments and dimensions (Joshua 15–19). Any attempt at harmonization or endeavor to fill in the details missing from one source by means of information given in the other is also unconvincing. Kallai’s statement is a case in point: “It is thus clear that in the view of the author of Joshua, the Israelite tribal allotments in the north reached Baal-gad.” 29 His conclusion that the verses describing the northern “land that yet remains” delineate the territory of the tribal allotments and complement one another is not tenable. An analysis of the spatial merism likewise shows that the accounts of the northern “land that yet remains” do not refer to different subjects. Instead, the accounts are parallel, overlapping, complementary demarcations of the same region in diverse ways. This conclusion serves as our starting point for an in-depth analysis of the text.

The First Definition (Joshua 13:4) The first general statement about “all the Canaanite country (‫”)כל ארץ הכנעני‬ is unique. The biblical texts usually employ the phrase ‫“( ארץ הכנעני‬the land of the Canaanites”—Exod 13:11, Deut 1:7, Ezek 16:3) or ‫“( כל הכנעני‬all the Canaanites”—Judg 3:3) or ‫“( כל ארץ כנען‬all the land of Canaan”—Gen 17:8, Josh 24:3). As pointed out above, the designation “the land of Canaan” is a fixed geoliterary notion in the biblical texts, serving as a general name for the Israelite inheritance, the borders of which are specified in the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document (see chap. 5). In distinction, the gentilic adjectival form “Canaanite” in the biblical texts specifically denotes one of the important nations that appears in the stereotypical lists of the “peoples of the land.” While in some texts this restrictive geo-ethnic term refers to the inhabitants of the coast and the Jordan Valley—as, for example, in the spies’ report (Num 13:29; also Josh 5:1) 30—in others it relates to all the inhabitants of the land (cf. Gen 12:6), and the phrase “the land of the Canaanites” signifies the whole contradicts his own statement that “all these descriptions constitute a picture of a onceexisting reality” (p. 16). 29.  Ibid., 226; see also Nadav Naʾaman, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography (Jerusalem: Simor, 1986) 42. Kallai harmonistically delineates the northern Naphtalite boundary based on the ideas embodied in the description of the conquest of the “land that yet remains,” as though they were all penned by the same hand and complement the “tribal boundary system” (Historical Geography of the Bible, 226). Naʾaman draws his support from the depiction of David’s census in 1 Sam 24:5–7 (Borders and Districts, 41). 30.  According to one passage, the Canaanites lived specifically in the Judahite allotment—in the hill country, the Negeb, and the Shephelah (Judg 1:9).

“The Land That Yet Remains”

221

land (Exod 13:11, Ezek 16:3). Although it is possible to understand our present document as representing the restrictive view (the coastal residents) and the immediate context as dealing with the northern regions alone, the overall framework of the general depiction of the “land that yet remains” shows that the phrase “all the Canaanite country” has a broader meaning that is parallel to the expression “are accounted Canaanite” (v. 3). The merism following the general indicator is composed of three members: “from Mearah of the Sidonians to Aphek to the Amorite border.” The first notation is apparently a corruption of “from Acco,” 31 and Aphek is identified with Khirbet el-Apheq in the Lebanese Beqaʿ (about 40 km northeast of Beirut). 32 This verse thus refers to the Canaanite settlement in the northwest of the land, the territory that is representative of “all the Canaanite country.” Scholars usually consider the “Amorite border” to be the sole biblical reference to the Kingdom of Amurru, which existed in the area of Lebanon during the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries b.c.e. and was destroyed by the invasion of the sea peoples in the twelfth century b.c.e. 33 This view is problematic on two counts. First, it is difficult to believe that the author of our document—the only person in the Hebrew Bible to do so—possessed solid geographical knowledge of second-millennium Canaan and based his ideas on this information. 34 31.  A comparison with the parallel merisms in this passage indicates that the original formulation must have been “from [a certain place]” (Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 238). Since the merisms apparently delineate the northwest portion of the “land that yet remains,” it is plausible that the text read “from Acco”: see Aaron Demsky, “‘From Kzib unto the River near Amanah’ (m. Šebiʿit 6:1; Ḥallah 4:8): A Clarification of the Northern Border of the Returnees from Egypt,” Shnaton 10 (1990) 80 [Hebrew]; Aḥituv, Joshua, 21. In other opinions, the original reading was: “from the west (‫”)ממערב‬: Kaufmann, Sepher Yehoshua, 162; Galil and Zakovitch, Yehoshua, 125; “from Ara”: Noth, Joshua, 70; Soggin, Joshua, 147, 149; Robert G. Boling, Joshua (AB 6; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982) 331; Mario Liverani, “The Amorites,” in Peoples of Old Testament Times (ed. D. J. Wiseman; Oxford: Clarendon, 1973) 123; “from Mearah”: Cooke, The Book of Joshua, 119; Naʾaman, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography, 52–53; or “from Gaza”: Abel, Josué, 65 (on the basis of LXXAB). 32.  Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 235; Aḥituv, Joshua, 212. 33.  Roland de Vaux, The Early History of Israel (trans. D. Smith; London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1978) 131; Liverani, “The Amorites,” 123–24; Moshe Anbar, “Genesis 15: A Conflation of Two Deuteronomic Narratives,” JBL 101 (1982) 52 n. 96; Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 235–36; Naʾaman, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography, 53 n. 27; Galil and Zakovitch, Yehoshua, 125; Oded Tammuz, “Canaan: A Land without Limits,” UF 33 (2001) 525, 528. 34.  Attempts to reconstruct the process whereby this ancient territorial concept reached our document are implausible. Thus, Tammuz, for example, maintains that the Israelites—or some of those who became part of the people over the course of time—

222

Chapter 8

Second, this view would require us to understand the preposition ‫( עד‬ʿad) in the non-coterminous sense of “at, close to” 35—contrary to its customary denotation of representative members of a merism. This is also true of the present meristic text; “the Amorite border” refers to the territory identified by the general indicator “all the Canaanite country.” The phrase “the Amorite border” also appears in the comment about the “gaps” in the conquest in Judges 1: the Amorites are one of the three nations that are specified as remaining unconquered. The Jebusites in Jerusalem are mentioned first in a separate clause (Judg 1:21; cf. Josh 15:63). The body of the list refers to the Canaanites resident in the Manassite, Ephraimite, Zebulonite, Asherite, and Naphtalite allotments (Judg 1:27–33) and concludes with an allusion to the Amorites, who “pressed the Danites into the hill country” and “persisted in dwelling” in their cities (Judg 1:34–35). Judges 1 ends with the remark: “The territory of the Amorites extended from the Ascent of Akrabbim—from Sela—onward” (v. 36). Since the “Ascent of Akrabbim” appears in the description of the southern borderline of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” (Num 34:4), “the Amorite border” is regarded as lying within the territory of the “land of Canaan.” It is possible that the author of the unparalleled statement in Judg 1:36 was seeking to stress his perspective about the southern border of the land, which was contrary to another view—reflected in our document—that the land stretched to the perimeters of Egypt. Like the Canaanites, the Amorites are part of the stereotypical “list of peoples” who inhabited the land (see, for example, Exod 3:8, 17; 33:2; Josh 24:11). Although the biblical texts sometimes distinguish the Amorites inhabiting the hill country from the Canaanites dwelling in the plains and along the coastal region (cf. Num 13:29; Deut 1:44; Josh 10:5–6, 11:3), the designation “Amorite” frequently also serves as a general name for all the nations of the land (compare Gen 15:16, Josh 24:15). 36 In our document, the designation “Amorite” may carry either of these meanings. In the restrictive view, “the Amorite border” thus signifies the hill country, and “all the inhabitants of the crossed the northern border of Canaan in their prehistoric period (“Canaan: A Land without Limits,” 528). 35.  Aḥituv, Joshua, 214. 36.  According to the classic Documentary Hypothesis, J refers to the early inhabitants of the land as “Canaanites” (e.g., Gen 12:6; 13:7; 24:3, 37; 34:30), while E names them “Amorites” (e.g., Gen 15:16, 48:22; Josh 24:15): see Samuel Rolles Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (6th ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897) 112. In this theory, our document belongs to a later period, during which both terms were known.

“The Land That Yet Remains”

223

hill country” are indeed being referred to in Josh 13:6 (compare with Josh 10:6). In the inclusive view—which is preferable, in my opinion—the expression resembles “all the Canaanite country” in 13:4 and alludes to the whole of the land, similar to Judg 1:36. The fact that two phrases denoting the inhabitants of the entire land—“the Amorite border” and “all the Canaanite country”—appear together here strengthens the impression that the “land that yet remains” was a single territorial unit.

The Second Definition (Joshua 13:5) The second definition of the northern remaining territory commences with the geographical notation “and the land of the Gebalites,” which was the area of the Phoenician port city, Gebal, in northern Lebanon. 37 This is followed by the general indicator “with the whole Lebanon on the east.” Together, these two phrases depict the northern territory: the Phoenician coastal plain to the west and the hill country to the east. The merism “from Baal-gad at the foot of Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath” describes two places known from other biblical texts. “Baal-gad at the foot of Mount Hermon” is linked to the story of the battle at the Waters of Merom (Josh 11:3) and the conquest resumés (Josh 11:17, 12:7), while “Lebo-hamath” is one of the most prominent border posts on the northern boundary given in the “land of Canaan” document (see below, pp. 278–281). The use of the general indicator and its associated merism shows that the designation “Baal-gad at the foot of Mount Hermon” together with “Lebo-hamath” represents “the land of the Gebalites” and “the whole Lebanon”—an area including the Phoenician coast, the Lebanon range, the Anti-Lebanon, and the valley between the latter two. Thus the second definition of the northern region likewise stresses territory rather than people(s).

The Third/Fourth Definitions (Joshua 13:6) The third definition, together with the general statement concluding the description, addresses the ethnic aspect of the northern “land that yet remains” (“all the inhabitants of the hill country,” “all the Sidonians”). The locations named (13:6: “all the inhabitants of the hill country from the Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim, all the Sidonians”) also appear in the depiction of the enemy’s rout following the battle at the Waters of Merom: “they defeated them and pursued them all the way to Great Sidon and Misrephothmaim, and all the way to the Valley of Mizpah on the east” (Josh 11:8). Aharoni proposes that this route 37.  See W. F. Albright, ‫גבל‬, EncBib 2:404–11.

224

Chapter 8

represents “the borders of the Canaanites unvanquished by the Israelites (Josh. 13:4–6).” 38 Since the discussion so far has demonstrated that the attention of the author of our document is focusing on the territorial rather than the ethnic aspect of the “land that yet remains,” however, it is preferable to theorize the opposite relationship between these two texts. The third/fourth definition of the northern “land that yet remains” is dependent on the description of the Israelites’ victory over the Canaanites, who were scattered eastward and westward after the battle at the Waters of Merom. 39 This explains why the author diverges from his normal practice here in denoting the inhabitants of the hill country as well as the territory. The two texts are linked polemically: the region whose residents Joshua “crushed, letting none escape” (Josh 11:8) is the same as the “land that yet remains” and its inhabitants: “all the inhabitants of the hill country . . . all the Sidonians.” On the basis of general meristic usage and an analysis of the relevant verses, we can thus conclude that the northern delineations of the “land that yet remains” parallel and complement one another. Corroboration of the fact that they relate to the same territory is found in the parallel formulation in the description of “all Aram” in the Sefire Inscription via a four-member merism: “[. . . from ʿA]rqu to Yaʾd[y and] BZ, from Lebanon to Yab[rud, from Damas]cus to ʿAru and M[. .]W, [and from] Biqʿat to KTK” (Sefire Inscription I B 9–10). 40 This area consists of Lebanon in its broad sense—including the coast, Mount Lebanon, the Beqaʿ, and the Anti-Lebanon. This was the region inhabited by the Canaanites, Amorites, Gebalites, and Sidonians—the residents of the hill country and the coastal Phoenicians. At the same time, “all the Canaanite country” and “the Amorite border” also denote the “land” in the wide sense adopted in our document, which depicts, in various and diverse forms, the “land that yet remains” as a single geographical unit.

38.  Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 225. 39.  The depiction may identify the most distant locations to which the Canaanites fled in their escape: westward—to Misrephoth-maim, the identification of which is uncertain (see Yohanan Aharoni, ‫ משרפות מים‬,‫משרפת מים‬, EncBib 5:641); northwestward—to the region of Sidon; and northeastward—to the Valley of Mizpah, identified as the Valley of Ayyoun (see Aḥituv, Joshua, 183, commentary on 13:8). 40. See KAI 41, #222; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995) 218. For an analysis of this description, see my article “From Biqʿat to KTK: ‘All Aram’ in the Sefire Inscription in Light of Amos 1:5,” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism (ed. C. Cohen et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008) 2:713–32.

“The Land That Yet Remains”

225

The Relation between the “Land That Yet Remains” and Other Biblical Passages In order to gain a proper understanding of the nature of our document, we must examine its relationship to other passages in Joshua and elsewhere.

The Complete-Conquest Resumés (Joshua 11:16–17 and 12:7) “Baal-gad,” which lay “in the Valley of Lebanon” or “at the foot of Mount Hermon,” is only mentioned in our document (in the second definition of the northern border of the “land that yet remains” in Josh 13:5: “from Baal-gad at the foot of Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath”) and in the complete-conquest resumés. In the first resumé, it reads: “from Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir, all the way to Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon at the foot of Mount Hermon” (11:17); and in the second: “from Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon to Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir” (12:7). In all three of these passages, it appears as a representative member of a spatial merism. Each of these units is likewise linked conceptually to the geographical idea of the “land of Canaan”: the conquest resumés refer to “Mount Halak” which was in the vicinity of the southern border of Canaan, while our document speaks of “Lebo-hamath,” the most prominent northern boundary location in the “land of Canaan.” The associations between the three passages have led scholars to conclude that they all reflect the same geographical and ideological notion: they were composed of two complementary elements: the “land of Canaan” (Num 34:1– 12) = the conquered land + the “land that yet remains” (Josh 13:2–6). 41 Since, as we have seen above, this formula does not apply to the southern region, where the “land that yet remains” exceeds the territory of the “land of Canaan,” we must examine whether the scope of the “land that yet remains” in the north is presented as corresponding to the scope of the “land of Canaan.” Although Baal-gad is in fact the northernmost toponym mentioned in the description of the land subjugated by Joshua, this role is played by Lebo-hamath in the depiction of the “land that yet remains.” The formula “from Baal-gad . . . to Lebo-hamath” in our document (Josh 13:1–6) ostensibly indicates that the territory Joshua conquered only extended to Mount Hermon and did not overlap with the northern boundary of the promised “land of Canaan.” This issue is unrelated to the question of whether the land was subdued completely 41.  Thus, for example, Aharoni asserts that “this document is an account of the regions which actually ‘remained’ foreign and which were still outside the limits of Israelite occupation, although they were included in the traditional borders of Canaan (Num. 34)” (The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 236; see also pp. 75–77). See also n. 15 above.

226

Chapter 8

or partially. It has already been noted that the full resumé of the conquest carries no hint of the option that Joshua’s conquest of “the whole of this country” (11:16) left “gaps,” either within the territory captured or on its perimeters. We cannot in principal dismiss the possibility that, in the view that Joshua conquered all the land, the territory demarcated as its southern border corresponds to the border of the “land of Canaan,” but its northern border was shorter. However, the above analysis of the merism in the conquest resumés (11:17: “from Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir, all the way to Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon at the foot of Mount Hermon”; cf. 12:7) has demonstrated that the dimensions of the vanquished territory reflect those of the “land of Canaan.” The assertion that Joshua subjugated Baal-gad refers to the conquest of the area of Lebanon that the site represents. The depiction of the “land that yet remains” “from Baal-gad at the foot of Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath” (Josh 13:5) indicates that the selection of Baal-gad as representative of the northern part of the land in the conquest—rather than the standard indicator of Lebohamath—provided the author of our document with a foothold from which to delineate the “remaining territory” in the north. His polemical notion regarding geographical and historical issues is manifest here in his integration of designations that derive from the conquest resumés and the description of the battle of the Waters of Merom: his depictions are unique to his account. He presents his central contention—that “very much of the land remains to be taken possession of ” (13:1)—by requisitioning outlying regions conquered by Joshua (Philistia and Mount Lebanon), on the one hand, and extending the southern border of the Promised Land to Egypt, on the other. 42 42.  The discrepancies cannot be explained by appealing to different sources. Generally speaking, our document is regarded as a Deuteronomistic text, although a late one. In one opinion, it serves as a preface to the Book of Settlement (Joshua 13–21) and was edited by a Deuteronomistic hand: see Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 40; Bright, Joshua, 619–20; Soggin, Joshua, 151; Aḥituv, Joshua, 23. In a second view, it is associated with the stratum belonging to the conquest resumés: see Weinfeld, “Tequphat ha-kibush.” Weinfeld distinguishes (1) the Deuteronomistic belief that the whole of the land was conquered but that foreign enclaves remained along its perimeters from (2) the Priestly premise that these enclaves remained within the tribal allotments (Joshua 15– 16; Judges 1). As remarked above, however, the resumés in Joshua 10–12 do not recognize any such enclaves at all, while the resumé in chap. 23—whose Deuteronomistic provenance is undisputed—supports the view that “the peoples that still remain” lived within the conquered territory rather than on its periphery: see the discussion below, p. 227. In my estimation, our document does not belong to the Deuteronomistic stratum but reflects a unique—and apparently very late—perspective.

“The Land That Yet Remains”

227

The “Peoples That Still Remain” (Joshua 23) A partial parallel to the description of the “land that yet remains” appears at the beginning of Joshua 23. The heading to Joshua’s farewell speech contains the expression “when Joshua was old and well advanced in years” (v. 1), which recurs in the opening words of the speech, in v. 2. This passage also repeats the motif of the unsubdued swaths of land (vv. 4–5, 7, 12–13), together with the phrase “to bequeath (‫( ”)להפיל בנחלה‬v. 4; cf. Josh 13:6). There are also three significant disparities between these two texts, however: 1. Like the other texts dealing with the unconquered territory (besides our present document), Joshua’s farewell speech focuses on the ethnic rather than the territorial aspect—“the peoples that still remain” (vv. 4, 7). 43 2. Although Joshua 23 does not specify precisely where the “peoples that still remain” lived, it is probable that they resided in foreign enclaves within the territory of the tribal allotments rather than on land that bordered the conquered areas to the north and south, based on the fact that God had given the Israelites “rest from all the enemies around them” (v. 1). Another hint appears in v. 4, which locates the “peoples that still remain” in the territory “from the Jordan to the Great Sea in the west,” whereas the “land that yet remains” description situates them solely in strips in the north and south. 3. Although Joshua 23 refers to the “peoples that still remain,” this allusion does not impinge on the author’s utopian vision of Joshua’s conquests: “[N]ot one of the good things that the Lord your God promised you has failed to happen; they have all come true for you, not a single one has failed” (v. 14). 44 As a matter of fact, the people’s assembly in Joshua’s old age is many years distant from the period of the conquest (v. 1: “Much later, after the Lord had given Israel rest from all the enemies around them, and when Joshua was old and well advanced in years”; compare Josh 21:42). As with other persons in the Hebrew Bible, Joshua’s senescence is the grounds for his farewell speech (cf. Abraham—Gen 24:1; Samuel—1 Sam 12:2; David—1 Chr 23:1, 29:28). Recall, however, 43.  The affinities between our document and Joshua 23 that Kaufmann identifies derive from his harmonizing tendency: Sepher Yehoshua, 246 (on Josh 23:4). Weinfeld considers both texts to belong to the Deuteronomistic school and therefore necessarily to reflect the same conception: Weinfeld, “Tequphat ha-kibush,” 197. See also Smend, who attributes both to a late Deuteronomistic stratum: Smend, “Das Gesetz und die Völker,” 501; idem, “Das uneroberte Land,” 92. 44.  See also the language in Judg 2:21–23, a passage that recognizes that not all the land was conquered and even attributes the failure to Joshua, although not holding him personally responsible: God determined that the nations would remain in order to test the Israelites; thus, he did not give them into Joshua’s hand.

228

Chapter 8 that the conquest of territory approximates sexual activity in the biblical world view; military operations are described in terms that carry both explicit and implicit sexual connotations. 45 The motif of old age suits the contexts of exhaustion and physical and sexual impotency (at times even in relation to the same figures, such as Abraham [Gen 18:11] and David [1 Kgs 1:1]), thus serving as a particularly fitting explanation for the failure to vanquish all the land. It also denotes a lack of capability and weakness on Moses’ part, in his acknowledgment on the eve of his death that “I am now one hundred and twenty years old, I can no longer be active” (Deut 31:2), which is the same motif that appears in the Israelites’ criticism of Samuel: “You have grown old, and your sons have not followed your ways” (1 Sam 8:5). In contrast to Joshua 23, in our document (Josh 13:1–6), Joshua’s advanced years and the failure to completely subjugate the land are causally related.

Although these divergences make it difficult to ascertain which of the two texts is original, 46 the unique ideas presented by the author of the “land that yet remains” document suggest that, in line with his customary practice, he borrowed the notion of “remaining” (including the notation regarding Joshua’s old age) from the Deuteronomistic farewell speech but adapted it to his specific purposes.

“The Peoples Left So That the Lord Might Test by Them All the Israelites” (Judges 3:1–3) Our document (Josh 13:1–6) also displays linguistic, stylistic, and conceptual affinities with the description of “the peoples that the Lord left so that He might test by them all the Israelites” (Judg 3:1): (1) These are the peoples that the Lord left so that He might test by them all the Israelites who had not known any of the wars of Canaan, (2) so that succeeding generations of Israelites might be made to experience war: (3) the five lords of the Philistines and all the Canaanites, Sidonians, and Hivites who inhabited the hill country of the Lebanon from Mount Baal-hermon to Lebo-hamath. 45. Meir Malul, “Towards a Holistic-Integrative Investigation of Culture: A Case Study—The Motif of Spying and Conquering a Territory in the Bible,” Shnaton 14 (2004) 148–55 [Hebrew]. 46.  The motif of old age suits both contexts and therefore is not useful in determining which is the original—Joshua’s farewell speech in Joshua 23 (Noth, Das Buch Josua, 10) or the conclusion of the conquest description (Smend, “Das Gesetz und die Völker,” 497–500; Graeme Auld, Joshua, Moses and the Land [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980] 52–55).

“The Land That Yet Remains”

229

The expression “the five lords of the Philistines” appears only in Joshua 13 and this text in Judges. 47 Likewise, only in these passages do we find a spatial merism that includes “Lebo-hamath,” on the one hand, and “Baal-gad at the foot of Mount Hermon” or the similar “Mount Baal-hermon,” on the other hand. Both these passages also conjoin general indicators and merisms in a structure that recalls Mesopotamian and biblical conquest resumés. 48 This literary phenomenon is unique to these two texts, which delineate the unconquered territory (or nations) via formulas that are customarily employed to describe the feats of the victor. These are also the only two places in which the unvanquished areas lie on the periphery of the Promised Land rather than being ethnic or geographical enclaves within its territory. Both portrayals relate to one strip of land in the south of the country and one in the north, and the order in which they are mentioned is also the same (the south followed by the north). The description of the northern strip in Judges is similarly longer and more detailed than that of the south. Judg 3:1–3 is much shorter than our document. The southern sector merely refers to “the five lords of the Philistines,” while the northern portion contains a general indicator and a merism, as opposed to the four general indicators and three merisms in the description of the “land that yet remains.” The sketch of the “peoples that the Lord left” in the north refers to territory that is identical to the northern “land that yet remains.” 49 In the south, its extent is far more limited than the scope delineated in our document, concurring with the description of the “land of Canaan.” The “peoples that the Lord left that He might test by them all the Israelites” include the Philistines but not the Geshurites in the Sinai Desert to the eastern reaches of Egypt, and this disparity cannot be 47.  Although the five lords are known from other passages in the Hebrew Bible (1 Sam 6:16; cf. also ibid., v. 4), the term ‫ חמשת סרני פלשתים‬occurs solely in the two texts under discussion here. 48.  For this combination in the “land that yet remains” document, see Aharoni: “Each of them begins with the designation ‘all’, after which follows a description of the border in the formula: ‘from . . . to . . .’, with additional details added here and there” (The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 237). Cf. the depictions given in the source known as “The Sargon Geography”: see Wayne Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998) 67–95. 49.  The Hivites are the only group which appears in the account in Judges but is absent from the “land that yet remains” document. Hivites in the north are mentioned elsewhere solely in the explanatory comment appended to the description of the battle fought at the Waters of Merom (Josh 11:3: “and to the Hivites at the foot of Hermon, in the land of Mizpah”). The LXX reads “Hivites” in place of “Avvim” in Josh 13:3. The origin of the rendering “Hivites” in Judges may lie in a similar amendment: see Soggin, Joshua, 152.

230

Chapter 8

ascribed to the relative brevity of the description. As the notation “the peoples that the Lord left” in the north indicates, the focus of the passage and the fact that it was abridged into one general indicator and a merism did not alter its essence. The phrase “the five lords of the Philistines” in itself therefore, without the Avvim and “the Shihor which is close to Egypt,” manifests a variant notion of the southern parameters of the Promised Land that is consistent with other descriptions of the land from this direction. Each of the two passages illustrates a particular aspect of the unsubjugated parts of the land. In contrast to the territorial interest reflected in Josh 13:1–6, the description of “the peoples that the Lord left” in Judges 3 refers to the undispossessed inhabitants of the land. In other words, this text contains no territorial terms but speaks solely of the resident nations (“the five lords of the Philistines and all the Canaanites, Sidonians, and Hivites who inhabited the hill country of the Lebanon from Mount Baal-hermon to Lebo-hamath”). In place of “all the Canaanite country” in our document (Josh 13:4), Judges 3 employs the phrase “all the Canaanites” (Judg 3:3). Although the literary link between the two passages is clearly polemical, the relation between them remains unclear. Is the brief text in Judges, which is appended to a unit addressing “the peoples that the Lord left,” dependent on the longer description of the “land that yet remains” in Joshua, or does the “land that yet remains” document elaborate the depiction given in “the peoples that the Lord left” portrayal? 50 While both texts appear to be late elements within their extant literary context, 51 it is more reasonable to conclude that the brief 50.  Few commentators on Joshua and Judges have examined this issue in depth. Some consider the passage in Judges to be a summary of the “land that yet remains” document (e.g., Noth, Das Buch Josua, 75), while others argue the opposite (e.g., Cooke, The Book of Joshua, 119). 51.  Judg 3:1b–3 appears to be a secondary elaboration of a verse that in its original form dealt with the religious threat to the people who came in contact with the inhabitants of the land (vv. 1a, 4–6; see the Wiederaufnahme [resumptive repetition] “to test the Israelites by them” in vv. 1, 4). The divergences between the early and later versions revolve around two principal issues: (1) the identity of the “peoples that still remain”: the stereotypical reference to the Canaanites (v. 5) versus the Philistines and peoples dwelling in the hill country of the Lebanon; (2) the (pedagogical) reason behind God’s decision to leave the nations—to give the Israelites a religious test (v. 4) versus training people who were untried in warfare by providing them with battle experience. For the distinction between the two strata, see Driver, who assigns vv. 1a–3 to an earlier source and vv. 4–6 to the Deuteronomist (An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 165, 167). Weinfeld, on the other hand, regards vv. 5–6 as originating in a preDeuteronomistic literary stratum (“Tequphat ha-kibush,” 192). Regardless of the option

“The Land That Yet Remains”

231

notation in Judges is later than and in dispute with our document. This reasoning would explain our document’s relation to the story of the battle at the Waters of Merom and the conquest resumés in Joshua (Josh 11:17, 12:7). Perhaps the same hand that inserted “the peoples that the Lord left” description was also responsible for the concluding comment in Judg 1:36: “The territory of the Amorites extended from the Ascent of Akrabbim—from Sela—onward.” This verse also conflicts with the more-elaborate scope of the land in the south that appears in the “land that yet remains” document (see above, p. 222).

“All Israel” in the Bringing Up of the Ark in Chronicles (1 Chronicles 13:5) While the notation “the land that yet remains” is unique to our document, the narrative about bringing up the ark in 1 Chronicles appears to refer to our passage: “David then assembled all Israel from Shihor of Egypt to Lebo-hamath, in order to bring the Ark of God from Kiriath-jearim” (1 Chr 13:5; the expression is absent in the parallel account, 2  Sam 6:1). The Chronicler thus seeks to convey the impression that, at the beginning of David’s reign, “all Israel” inhabited the area left unconquered by Joshua 52—that is, the promise that the Israelites would take possession of the “land that yet remains” was fulfilled during the days of David.

The “Land That Yet Remains”: A Form of “Promised Land” Some of the elements that are unique to our document—God’s direct speech to the people, the use of the singular “this land,” the stress on territory versus inhabitants, and the roster of the “five lords of the Philistines” on the model of the “list of peoples”—are elucidated by the premise that the unit is a promissory document. This impression is reinforced by comparing our document with other promissory texts that delineate the land’s borders: the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document in Num 34:1–12 and the account of the ideal future land in Ezekiel 47–48:

one adopts about this question, both strata discuss the question of the “peoples that still remain” rather than the “land that yet remains.” 52.  “This is an expression of the Chronicler’s peculiar historical understanding of the beginnings of Israel, cast here in geographical terminology” (Sara Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary [OTL; London: SCM, 1993] 278).

232

Chapter 8

1. In both our document and the detailed depiction of the borders of the land, God promises, in a direct address focusing attention on the territory rather than its inhabitants, that he will give the land as a possession to the Israelites. 2. In all three texts, the land is delineated in the opening statement as “this land,” and God’s statements are formulated in terms of a “bequest (‫הפיל‬ ‫)בנחלה‬.” The “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” description thus states: “[T]his is the land that shall fall to you as your heritage.” 53 Preceding the outline of its entire border, Ezekiel’s portrayal of the future land states that “this land [shall] fall to you as your heritage” (Ezek 47:14)—a sentence that is repeated at the end of the section: “That is the land which you shall bequeath as a heritage to the tribes of Israel” (Ezek 48:28). The “land that yet remains” document likewise asserts: “This is the land that yet remains . . . ; you have only to bequeath it to Israel (ָ‫רק ה ִַּפ ֶלה‬ ‫( ”)לישראל בנחלה‬Josh 13:2–6). 3. All three passages also allude to the “four winds of heaven.” Numbers 34, which provides a schematic outline of the border, prospect by prospect, explicitly refers to the winds in denoting each “direction”: -‫והיה לכם פאת‬ ‫“( נגב‬Your southern sector shall extend . . .”—v. 3), ‫זה יהיה לכם גבול ים‬ (“For the western boundary you shall have . . .”—v. 6), ‫וזה יהיה לכם גבול‬ ‫“( צפון‬This shall be your northern boundary”—vv. 7, 9), and ‫והתאויתם‬ ‫“( לכם לגבול קדמה‬For your eastern boundary you shall draw a line . . .”—v. 10). A similar sketch appears in Ezekiel’s vision, which delineates a continuous line including the northern section ‫( לפאת צפונה‬Ezek 47:15, 17), ‫“( פאת קדים‬As the eastern limit”—v. 18), ‫“( פאת נגב תימנה‬The southern limit”—v. 19), and ‫“( פאת ים‬And as the western limit”—v. 20). A different scene is painted in the “land that yet remains” document. Josh 13:1–6 contains no schematic or consistent allusion to the four prospects of the territory; it does not delineate the entire, continuous borderline. It identifies the “land that yet remains” as comprising a single strip in the south (Josh 13:2–3) and north (vv. 4–6). The distinction between the two swaths arises from a geo-conceptual analysis of the passage; the author himself presents the two peripheral swaths as one entity embraced within a single description dealing with a solitary issue. An implicit allusion to the “four winds” does appear in the toponyms mentioned: “from the Shihor, which is close to Egypt, to the territory of Ekron on the north” (13:3); 54 “on the south (‫ ”)מתימן‬at the end of 53.  Kaufmann notes this similarity, but his conclusion differs greatly from mine (The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine, 91 n. 56). 54.  For the locative suffix of ‫ צפונה‬indicating “in the north,” see GKC 250/§90d; above, p. 148 n. 60.

“The Land That Yet Remains”

233

the southern border description; 55 the “land of the Gebalites, with the whole Lebanon on the east (‫( ”)מזרח השמש‬13:5); and “from the Lebanon to Misrepoth on the west (‫( ”)משרפות ִמּיָם‬13:6). 56 Such a full—and slightly forced—reference to all four winds is exceptional in spatial merisms, which normally adopt the extremities formula “from . . . to . . .” (see chap. 3). Its presence augments the impression that the text is speaking of a Promised Land and strengthens its affinity with detailed promissory documents such as “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries.” The attention paid to the northern and southern parts in itself implies the whole land: spatial merisms commonly signify territory via representative sites, the majority being located in the south and north (such as “from Dan to Beer-sheba” or “from the Wilderness of Zin to Rehob, at Lebohamath” [Num 13:21]). In Ezekiel’s vision of the future land, the portrayal of the entire border precedes the depiction of the tribal allotments and serves as a preface to it. The document that describes the “land that yet remains” functions in a similar manner with respect to the delineation of the tribal heritages. While it does not relate to the same geographical territory (namely, the sum of the allotments), its location prior to the chapters discussing the assignment of the land to the various tribes gives it a status that corresponds to Ezekiel’s sketch of the entire land. Why was a promissory document composed at this stage of biblical historiography, subsequent to the accomplishment of the taking-possession of the land in full? Our document is generally regarded as providing a solution to the discrepancy between the promise and its fulfillment. 57 The majority of the promissory expressions were formulated in an absolute fashion, and Joshua 1–12 likewise depicts a complete, overwhelming, decisive victory. This was 55.  It is unclear precisely to what this term refers. It may relate to all the territory delineated up to this point (Kaufmann, Sepher Yehoshua, 162; Aḥituv, Joshua, 212) or to only part of it; to the list of Philistine lords; or only to the Avvim living south of them (see “Rab . . . declared that the Avvim originally came from Teman” [b. Ḥullin 60b]). See Noth, Das Buch Josua, 70; Boling, Joshua, 233; Galil and Zakovitch, Yehoshua, 125. 56. The MT reads Misrepoth-maim (‫ ) ַמיִם‬here, but the variant “on the west (‫)מּיָם‬,” ִ which only involves an alteration of the vowel points, is preferable, both in this passage and in Josh 11:8, where it is supported by Symmachus’s translation (see above, p. 196 n. 22). The latter text also contains a wordplay on the geographical directions: the Israelites pursue their enemies, who gather in the north, from “south of Kinneret,” the east, and the west (‫)מיָם‬ ִ (Josh 11:2–3) to “Misrephoth-maim, and all the way to the Valley of Mizpah on the east” (11:8) (‫—ועד משרפות מים ועד בקעת מצפה מזרחה‬following Boling, Joshua, 308). Alternatively, some scholars suggest that the word ‫ מערה‬in v. 3 has been corrupted from ‫( ממערב‬see above, n. 31). 57.  Smend, “Das uneroberte Land,” 93 (following comments made by Alt).

234

Chapter 8

evidently not the reality experienced by the biblical writers themselves, however. The picture arising from the Scriptures as a whole is that the kingdoms of Judah and Israel never fully controlled the territory known as “the land of Canaan.” Philistia stretched along the southwestern coast, the Sidonians ruled over the northern coastal cities and the Lebanon, and even in the heart of the country other peoples resided; 58 the returnees from the exile certainly only inhabited a small part of the area of the “land of Canaan.” The discord between the promise and the story of the full settlement, on the one hand, and historical reality, on the other, is exemplified in the recurrent biblical discussions about “the peoples that still remain”—some of which appear in the promissory texts themselves (Exod 23:29–33, Deut 7:22). The plethora of answers given to the question by way of theodicy—sometimes one after another in a single passage (Judg 2:20–3:6)—reveal the attention that was given to the subject by the biblical writers. 59 Nonetheless, they do not explain all the features unique to our document: its role as a promissory text, the different (greater) scope of the land it delineates, or its reference to the remaining territories situated solely on the perimeters (south and north) of the country. Given the linkage between the people’s conduct and their conquest of the land, Smend proposes that our document was placed after the narrative of the full conquest in order to leave God a measure of power and influence over the Israelites’ behavior—a form of “pledge in God’s hand.” 60 He thus perceives the intention of the document as projecting the full conquest of the past into an unspecified future. This sort of “postponement” has ramifications not merely for the people’s relations with God but also for their relationship to the land. National Israelite consciousness formulated its notion of the people’s early history on the basis of the idea that the nation entered the land promised to it, settled it, and dispossessed the peoples living within it at the time. 61 Their right to the land was thus grounded in a divine promise rather than being a “natural right” derived from long-standing residence. However, this fact does not speak to the question whether the oath to the Israelites was once and for all, or merely for “once”—and therefore applicable at different times. 58.  George F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895) 80. 59.  Smend, “Das uneroberte Land,” 95. 60.  “Faustpfand in der Hand Gottes” (Smend, “Das uneroberte Land,” 98). I am grateful to Ora Lipschitz for bringing this passage to my attention. 61.  For the conception of the Israelites’ “exterior” point of origin, see my “Natives, Immigrants and the Biblical Perception of Origins in Historical Times,” Tel Aviv 32 (2005) 220–44.

“The Land That Yet Remains”

235

The language of the conquest resumés (Joshua 10–12) and the resumés in the Deuteronomistic chapters at the conclusion of the book suggest that the oath was made to the patriarchs in the past and fully realized in the days of Joshua (Josh 21:41–43; cf. 23:14). What rights to the land, then, do later generations possess—generations in the Restoration period, for example, when the promise had been fulfilled in the past but was then “despoiled”? One possible way of addressing the theological problem of the promise’s “expiry date” was to consider it to be renewed in a “second version.” This is what we find in Ezekiel, who was the sole prophet apart from Moses to deliver ordinances to the people. Ezekiel revived the oath and delineated the land that God “swore to give . . . to your fathers” (Ezek 47:14) with regard to both its external boundaries and its internal tribal division. Another option was to negate its having been fully realized at one time: if possession of the land had been only partially accomplished, the promise could not have been fully implemented and could still be expected to be fulfilled in the future. Our document does indeed present a picture of an incomplete conquest, because it refers to wide expanses of unconquered territory rather than to insignificant “gaps”: “very much of the land still remains to be taken possession of ” (Josh 13:1). To this end, its author requisitioned peripheral regions vanquished by Joshua—Philistia in the south and the hill country of the Lebanon in the north—and redelineated them as areas that remained outside the spheres of conquest. For added security, he extended the land’s borders, describing them as stretching not only to the “Wadi of Egypt” but up to “Shihor of Egypt”—land that had never been under Israelite control, even during the golden age of the United Monarchy presented in the Deuteronomistic History. 62 In order to depict the partial conquest and the “very much land” still remaining to be subjugated in the future, the author of our document was compelled to reduce Joshua’s stature, although this is not the principal agenda of his text. God does not blame Joshua directly and explicitly, because his failure to carry out his mission fully (which should otherwise have been assured) is attributed to his advanced years. In their textual sensitivity, however, the Sages overtly accused Joshua of negligence, even if only for the postponement rather than the actual failure of the conquest:

62. Contra Soggin and Abel, who identify “Shihor of Egypt” with the Wadi of Egypt: Soggin, Joshua, 153; Abel, Josué, 64. Compare with Bright, who states unequivocally, “This territory never at any time came under Israelite control”—although he, too, identifies the southern borderline as running through the Wadi of Egypt (“Joshua,” 620).

236

Chapter 8

Our Rabbis said: It is written in connection with Joshua, As I was with Moses, so I will be with thee (Josh 1:5). Joshua, then, should have lived a hundred and twenty years, like Moses our Teacher. Why was his life shortened by ten years? When the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites; afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people (Num 31:2), he did not put off the matter, although he was given tidings of death, but acted with promptitude, And Moses sent them (31:6). Joshua, however, when his turn came to fight with the thirtyone kings, thought: If I kill them at once I shall straightway die, as Moses our Teacher died. What did he do? He began to dally in the wars against them; as it says, Joshua made war a long time with all those kings (Josh 11:18). Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to him: “So this is what you have done, is it? Behold, I shall shorten your life by ten years!” (Num. Rab. 22:6)

Although this midrash reflects the sense that the conquest was a onetime event, it focuses on the human rather than the national aspect of its problematic nature. Joshua endeavors to postpone the execution of the command to take full possession of the land in order to lengthen his own life. The assumption that Joshua’s role would be over once the conquest had been completed suggests that the feat was regarded as a one-time affair. Joshua’s association with his master, Moses, which the midrash emphasizes, is further reflected in the relative incompetence that our document attributes to Joshua. Joshua the conqueror— otherwise portrayed as Moses’ successor and replacement—becomes a “second Moses” in this realm as well. 63 Although the elderly leader failed to take full possession of the land, God nevertheless promises him that it will be given to the people as their inheritance. Our document also contains an important statement about the relationship between dogmatic ideal and historical reality. As noted above, Joshua 1–12 distinguishes between the conquest and settlement of the land. The Israelites encamp temporarily at Gilgal, on the boundary of the land, from which they set out on their campaign to vanquish the territory and to which they return. No tribe inherits its allotment in the Promised Land until the land is completely subdued. This decision is reflected in the structure of the book as a whole, which is clearly divided between the stages of conquest and settlement, as well as in the general resumé in Josh 12:6–7 and the later summary statement at the end of Joshua 11: “Thus Joshua conquered the whole country, just as the Lord had promised Moses; and Joshua assigned it to Israel to share according to their 63.  Joshua is presented as “a pale reproduction of Moses” (Aḥituv, Joshua, 37)—or in the Sages’ words, “The countenance of Moses was like that of the sun; the countenance of Joshua was like that of the moon” (b. Baba Batra 75a). For other aspects of this phenomenon, see Aḥituv, Joshua, 37–39.

“The Land That Yet Remains”

237

tribal divisions” (11:23). The Deuteronomistic resumé at the conclusion of the book (Joshua 23) nevertheless acknowledges that “peoples still remain”—although in that author’s perception, these were foreign enclaves. This circumstance notwithstanding, the conquest promised full Israelite control over the full territory prior to the settlement of the land. This is not the concept embedded in the “land that yet remains” document, which portrays the conquest as falling far short of the promised dimensions of the land. While the author of this text is unwilling to forfeit the possibility that the promise will be fulfilled in its entirety in the future, he separates the necessity of completing the conquest—postponed to an (indeterminate) future—from the command to settle the extant land here and now: “I Myself will dispossess them for the Israelites; you have only to bequeath it to Israel, as I have commanded you” (Josh 13:6). Here, the disparity between the “ideal” and “real-life” territory is considered external rather than internal. Although at this stage, the promise refers to one Promised Land, it identifies the areas that are creating the discrepancy as being located on the southern and northern perimeters. The author of our document cannot describe a “land” bounded by four corners in detail in the usual manner of inclusive promissory depictions because his focus includes both the vanquished territory and the territory that “remains” unconquered. He thus delineates the “land that yet remains” via spatial merisms, a technique that allows him to point to the external disparity between the territory subjugated and the promised boundary, while simultaneously conveying the impression that the Promised Land is a single entity, the four “corners” of which can be intimated. Only our document and the portrayal of “the peoples that the Lord left” in Judges recognize an external discrepancy between the territory of Israel in reality and the territory of the Promised Land. In my opinion, Judg 3:1–3 is dependent on our present document. It revises the exterior scope of Josh 13:1–6 in order to bring it into correspondence with the standard dimensions of the “land of Canaan,” placing it in the context of the regular problem of the “peoples that still remain” rather than the “land that yet remains.” Our document’s agenda also explains its extant location in the book, following the fervent conquest resumé, as a polemical response to it—requisitioning outlying conquered regions and redefining them as the “land that yet remains.” It also precedes the description of the settlement of the land since, as the order presented in Ezekiel indicates, God delineates the exterior parameters of the promised territory prior to the internal division between the tribes. Moreover, the affinities between the document and Joshua’s farewell speech in Joshua 23

238

Chapter 8

create a literary framework for the settlement narratives. Like the “land that yet remains” in the south and north, the two units that refer to Joshua’s advanced age and the unvanquished territories enclose the “Book of Settlement.” 64 The description, delineated in real-life geographical terms, is not of a metaphorical or symbolic Promised Land. Paradoxically, however, the geographical ideal of the Promised Land is sufficiently distant to encourage a sober view regarding realpolitik: the adoption of a compromise in taking possession of the land that “exists.” It is precisely the broad conception of the dimensions of the Promised Land that encourages an acknowledgment of the gap between reality and promise. It also reflects a more pragmatic, concessionary approach than appears in the remainder of the book of Joshua. Rather than embodying the perfectionist and absolutist ideal that pervades the conquest narratives, our document elects to take advantage of what exists and to leave the complete fulfillment of the promise in God’s hands in the future. The theoretical and ideological nature of our document makes it difficult to identify any unambiguous historical anchor to which to link it historically or chronologically. An analysis of its relation to other texts in Joshua suggests that its author appropriated the motif of old age and the notion of “land that yet remains” from the Deuteronomistic speech in Joshua 23. He was also familiar with the conquest stories and the Judahite resumés in Joshua 10–11, even polemicizing against them. His list of Philistines is modeled on the “list of peoples,” and his text also demonstrates an acquaintance with 1 Sam 27:8 and the desert tribes who lived “all the way to Shur and to the land of Egypt.” He constructed his document on other depictions of the borders of the Promised Land, and it displays a striking affinity with the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document. This section thus appears to have been added to the book of Joshua at a relatively late stage, although its origin remains obscure. Not even its focus on the promise and taking-possession of the land or the relationship it presents between conquest and settlement aid in its dating. These issues were central to biblical thought for many generations, and Josh 13:1–6 could have been composed during any of the periods when the question of the right to the land was being discussed or the policy of “conquest and/or settlement” was being dis64.  The merism describing the east–west scope of the land in a unique formulation—“from the Jordan to the Great Sea in the west” (Josh 23:4)—should also be noted in this context. Since it appears in the unit dealing with the tribal settlement narratives, which immediately follows the “land that yet remains” document (according to LXX Josh 13:7–8a), and at the end of this unit (Josh 23:4) the merism serves as a framework to the passage; see above, p. 112.

“The Land That Yet Remains”

239

puted. Control over the territory of the land fluctuated widely throughout the First Temple period, and the same questions preoccupied the Judean exiles, the returnees, and the residents of Persian Yehud. These factors notwithstanding, the fact that only the Chronicler—and perhaps the author of the elaboration in Judg 3:3 and the comments in Judg 1:36 (the origin and date of which are uncertain)—refers to our document attests its relatively late date. It is thus likely that the “land that yet remains” document portrays part of the beliefs and views of the returnees. This period posed new challenges to a populace that identified itself as the people of Israel and sought ways to cope with the enormous crisis created by the destruction of the First Temple and the exile—not to speak of the encounter between the returnees and those who had remained behind. As Sara Japhet has demonstrated, ideas linked to the root ‫—שאר‬the “remnant [of the people] (‫ ”)שארית‬and those “remaining (‫—”)הנשאר‬served a significant role during this period 65 and may have provided inspiration for the author of our document and his ideological and terminological innovation, “the land that yet remains.” 65. Sara Japhet, “The Concept of the ‘Remnant’ in the Restoration Period,” in Das Manna fällt auch heute noch (ed. F.-L. Hossfeld and L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger; Freiburg: Herder, 2004) 340–61.

Chapter 9

The “Book of Settlement”: The Land of the Tribal Portions The book of Joshua describes the fulfillment of the promise of the land to the Israelites by their taking possession of it and settling it, and it reflects various views (implicitly and explicitly expressed) about the Promised Land’s dimensions. The conquest resumés in the first section, which conclude the Book of Conquest (Joshua 1–12), provide details about the scope of the land. A comparison of the literary structure of Joshua with the structure of Ezekiel’s vision of the future ideal land (Ezek 47:13–20) might cause us to expect a general and comprehensive delineation of the land and its contours in Joshua prior to its being divided among the tribes. What we find instead is the “land that yet remains” document (Josh 13:1–6), which—as we saw in chap. 8—reflects a demarcation of the Promised Land deriving from a different ideological conception. The second section of the book—the Book of Settlement (Josh 13:7–21:45) 1—contains nothing explicit about the overall parameters of the land either prior to the description of the tribal allotments or during its course or at its conclusion. It is nonetheless possible to deduce the extent of the land from the specifications of the tribal portions because their combined delineation offers the possibility of adducing the circumscribed territory. Many scholars consider these inferred dimensions to be identical to “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” described in Numbers 34 as well as the dimensions/boundaries that Ezekiel 1.  See Shmuel Aḥituv, Joshua (Mikra LeYisraʾel; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1995) 9 [He­ brew]. Slightly variant divisions of this literary and thematic unit are suggested. Kaufmann maintains that Joshua 12 constitutes the preface to chaps. 12–21, the “Book of Settlement” or the “Book of the Division of the Land”: Yehezkel Kaufmann, Sepher Yehoshua [The Book of Joshua] (Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1963) 155. Boling attaches the heading “The Inheritance” to chaps. 12–19: Robert G. Boling, Joshua (AB 6; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982) 319–470. Noth argues (in various works) that the unit dealing with the tribal allotments consists of Joshua 13–22: Martin Noth, Das Buch Josua (2nd ed.; HAT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953) 73–132; idem, The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull et al.; JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981) 40. The general consensus, however, is that Joshua 13–19 forms the nucleus of the literary section that depicts the division of the land into tribal portions. I concur with this assessment—with the exception of Josh 13:1–6, which discusses the question of the “land that yet remains.”

240

The “Book of Settlement”

241

attributes to the future land (Ezekiel 47–48). Thus Graeme Auld, for example, states: “The area defined in the main body of this section ([Num 34:]3–12a) is almost if not exactly that implied in Jos. 13–19 and stated in Ez. 47:15–20 (there more briefly).” 2 Due to the lack of a clearly defined identification of the overall measurement of the tribal allotments, the correlation between these delineations and the “land of Canaan” may only be arrived at by elucidating the substantive and literary affinities of the two sets of texts. One clear example of this sort of affinity is the description of the land’s southern perimeter, because the border of the tribal allocations of this prospect is meticulously delineated. The southernmost tribal allotment was to the Judahites, whose own southern boundary is virtually identical to the southern border of the “land of Canaan” (Num 34:3–5; see above, pp. 139–141). A substantive and linguistic similarity also exists between the account of the western boundary of the “land of Canaan” and that of the Judahite portion: just as the western border of the “land of Canaan” is “the Great Sea and [its] border (‫( ”)הים הגדול וגבול‬Num 34:6), the Judahites’ western boundary is “the Great Sea and [its] border (‫( ”)הימה הגדול וגבול‬Josh 15:12). The depictions of the allotments assigned to the Josephite tribes—the Ephraimites and Manassites— draw the borderlines westward to the coast (“its limits shall be the Sea”—Josh 16:3, 8; 17:9; compare this with the portrayal of the southern and northern Judahite boundaries in Josh 15:4, 11), and the Josephites’ heritage in relation to the neighboring tribes has “the Sea as its boundary” (Josh 17:10). Although the description of the Asherites’ allotment—the northwestern portion—does not demarcate the borderline, it too contains the formulation “and the boundary’s limits shall be the Sea (‫ והיו] תצאתיו הימה‬:Qere[ ‫( ”)ויהיו‬Josh 19:29). The eastern boundary of the “land of Canaan” also appears to correspond partially to the territory of the tribal allotments at its southern limit. Here, the border follows the Jordan from the Kinneret to the southern tip of the Dead Sea (Num 34:12), thus essentially paralleling the eastern Judahite (Josh 15:5: “The boundary on the east was the Dead Sea up to the mouth of the Jordan”) and Benjaminite boundaries (Josh 18:20: “The Jordan was their boundary on the eastern sector”). With respect to the northern tribes, the Ephraimites’ border reached the Jordan in the region of Jericho (Josh 16:7), and the Issacharites’ portion bordered the Manassite allotment on the east (Josh 17:10). Although the account of the Issacharites’ border is primarily a roster of cities (Josh 19:17–23), it also notes that “their boundary’s limits shall be the Jordan” 2. Graeme Auld, Joshua, Moses and the Land (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980) 75.

242

Chapter 9

(v. 22; compare the description of the parameters of the southern Benjaminite border in Josh 18:19: “the boundary’s limits shall be the northern tongue of the Dead Sea, at the southward end of the Jordan”). The demarcation of the Naphtalite allotment displays a familiarity with a similar note: “its (their boundary’s) limits shall be the Jordan” (Josh 19:33), further describing that tribe’s eastern border as: “the Jordan on the east” (Josh 19:34). 3 The principal difficulty in determining whether there is an overlap between the two territorial depictions (Numbers 34 and Joshua 19) arises in relation to the northern prospect of the tribal allotments. The arched line that joins Hazereinan to the eastern shore of the Kinneret, demarcating the northern section of the eastern border of the “land of Canaan” (Num 34:10–11; cf. Ezek 47:18), has no parallel—either substantive or literary—in the descriptions of the tribal heritages in Joshua. Reconstruction of the northern borderline of the allotments and the land encounters numerous difficulties, particularly with regard to the delineation of the Asherite and Naphtalite portions, both of which lack details concerning their northern boundaries. 4 Any attempt to draw a map of Naphtali on the basis of the fragmentary sketches available will reveal the indeterminate and uneven character of the northern border. 5 Although the author of the Book of Settlement is aware that the Danites resided in the north of the country following the loss of their original southern portion (Josh 19:40–45), he only provides a list of cities in the south without specifying the territory 3.  For the coastal boundary on the west and the Jordan and Dead Sea on the east, see Albrecht Alt, “Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Josua,” in Festschrift Ernst Sellin: Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte und Archäologie Palästinas (ed. W. F. Albright et al.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1927) 16. 4.  For a discussion of the northern Asherite border, see Zecharia Kallai (Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986] 204– 24), who also examines the Naphtalite boundary (pp. 225–30, 308–9, 434). The northern Naphtalite border is delineated nowhere in the biblical text, and the list of the tribal cities likewise makes no reference to the northern cities pp. 225, 434). The description of the Asherite allotment similarly lacks a northern border—which can only be reconstructed with the aid of the verse “it ran on westward to Mehebel, Achzib” (Josh 19:29). “Mehebel” is a corruption of “Mahaliba,” which Sennacharib’s annals refer to as lying between Zarephath and Ushu and is identified with Khirbet el-Maḥalib south of the Litani delta: see Benjamin Maisler [Mazar], ‫אחלב‬, EncBib 1:227 [Hebrew]. According to this identification, this is the northernmost city mentioned in the Asherite allotment. For an alternative opinion, see Kallai, Historical Geography, 221–22. 5.  See, for example, Kaufmann’s map of the tribal allotments: Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1953) 27; or the map of the Naphtalite portion in Aḥituv, Joshua, 317—neither of which designates the northern border.

The “Book of Settlement”

243

they settled in the north. Since the descriptions of the north(eastern) tribal heritages—the Asherites, Naphtalites, and Danites—do not demarcate another, more restricted borderline, we cannot determine which view of the territory is reflected in the document, nor can we establish whether it embodies a perspective different from that of the dimensions attributed to the “land of Canaan.” Another affinity between the ideas of the land as defined in the tribalallotment and “land of Canaan” documents appears in the summation of the tribal-portions description: “When they had finished allotting the land with its various boundaries (‫ )הארץ לגבולֹתיה‬. . .” (Josh 19:49a). In the promissory texts, the arthrous term ‫“( הארץ‬the land”) frequently serves as shorthand for “the Promised Land” and as a contraction of “the land of Canaan” in the Priestly sources (see above, chap. 3). The summarizing language is itself reminiscent of the heading given to the borders of the land in P: “[T]his is the land that shall fall to you as your portion, the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” (Num 34:2b); and is reminiscent of the resumé after the description: “That shall be your land with its various boundaries on all sides” (Num 34:12b). The phrase “the land with its various boundaries (‫ ”)הארץ לגבולֹתיה‬is in fact unique to the Joshua 19 and Numbers 34 texts. A similar expression appears in the Benjaminite allotment, after the delineation of its four aspects and before the roster of the tribe’s cities: “That was the portion of the Benjaminites with its boundaries on all sides (‫( ”)לגבולֹתיה סביב‬Josh 18:20; compare the resumé describing the Judahite borders in Josh 15:12: “Those were the boundaries of the clans of the Judahites on all sides”). The prevalence of this terminology suggests that the formula originated in the portrayals of the tribal allotments, whence it was borrowed for the heading to the document in Numbers 34, which presents the parameters of the Promised Land on the eve of the conquest. The absence from the allotments resumé of the term ‫“( סביב‬on all sides,” Josh 19:49a) shows the recognition that parts of the circumscribing boundaries were lacking. Did the author elect to leave the northern border open and vague for a specific purpose, or does the text reflect the nature of the sources available to him, or perhaps even a paucity of knowledge on his part about the northern territories? At this point in the analysis, the second alternative appears most plausible. An examination of the style and content of the tribal-allotments description reveals a disparity between the presentation of the settlement process and the primary stratum of the delineations. This discrepancy (see below) provides the most conclusive evidence that the author used earlier sources rather than composing his text independently. Where possible, he extended the lines to the natural borders—the Great Sea in the west and the Jordan River in the east. In the north and northeast, however, where the boundary runs across dry

244

Chapter 9

land and is intricate, he forfeited any attempt to bring his sources into accord with the territory known as the “land of Canaan,” refraining from inserting arbitrary border delineations. The fact that the document does not offer an alternative northern borderline indicates that this text does not represent a conscious ideological agenda but a lack of clarity and information on the author’s part. A detailed comparison of the various descriptions demonstrates that the depiction of the southern border of the “land of Canaan” is literarily dependent on the delineation of the southern Judahite boundary. The omission of any outlines of the north and northeastern borders of the tribal allotments is further evidence of this conclusion. It is likely that the author of the tribal-heritage sketches was unfamiliar with the “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document and thus lacked a source containing a detailed account of the north and northeastern borders of the Land.

The Settlement Process The existing description in Joshua of the settlement process combines the tribal heritages east of the Jordan with those on the west. The body of the Book of Settlement (Josh 13:7–19:51) depicts the settlement as occurring in three stages: 1. While the people were encamped on the steppes of Moab (v. 32), Moses assigned the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Mannaseh territory conquered on the east of the Jordan (Josh 13:8–32). These allotments included enclaves inhabited by foreign nations (v. 13), which are listed using a literary device familiar from the sketches of the tribal portions west of the Jordan, as well as the collection of traditions in Judges 1: “they failed to/could not dispossess x . . . x . . . and they remain . . . among . . .” (see below). Although the Book of Settlement links the settlement process east side of the Jordan to that on the west side, it stresses the fact that the heritages east of the Jordan are part of the land “which Moses assigned to them” (Josh 13:8). This suggests that the author considered the Transjordanian territory a post facto addendum in consequence of the conquest, as it were, rather than an integral part of the Promised Land from the outset. 2. Following these allocations, the two largest tribes, the Judahites and the Josephites (Ephraimites and Manassites) received their allotments (Joshua 15–17). These portions were assigned by a body of leaders consisting of Eleazar the priest, Joshua son of Nun, and the heads of the ancestral houses (Josh 14:1). The tribes set out to take possession of their heritages from the encampment at Gilgal (Josh 14:6) rather than

The “Book of Settlement”

245

receiving them by lot. 6 The settlement process also included personal conquest initiatives, conflicting with the perspective—characteristic of the Book of Conquest—that Joshua had already completely vanquished the former residents prior to the Israelites’ settlement of the land. The territories of these tribes likewise contained foreign enclaves and parcels of unsubjugated land (Josh 15:63, 16:10, 17:11–12). 3. Finally, the seven remaining smaller tribes received their inheritance: Benjamin, Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan. The text describes these tribes as requiring goading and direction from Joshua (Josh 18:1–10). Having surveyed the land (excluding the Judahites’ and Josephites’ territory [Josh 18:5]) and depicted it “in a document, town by town, in seven parts” (v. 9), they returned to Joshua at Shiloh, where he 6.  It is possible to understand the opening formulation of the description, “The portion that fell by lot to the various clans” (Josh 15:1, 16:1, 17:1), as indicating that this inheritance was also bestowed through the casting of lots (see Kaufmann, Sepher Yehoshua, 172–74, 178). The LXX, however, preserves a reading that divides the tribal assignments into two groups: (1) the heading about the allocation of the two and a half largest tribes is rendered, “And the borders of the tribe of Judah (or: Ephraim, or: Manasseh) according to their families were . . .”; (2) the heading about the seven remaining tribes is formulated, “The borders of their lot came forth (+ an ordinal number) to (the tribe of) according to their families” (see Auld, Joshua, Moses and the Land, 56; Lea Mazor, The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua: Its Contribution to the Understanding of the Textual Transmission of the Book and Its Literary and Ideological Development [Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994] 282–300 [Hebrew]). The LXX version appears to be primary; the MT represents a secondary reworking that reflects its conception that all nine and a half tribes received their heritage by lot—as the verse concluding this section states: “These are the portions assigned by lot to the tribes of Israel by the priest Eleazar, Joshua son of Nun, and the heads of the ancestral houses, before the Lord at Shiloh, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Josh 19:51). The latter statement conjoins two separate elements. Its first half relates to the heading of the section dealing with the Judahites and Josephites: “And these are the allotments of the Israelites in the land of Canaan, that were apportioned to them by the priest Ele­ azar, by Joshua son of Nun, and by the heads of the ancestral houses” (Josh 14:1). In distinction, the second half refers to the seven tribes whose heritages were assigned by lot at Shiloh (Josh 18:1–10). The amalgamation of the two elements within a single verse blurs the divergence between the two groups by denoting that both received their share from Eleazar, Joshua, and the ancestral heads, by lot, at Shiloh. This is also the viewpoint reflected in Numbers 34: “Moses instructed the Israelites, saying: This is the land you are to receive by lot as your hereditary portion, which the Lord God has commanded to be given to the nine and a half tribes. . . . These are the names of the men through whom the land shall be apportioned for you: Eleazar the priest and Joshua son of Nun. And you shall also take a chieftain from each tribe through whom the land shall be apportioned” (Num 34:13, 16–18).

246

Chapter 9 cast lots for them and assigned them their heritages. 7 These tribes had no need of individual conquest initiatives, for “the land was now under their control” (Josh 18:1). Nor does the text recognize any unconquered strips of land within the allotments.

The relationship between the settlement process and the conquest of the territory subsequently allocated to the tribes is presented in divergent manners in the second and third phases. While the Israelites are encamped at Gilgal on the border, as in the Joshua narratives in the Book of Conquest, the two and a half tribes on the west of the Jordan set forth on military campaigns in order to obtain their heritages, because unvanquished territories remain within their allotments. In contrast, the seven smaller tribes are not required to take any military action, since “the land was now under their control” (Josh 18:1). Their heritages have thus been subjugated to their widest extent before they receive their portions—in conformity with the concept that the settlement followed the complete conquest. In his description of the tribal allotments west of the Jordan, the editor differentiated the material at his disposal about the two and a half large tribes (Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh) from his material about the remaining seven tribes. The account of the portions belonging to the large tribes includes notations and occasional conquest anecdotes about individual and group forays, such as: the stories of Caleb’s inheritance, his daughter Achsah, 7.  Mazor proposes that the division of the nine and a half tribes (cf. Josh 14:2) on “the other side of the Jordan” into two and a half tribes + seven derives from the tendency—expressed in numerous places in the book—to model Joshua after Moses: as Moses conquered the territory on the east side of the Jordan and assigned it to the two and a half tribes, so Joshua conquered the land and allocated it to the two and a half tribes (“The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua,” 279). Although this assertion has a measure of validity, it is subject to several reservations. First, the designation “the two and a half tribes” does not appear in the descriptions of the allotments west of the Jordan. The narrative recounts the Manassites’ settlement in Gilead and Bashan (Josh 17:1) and then delineates the tribe’s heritage west of the Jordan, without denoting that it is referring to “half ” of the tribe, identifying the various groups as “the remaining Manassites” (Josh 17:2, 6). The prevalent term in the allotment descriptions likewise relates solely to Manasseh: “The boundary of Manasseh” (v. 7; cf. 16:4, 9; 17:8–12). Moreover, according to the allocations depiction, the Josephites’ portion was one heritage that was divided secondarily between Ephraim and Manasseh (Josh 16:1–3, 17:10). The text also ascribes the act of assigning the allotments to the two and a half tribes to Eleazar the priest, Joshua son of Nun, and the heads of the ancestral houses (Josh 14:1); the other seven tribes received their inheritances through Joshua’s encouragement and exclusive mediation: “Joshua cast lots for them at Shiloh before the Lord, and there Joshua apportioned the land among the Israelites according to their divisions” (Josh 18:10).

The “Book of Settlement”

247

and Othniel (Josh 14:6–15, 15:13–19); the notation added to the Manassites’ allocation on both sides of the Jordan, “for he was Joseph’s first-born. Since Machir, the first-born of Manasseh and the father of Gilead, was a valiant warrior, Gilead and Bashan were assigned to him” (17:1); the incident of Zelophehad’s daughters (17:3–6); and the deforestation of the hill country of Ephraim and its preparation for settlement (17:14–18). These narratives are paralleled in other biblical texts: the conquest forays are similar in nature to the conquest traditions recorded in Judges 1, 8 while the story of Caleb, Achsah, and Othniel appears virtually verbatim in Judg 1:11–15, 9 and the episode of Zelophehad’s daughters is a summary of the narrative presented in full in Numbers (26:33, 27:1–11). Other items we notice are the rosters of territory that remained unconquered in the specific tribal allotments. Lists of this sort also appear in Judges 1: the uncaptured Judahite land is Jerusalem (Josh 15:63; in Judg 1:21, this non-conquest is attributed to the Benjaminites) and that of the Ephraimites is Gezer (Josh 16:10; cf. Judg 1:29). 10 A longer list of unvanquished territory in the regions of the northern valleys is ascribed to the Manassites using the literary formulas “[city x] . . . and its dependencies” (Josh 17:11: Beth-shean and Ibleam) and “the inhabitants of [city x] . . . and its dependencies” (Josh 17:11: Dor, En-dor, Taanach, and Megiddo). With the exception of some minor discrepancies, this roster resembles Judg 1:27–28 both substantively and structurally. 11 The most significant difference is the status ascribed to the cities. According to Joshua, 8. In Talmon’s opinion, the origin of the account of the Josephites’ assignation to the hill country and the clearing of the forests (Josh 17:14–18) is the collection of traditions recorded in Judges 1: Shemaryahu Talmon, “Shophtim perek 1 [Judges 1],” in Iyunim be-sepher Yehoshua (ed. Y. Grintz, S. Talmon, and Y. Elitzur; Jerusalem: KiryatSepher, 1966) 25. 9.  For a comparison of the MT and LXX texts in both books, see Graeme Auld, “Judges 1 and History: A Reconsideration,” VT 25 (1975) 261–85. 10.  For the parallels between Josh 15:13–19, 63; 16:10; 17:11–13; 19:47 and the traditions recorded in Judges 1, see Sigmund Mowinckel, Tetrateuch, Pentateuch, Hexateuch: Die Berichte über die Landnahme in den drei altisraelitischen Geschichtswerken (BZAW 90; Berlin: Alfred Töplemann, 1964) 16. 11.  Judges omits En-dor completely; its appearance in Josh 17:11 was apparently the result of a corruption influenced by the name ‫דֹאר‬, as attested by various textual variants (see the comment in BHS). Ibleam and Taanach appear in reverse order. In Judges, Ibleam follows the second syntactical model, after the inhabitants of Dor, while Tanaach is listed after Beth-shean under the first model. The summary “these constituted three regions” only appears in Joshua. Although the term ‫ נפה‬is also associated with Dor in other biblical texts (Josh 11:2, 12:23; 1 Kgs 4:11), its meaning is disputed: see Meir BenDov, “NAFA (‫)נפה‬: A Loan-Word from the Language of the Gentile Seafarers,” Tarbiz 43

248

Chapter 9

they are Canaanite enclaves belonging to the territory of the Manassites within the Issacharite and Asherite portions (Josh 17:11), while according to Judges they are Canaanite enclaves in Manassite territory. In contrast, the depiction of the heritages of the seven smaller tribes contains neither elaborations nor supplements. Just as significantly, in contrast to the presentation of the large tribes as active in the narrative amplifications, the account before the seven smaller tribes’ allotments presents them as passive and reactive in fulfilling the task of settling their heritages. Joshua is obliged to spur them to undertake their mission, rebuke them, and send them out to survey the land, finally casting lots at Shiloh in order to assign their portions (Josh 18:1–10). The sole exception among these seven is the tribe of Dan, whose members set forth to take possession of their allotment in the north around Leshem (Josh 19:47). Even this unique case, however, deals not with the original Danite inheritance in the Shephelah (Josh 19:40–46, 48) but with the tribe’s initiative in a different region. The section as a whole is an addendum to the settlement account rather than being part of the original narrative (see below, pp. 249–250). The absence of unvanquished strips of land in the account of the seven tribes’ allocations appears to be a deliberate authorial act. The Canaanite cities located in the Issacharite and Asherite territories are depicted as belonging to the Manassites (Josh 17:11), and the failure to capture them is attributed to Manasseh’s impotence. Their roster appears in the framework of the description of Manasseh’s heritage (v. 12). No allusion to this circumstance appears in the Issacharite and Asherite allotment sections (Josh 19:17–23, 24–31). Moreover, lists of this type appear in Judges 1 in relation to the Zebulunites, Asherites, and Naphtalites (Judg 1:30–33), and no reason exists to assume that the author—who was aware of the unvanquished lands in the Judahite, Ephraimite, and Manassite allocations—was ignorant of the parallel lists for the northern tribes. On the contrary: the same cities that are described in Judges as unsubdued parts of Naphtali (Judg 1:33) and Asher (Judg 1:31) are described as allocations of Naphtali and Asher in Joshua (Josh 19:28–30, 38). If the author of the Book of Settlement was familiar with the rosters of the unsubjugated territories in the north, he polemicized against them rather than ignoring them, and his descriptions portray—without reservation—the conviction that they formed an integral part of the tribal portions. (1974) 217–19 [Hebrew]; Nadav Naʾaman, “The District-System of Israel in the Time of the United Monarchy,” Zion 48 (1983) 11–12 n. 30 [Hebrew].

The “Book of Settlement”

249

The presentation of the settlement process undertaken by the larger tribes in contradistinction to the smaller tribes can be understood as extolling the first group (the Judahites, Ephraimites, and Manassites). This theory helps to explain the insertion of the narrative elaborations, which describe the initiatives of the larger tribes, compared with the absence of similar accounts regarding the settlement of the smaller tribes and the label “slackers” that is attached to them (cf. Josh 18:3). It does not account for the inclusion of the unvanquished territories for the first group, however, or the disregard of similar rosters (which possibly attest to a polemic) for the second group. The variations in the portrayals of the two sets indicate an alternate agenda, which may be inferred from an analysis of each group’s center of activities. In the perspective of the author of the Book of Settlement, the conquest of the land was incomplete all the time that the Israelites remained encamped at Gilgal. The larger tribes (the Judahites and Josephites), who received their heritages at this point, took positive action to gain possession of their portions. Their operations occur on a human level of action, the tribes encountering both success and failure. They consequently receive their allotments without any need for the casting of lots by a body consisting of the representatives of the religious, military, and civic leadership—Eleazar the priest, Joshua, and the tribal heads. These dynamics undergo a sea-change when the Israelites move to Shiloh: “The whole community of the Israelite people assembled at Shiloh, and set up the Tent of Meeting there. The land was now under their control” (Josh 18:1). From this point on, the allotments are assigned by casting lots in front of the Tent of Meeting, and the tribes only perform initial explorations; they do not need to engage in military confrontation with Canaanite elements stronger than themselves. The cities that Judges 1 delineates as foreign enclaves are unambiguously designated as belonging to the northern tribes. Even the account of the Danites’ heritage, which Judges describes in some detail (Judg 1:34–35: “The Amorites pressed the Danites into the hill country; they would not let them come down to the plain. The Amorites also persisted in dwelling in Har-heres, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim”) is recounted here in an impersonal voice (Josh 19:47: “But the territory of the Danites slipped from their grasp”), avoiding any hint that human force(s) are responsible for the non-conquest. The subject of the sentence is the territory; the phrase “the territory of the Danites slipped from (‫ ”)יצא גבול‬resembles the use of the same root in the “place and verb” method (see, for example, Josh 15:11). While the standard form of the roots employed in the border descriptions is qatal (‫)יָצָא‬,

250

Chapter 9

however, this text uses the wayyiqtol form (‫ ) ַוּיֵצֵא‬characteristic of the standard biblical narrative style. This divergence and the prepositional phrase “from them” indicate that the focus of the text is not on the borderline but on the fact that the Danites did not acquire their rightful heritage (compare the explanation in Judg 18:1: “and in those days the tribe of Dan was seeking a territory in which to settle; for to that day no territory had fallen to their lot among the tribes of Israel”). The passage neglects to clarify what happened to the Danites’ portion or why it “slipped from their grasp.” Of the seven tribes whose heritages were assigned by lot at Shiloh, only the tribe who fought at Leshem engaged in human conflict: “So the Danites migrated and made war on Leshem. They captured it and put it to the sword; they took possession of it and settled in it. And they changed the name of Leshem to Dan, after their ancestor Dan” (Josh 19:47). These operations were nevertheless conducted outside the original territory assigned to the tribe, which is not connected to the tribe here. The stress laid on Shiloh and the city’s role in the settlement of the land probably indicates that this text originated in Priestly circles associated with the city. 12 The presentation of the way the land was settled thus differs here from the way it is presented in the Book of Conquest (Joshua 1–12). As noted above, the author of this text distinguishes between the southern conquest and the conquest of the other parts of the land. The south of the land—that is, the region that subsequently became the Kingdom of Judah—was captured swiftly and miraculously, “for the Lord fought for Israel” (Josh 10:14). In contradistinction, the conquest of the other parts of the land was accomplished through human effort and extended “over a long period” (Josh 11:18). All the campaigns proceeded from the encampment at Gilgal (Josh 9:6; 10:6, 15, 43). Even if we accept that the conquest and settlement form two sides of the same coin (the fulfillment of the promise of the land), we cannot assume that “the same author wrote both the stories of the conquest and the description [of] how the conquered land was apportioned among the twelve tribes.” 13 Likewise, while the two parts of the book of Joshua may indeed relate to the same geographical en12.  For this issue, see Aḥituv, Joshua, 34. 13.  See Nurit Lissovsky and Nadav Naʾaman (“A New Outlook at the Boundary System of the Twelve Tribes,” UF 35 [2003] 292), who regard the area conquered by Joshua (Josh 10:41, 11:8) and the area settled by the tribes as overlapping, without taking into account the language employed in the resumés: the reference to Baal-gad as representative of the northern conquest (Josh 11:17, 12:7; compare “at the foot of Hermon” in the depiction of the northern battle in Josh 11:3) is lacking in the Book of Settlement.

The “Book of Settlement”

251

tity, known as the “land of Canaan,” the two literary units reflect independent notions of the settlement process.

Stylistic Differences between the Tribal-Allotment Accounts While the similarity between the opening and closing statements of the tribal-allotments description (“to the tribe of . . . for their various clans” and “it became their territory”) demonstrates the existence of a single literary framework into which the author inserted his depiction of the heritages on both sides of the Jordan, 14 the portrayals themselves are primarily composed of two literary types of geographical terminology: 1. The accounts of the allocations east of the Jordan take the form of a spatial merism: “from . . . to . . .”—as, for example, in the description of the Gadite portion: “To the tribe of Gad, for the various Gadite clans, Moses assigned . . . from Heshbon to Ramath-mizpeh and Betonim, and from Mahanaim to the border of Lidbir” (Josh 13:24–26). 15 These are attached to a roster of cities and regions: “Jazer, all the towns Gilead, part of the country of the Ammonites up to Aroer, which is close to Rabbah” (Josh 13:25); “and in the Valley, Beth-haram, Beth-nimrah, Succoth, and Zaphon” (Josh 13:27). City lists are also characteristic of the descriptions of the tribal allotments west of the Jordan, although the latter differ in nature. While the author delineates the inheritances east of the Jordan principally with respect to the territory and the towns they contain, he only occasionally intimates the borderlines of any particular portion (see v. 27: “down to the edge of the Jordan and up to the tip of the Sea of Kinneret on the east side of the Jordan”). 2. The sketch of the tribal heritages west of the Jordan (Joshua 15–19) is longer and more detailed. The portions are delineated via demarcations of the border encompassing the territories, using the “place and verb” system and a list of cities. This combination of literary formulas is unique to this document. Spatial merisms do not normally appear in descriptions of the tribal allocations west of the Jordan. 16 14.  For the formula ‫ למשפח(ו)תם‬. . . ‫למטה‬, see Josh 13:15, 24, 29; 15:1; 16:8; 17:1–2; 18:11, 21; 19:1, 8; et al. For the formula ‫ גבול‬. . . ‫ויהי‬, see Josh 13:16, 23, 25, 30; 15:2; 16:5; 17:7; 18:12; 19:10; et al. 15.  For spatial merisms, see chap. 2. 16.  General indicators alongside traces of spatial merisms only appear in the roster of the Simeonite cities: “together with all the villages in the vicinity of those towns, down to Baalath-beer [and] Ramath-negeb” (Josh 19:8). The preposition ‫ עד‬in its meristic sense only appears elsewhere in the list of the Zebulunite towns (“The boundary of

Chapter 9

252

Table 9.1.  Scope of the Descriptions Tribe

Border Description

List of Cities

Judah

12 (Josh 15:1–12)

Benjamin

10 (Josh 18:11–20) 8 (Josh 18:21–28)

Number Unconquered Land of Verses

44 (Josh 15:20— 1 (Josh 15:63) 62) + roster of cities of province of Bethlehem preserved in the LXX (v. 59b)

57

—

18

Josephites 12 : 4 (Josh 16:1–4: (Ephraim and southern border Manasseh) with Benjaminite allotment) + 4 (Josh 16:5–8: Ephraimite border) + 4 (Josh 17:7–10: Manassite border)

1 (Josh 16:9: notation without details about Ephraimite towns in Manassite allotment)

4 (Josh 16:10, 17:11–13: unvanquished Manassite land within territories of Issachar and Asher)

17

Napthali

3 (Josh 19:32–34)

5 (Josh 19:35–39)

—

 8

Asher

8 (Josh 19:24–31: description of border combined with list of cities)

—

 8

—

 8

—

 8

—

 7

—

 7

Simeon

—

8 (Josh 19:1–8)

Dan

8 (Josh 19:40–46, 48)

Zebulun

5 (Josh 19:10–14)

Issachar

7 (Josh 19:17–23: city roster + border descriptions: “the boundary touched” and “their boundary ran to” inserted—v. 22)

2 (Josh 19:15–16)

The literary and ideological framework into which the author interweaves the depictions of the tribal heritages west of the Jordan forms the basis of the geographical uniformity reflected in the accounts, despite the lack of stylistic consistency that they exhibit. The inconsistency takes various forms: 1. The portrayals of the external borderlines of each tribe are not homogeneous. Some explicitly mention the four winds of heaven; some present full delineations of each direction of the border (Judah and Benjamin), while others only specify which territory the allotment their portion: Up to Sarid”—Josh 19:10) and Asherites (“Ebron, Rehob, Hammon, and Kanah, up to Great Sidon”—Josh 19:28).

The “Book of Settlement”

253

borders on either side (the Josephite tribes and Naphtali). On other occasions, the depictions make no attempt to demarcate the border limits or to describe them (Simeon). 2. Divergences in the scope of the delineation (that is, the number of verses it contains). These differences correspond to the weight ascribed to each particular description in the Book of Settlement (see table 9.1). Analysis of these descriptions reveals the existence of three principal groups west of the Jordan: (1) the Judahites, who receive the fullest and most comprehensive depiction—57 verses total; (2) the tribes of Rachel (Benjamin and Joseph), with a medium-sized scope—17–18 verses each; and (3) the northern tribes and Simeon, with a small range—7–8 verses each. 3. The accounts do not use the two descriptive methods—border delineations and city rosters—in the same fashion. Some of the depictions include continuous border delineations followed by a list of towns (Judah, Benjamin, Zebulun, and Naphtali), albeit with varying degrees of specificity: the boundary demarcations of the southern tribes (Judah and Benjamin) are more detailed, their common border even being portrayed twice (Josh 15:5–9, 18:14–19); the descriptions of the boundaries of Zebulun and Naphtali are much briefer and incomplete; Naphtali’s is confined to a denotation of the southern border (19:32–34). 17 Whereas the Judahite and Benjaminite accounts employ a uniform “place and verb” method, the accounts of the Zebulunites and Naphtalites are not homogenous, because the places mentioned in some of them appear without a conjunctive verb (19:13, 33). The inventories of the cities of the southern tribes (primarily Judah) designate a large number of toponyms arranged according to province, while those of Zebulun and Naphtali refer to a limited number of towns (19:15, 35–38), not arranged by province.   In some of the other tribal-allotment descriptions, the border delineations are combined with city rosters. In the Asherite account (Josh 19:24–31), boundary demarcations are interwoven with enumerations of towns. The Issacharite allocation contains a list of cities (19:17–21), at the end of which, prior to the numerical summation, are attached expressions linked to the denotation of the boundary (19:22: “The border touched . . . and ran to . . .”). 18 A similar situation exists in relation to the Danite description, which is composed primarily of a roster of towns (19:41–45), 17. See Aḥituv, Joshua, 55–56. For the Naphtalite allotment, see Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 225. 18.  The account of the boundary of the Issacharites’ allotment is so sketchy that Alt argues that it cannot be regarded as a border description at all: Alt, “Das System der

254

Chapter 9

followed by a border notation: “Me-jarkon, and Rakkon, at the border near Joppa” (19:46). The LXX reads here: “and westward of Hieracon the border [was] near to Joppa.”   The Josephites’ (Ephraim and Manasseh) allotment only contains boundary delineations (Josh 16:1–10, 17:7–10). The depiction of its southern border parallels that of the northern Benjaminite boundary (16:1–3, 5; 18:12–13); the common border between Ephraim and Manasseh is also described twice (16:6, 8–9; 17:7–9). These accounts are unique in noting the presence of enclaves belonging to one tribe within the allotment of another (16:9; 17:8–9, 11).   The Simeonite heritage is defined solely by a list of towns (Josh 19:1–10), the tribe not receiving an independent portion but being incorporated within the territory given to the Judahites (19:1, 9). 4. A further disparity between the descriptions appears in the nature of the relationship between the border depiction and the roster of cities belonging to each particular tribe. The delineation of the southern tribes (Judah and Benjamin) exhibits inconsistencies between the border demarcations and inventory of towns, but no such discrepancies appear in the accounts of the northern tribes, which contain border descriptions and city rosters. Thus, for example, in the dual reference to the boundary between Judah and Benjamin, Beth-arabah is assigned to the territory of the Judahites (Josh 15:6, 18:18), accordingly occurring in the enumeration of the Judahite towns in 15:61, while also appearing in the list of Benjaminite cities in 18:22. Similarly, although Bethhoglah is included with the Judahite allotment in the description of the Benjaminite allocation (18:19), it is explicitly identified in the list of cities as one of the towns belonging to Benjamin (18:21), but is absent from the register of Judahite cities. This is a substantive incongruity: even a writer unfamiliar with the geography of the land would be able to understand that the same city could not appear in territory belonging to two distinct tribes. 19 A similar contradiction exists in the description of the northern Benjaminite border: while the boundary runs south of Bethel (18:13), Bethel itself is listed as a Benjaminite city (18:22). Likewise, no geographical concurrence exists between the line demarcated and the list Stammesgrenzen im Buche Josua,” 13–14; see also Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 253. 19.  Simons explains this phenomenon by speculating that these sites were inhabited by mixed populaces: Jan J. Simons, “The Structure and Interpretation of Josh. xvi–xvii,” in Orientalia Neerlandica: A Volume of Oriental Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1948) 203 n. 3. Such precise notations as “north of Beth-arabah” (Josh 15:6) or “the northern flank of Beth-hoglah” (Josh 18:19) argue against this theory, however.

The “Book of Settlement”

255

of northern Benjaminite towns, some of the cities enumerated lying north of the geographical line: Ophrah, for example (18:23). 20 5. The descriptions also vary with respect to the function of the formulaic resumés of the rosters of cities (on the model of “towns . . . and their villages”) and the distribution of the summaries. In the depictions of the southern allotments of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon, the resumés appear at the end of each section of towns: ten times in the list of the Judahite cities (Josh 15:32, 36, 41, 44, 51, 54, 57, 59, 60, 62); 21 twice in the roster of the Benjaminite towns (18:24, 28); and twice in the inventory of the Simeonite cities (19:6, 7). While the delineations of the Zebulunite, Issacharite, Asherite, and Naphtalite heritages also contain identical summary formulations (19:15, 22, 30, 38), these figures attest to the fact that the resumés do not refer solely to the register of cities but to all the towns mentioned in the account, including the border delineations. An even more striking disparity exists in the reading of the LXX, which omits all the summary formulas in the lists of cities belonging to the northern tribes. 22 6. Terminological differences also appear among the depictions. Table 9.2 presents the distribution of the roots employed in each of the tribalallotment descriptions. While the accounts are generally unified by common framing expressions (‫“—יצא‬proceeded,” [‫—והיו תֹצאות[יו‬ “and its limits shall be”), the distribution of the roots in the various delineations varies. In the portrayals of the Judahite and Benjaminite borders and of the southern Josephite boundary, which parallels the northern Benjaminite border (Josh 16:1–3), the most prevalent verbs are ‫“( עבר‬passed”), ‫“( עלה‬ascended”), ‫“( ירד‬descended”), ‫“( נסב‬turned”), and ‫“( תאר‬curved”)—all of which are roots that are absent from the border descriptions of the northern tribes, with the exception of Zebulun. The verbs ‫“( פגע‬touched”) and ‫“( שב‬returned”), which appear in the accounts of the northern tribal borders, do not appear in the depictions of the Judahite and Benjaminite boundaries. 23 The portrayal of the Zebulunite border contains roots from both groups. 20.  For this issue, see Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 469. 21.  To these should be added the summary at the conclusion of the description of the province of Bethlehem according to the LXX (v. 59b—missing in the MT). 22. See Mazor (“The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua,” 314–20), who concludes that the MT text is secondary here, because it was intended to enhance the morphological uniformity among the descriptions of the tribal allotments west of the Jordan (p. 319). 23.  Auld notes that the verb -‫“( פגע ב‬touch on”) only appears in a territorial context within the delineations of the central and northern tribes (Joshua, Moses and the Land, 60).

Chapter 9

256

Table 9.2.  Distribution of Roots Used in Descriptions Verb

Ben- Josephites: Josephites: Zeb- IssaJudah jamin Ephraima Manasseh ulun char Asher Naphtali

‫יצא‬, “proceeded”

5

4

3

2

‫עבר‬, “passed on”

8

3

2

1

‫עלה‬, “ascended”

7

2

1

2

‫ירד‬, “descended”

1

6

2

‫נסב‬, “turned”

2

1

1

‫תאר‬, “curved”

3

2

‫פנה‬, “turned”

1c 1

1

1d

1

‫שב‬, “returned”

2

1

1 3

2

2

3

1

1

1

1 1b

‫הלך‬, “went” 3

1

1

‫פגע‬, “touched”

‫ויהי תצאות‬ ‫הגבול‬, “and its limits shall be”

1

2

1

1

1

a.  According to the viewpoint of this text, the southern Ephraimite border is the Josephite border (Josh 16:1–3). b.  The reading ‫ ויצא רמון המתאר הנעה‬is a corruption of ‫“( ויצא רמנה ותאר הנעה‬proceeded to Rimmon and curved to Neah”): see Noth, Das Buch Josua, 112. c.  Reading the verb ‫( פֹנֶה‬Josh 15:7) as ‫“ ופנה‬and turned,” based on the LXX (καὶ καταβαίνει). It is more likely, however, that the MT represents a dittography of the end of the word ‫ וצפונה‬and thus we should delete this verb. d. The yiqtol form (Josh 16:8: ‫ )מתפוח ילך הגבול ימה נחל קנה‬is unique in the border lists: see below, pp. 270–273.

An analysis of the differences in content and style among the descriptions of the tribal allotments reveals that the Judahite and Benjaminite accounts diverge from those of the northern tribes. The disparities relate to the combination of border demarcation/lists of cities (both in the use of these descriptive forms and in the nature of their combination), the essential relationship between the two features (that is, the degree to which they complement or contradict one another), and the length, constitution, and terminology of each depiction. The editor evidently attempted to bestow a uniform character on all the accounts by placing them within a single framework that contained similar opening and closing statements and by identifying the heritages via the “place and verb” method + city rosters.

The “Book of Settlement”

257

The divergences in style and detail among the accounts permit us to group them in five classes that also correspond to their geographical distributions: one group belongs to the east side of the Jordan (which, as we have seen, employs a distinctive descriptive method) and four to the west: 1. The southern tribes (Judah and Benjamin), whose descriptions are more structured and detailed. The inventories of cities belonging to each tribe are divided into sections and exhibit geographical and substantive inconsistencies with the border delineations. The Simeonites, whose allotment fell within that of Judah, should be added to this group. While no depiction is given of the Simeonite border, its towns are enumerated in the same fashion as those of Judah and Benjamin. 2. The list of the Danite cities looks as though it should be assigned to the previous group, 24 because these towns are located in the south, some of them appearing in the roster of towns belonging to the Judahites (Josh 15:33: Zorah and Eshtaol) and forming part of the account of the northern Judahite border (15:10–11: Beth-shemesh, Timna, Ekron, and Baalah). 25 This roster is not divided into provinces, however, and the numerical summary is also absent from its conclusion: “That was the portion of the tribe of the Danites, by their clans—those towns, with their villages” (19:48). Some of the cities listed appear in Judges 1 as Amorite settlements on which the Ephraimites imposed forced labor (Judg 1:35: Har-heres, Aijalon, and Shaalbim), and they form part of Solomon’s second province (1 Kgs 4:9). The account of the Danite allotment thus stands in a category of its own. Its unique status is further manifest in the fact that the Danites were the only tribe that remained “theoretical.” 26 The biblical text makes it clear that the Danites did not reside in the south—although it is uncertain what became of their cities. 3. The Josephite clans—Ephraim and Manasseh—for whose allotment in the center of the country only border demarcations are given. 4. The boundary depictions of the northern tribes—Zebulon, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali—are intertwined in various forms with city rosters and are fragmentary and incomplete. 24. Albrecht Alt, “Judas gaue unter Josia,” PJ 2 (1925) 100–116. 25.  For this issue, see Frank M. Cross and George E. Wright, “The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah,” JBL 75 (1956) 210; Nadav Naʾaman, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography (Jerusalem: Simor, 1986) 109. 26.  The features that are characteristic of the list of Danite cities led Martin Noth to suggest that the biblical author composed an arbitrary enumeration extrapolated from the lists of towns belonging to the other tribes: Noth, Das Buch Josua, 120; idem, The Old Testament World (trans. V. I. Gruhn; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966) 75.

258

Chapter 9

This classification, drawn from an analysis of the descriptive methods, diverges from the allotment division given by the biblical author. As remarked above, the order of the accounts and their incorporation into the historiographic framework indicates a distribution among three groups: (1) the two and a half tribes east of the Jordan; (2) the larger tribes in the center, which received their allotments at Gilgal (Josh 14:6); and (3) the seven smaller tribes, whose portions were assigned by lot at Shiloh (Josh 18:1–10). This variation shows primarily that the differences in descriptive methods and levels of specificity derive from the diverse nature of the sources lying at the disposal of the biblical author rather than from his reworking and refashioning of the material at hand.

The Sources of the Tribal-Allotment Descriptions The disparities and lack of geographical consistency between the border depictions and city rosters of the southern tribes together with the complexity and degree of detail of the descriptions have led to a common understanding among scholars that the body of the accounts is not a fictitious literary composition but is based on archival sources—that is, administrative documents that contained geographical specifications. 27 It is nonetheless possible that 27.  “The great attention to detail .  .  . proves that [the boundary descriptions] are founded on historical reality” (Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 87). “These descriptions constitute a picture of a once-existing reality and not the fabrications of an ancient writer, nor a prophetic vision or theory, for they clearly bear the stamp of reality” (Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 16); see also Aḥituv, Joshua, 22. In distinction, Naʾaman views the account of Solomon’s provinces (1 Kgs 4:7–19) as reflecting the fundamental administrative division of the Kingdom of Israel, “the tribal allotment system, in contrast, not serving as an administrative or organizational division in the kingdom of Israel.” In his opinion, the tribal-allocation description—which he regards as “a homogenous unit”—was intended to unify the tribes and clans that formed part of the United Monarchy and is thus a “literary” text that was composed by “the author of the allotments depiction”: Nadav Naʾaman, “The Canaanite City-States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances of the Israelite Tribes,” Tarbiz 55 (1996) 484, 486 [Hebrew]. This reconstruction of the biblical boundary delineations does not explain the numerous disparities between the descriptions, however. Elsewhere, Naʾaman distinguishes between the city rosters, which derive from archival sources, and the border descriptions, which are not dependent on actual documentation. This argument is not convincing, however, because the combination of the two types of material is also characteristic of extrabiblical texts (see below, pp.  274–274). His assertion that the boundary lists themselves only demarcate individual plots or international borders and never internal administrative divisions is similarly improbable: see Nurit Lissovsky and Nadav Naʾaman, “A New Outlook at the Boundary System of the Twelve Tribes,” 298–99, 323; see also above, pp. 151–152 n. 71.

The “Book of Settlement”

259

not all the descriptions reflect historical circumstances. Thus, for example, many scholars concur that the portrayals of the borders of the central tribes as extending to the Mediterranean are for the most part idealistic additions to the tribal allotments by means of “stretching” the delineations of the actual borderlines. These amplifications derive from the desire to create a territorial continuity across the tribal portions, omitting/ignoring segments not under their control. 28 The stylistic complexity of the material, especially the disparity between the border descriptions and city rosters has led to the other commonly accepted view, that the author drew his information from several different sources. The scholarly debate revolves around the issue of the alleged scope of these texts and the geo-historical reconstruction of the territory they represent. Thus, for example, Kallai assigns the tribal heritage accounts to five sources: one principal source containing all the boundary depictions and lists of the cities of the northern allotments, with the registers of the towns of Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, and Dan each being drawn from an independent source. 29 According to the notion lying at the heart of this division, the borders constitute a distinct territorial system—and thus relate to a specific historical reality. 30 Aharoni also regards the border descriptions and city rosters as being drawn from discrete sources, although he concurs with Noth that the original list only referred to 28.  See Albrecht Alt, “Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Josua,” in Festschrift Ernst Sellin: Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte und Archäologie Palästinas (ed. W. F. Albright et al.; Leipzig: Deichert, 1927) 16–17; Martin Noth, “Studien zu den historischgeographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches,” ZDPV 58 (1935) 186–89; idem, “Das Reich von Hamath als Grenznachbar des Reiches Davids,” PJ 33 (1937) 49; idem, The Old Testament World, 63–75; Kaufmann, The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine, 43. 29.  Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 1. Kallai distinguishes between “the tribal boundary system” (the term “system” is significant here) and “the city rosters in the book of Joshua.” In examining the temporal framework reflected in the depictions, he asserts that the lists of towns belonging to the northern tribes do not differ from the borders of the tribal portions and thus represent the same historical reality and supplement the boundary descriptions (pp. 404–38). The period to which the “tribal boundary system” should be assigned is “the United Kingdom under the rule of David and Solomon, particularly the close of David’s reign and the days of Solomon” (p. 279). In contrast, the city rosters of Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, and Dan date to the reigns of Hezekiah (Judah), the period between Abijah’s conquests and the war between Asa and Baasha (Benjamin), and the days of David (Simeon) and Solomon (Dan), respectively (pp. 334–48). 30.  Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 99–102.

260

Chapter 9

specific border stations, and the connecting verbs were added at a later date. 31 In his opinion, the Judahite allotment was the text appended to the original document. 32 While Kallai considers the historical reality reflected in the “tribal border system” to be that of the United Monarchy, 33 Aharoni views this “system” as representing the tribal boundaries within the framework of the ancient tribal covenant from the period of the judges. Both scholars ascribe great weight to the fact that the descriptions do not leave any gaps between the tribal portions, attributing the disparities in style and detail among the depictions to the fact that the biblical editor abbreviated and reworked the original sources: “Therefore, we may assume that all of the boundary delineations were basically quite detailed, being simplified and shortened in varying degrees for our present lists.” 34 “The lengthy detail of the southern allotments west of the Jordan is a result of the particular interest and intimate knowledge possessed by the author here.” 35 Neither lack of interest nor sparse knowledge accounts for the variations we have noted above, however. Likewise, territorial continuity alone does not require that the majority or all of the border descriptions represent one system and derive from a single source and the divergences reflect the author’s reworking of the source. Although the homogeneous geographical picture is also true of the allotments east of the Jordan, in this case it is not generally thought that the geographical consistency attests a uniformity of sources. An analysis of the text demonstrates that, while geographical constancy exists in relation to the southern tribal borders, the depiction of the northern borders is purely artificial. Despite the attempt to provide a comprehensive account of the boundaries of each tribe, the majority of the descriptions only specify part of the overall border, and some suffice with the statement that the border “touches” the allotment of the neighboring tribe (Josh 17:10; 19:27, 34). Others, however—such as the northern Naphtalite border—are completely omitted. 36 The impression given of geographical uniformity thus appears to support the view that the 31.  Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 248. 32.  Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 253. 33.  This view had already been proposed by William F. Albright, “The Administrative Divisions of Israel and Judah,” JPOS 5 (1925) 17–54. Among those who follow Kallai’s scheme are Naʾaman, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography, 75–117; and Gershon Galil and Yair Zakovitch (eds.), Yehoshua [Joshua] (Olam hatanakh; Tel Aviv: Davidson-Ittai, 1994) 122. 34.  Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 250. 35.  Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 100. 36.  Kallai reconstructs this boundary at Baal-gad in the Valley of Lebanon, on the basis of what he regards as the general scope of the territory assigned to the tribes (Josh

The “Book of Settlement”

261

tribal allocations stretched across the whole land, in similar fashion to the textual extension of the borderlines to the Mediterranean. The tendency to paint a unified and complete geographical picture is consistent with the express intention of the author of the book of Joshua, which was to delineate the division of the entire conquered land into tribal heritages. The geographical system reflected in the descriptions is thus not related to any particular historical period or specific administrative source but expresses the author’s ideological conviction about the land’s parameters and tribal allocations, which was drawn from various diverse archival materials. This premise is the basis for Aḥituv’s assertion that: “The source of the tribal allotment border depictions and city rosters lies in various archival lists. Those of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon derive from royal Judaean documents; those of the tribes of Israel from documents surviving from the Kingdom of Israel, explaining their more fragmentary and corrupt form. They may also contain artificial delineations (Dan and Asher).” 37 Several hypotheses have appeared regarding the nature and character of the original sources at Joshua’s author’s disposal. Since the days of Alt, a single research method has been prevalent, which is a geo-historical analysis of the scope of the demarcated territory. 38 Scholars have drawn maps on the basis of the descriptions and sought to determine the period to which each geoadministrative unit delineated should be assigned. The question of the periods when the reorganization of the kingdom was undertaken has also been widely discussed, since, in the majority opinion, an administrative document of this sort could only have been written during times of administrative restructuring—such as, for example, during Jehoshaphat’s time (2 Chr 17:2: “He stationed troops in all the fortified towns of Judah, and stationed garrisons throughout the land of Judah and the cities of Ephraim which his father Asa had conquered”), 39 or the steps taken to reorganize the kingdom during Uzziah’s reign (2 Chr 26:9–14). 40 11:17, 12:7), without giving any explanation for the absence of the description of the tribe’s portion (pp. 225–27). 37.  Aḥituv, Joshua, 22. 38.  Alt, “Judas gaue unter Josia”; idem, “Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Josua.” For a review of the literature up to the 1960s, see Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 3–4. 39.  See Benjamin Mazar, ‫יהושפט‬, EncBib 3:566; Cross and Wright, “The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah”—despite the fact that the text appears to refer to military rather than civil reform: see Sara Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1993) 745–46. 40. See Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 352.

262

Chapter 9

This examination is largely interbiblical and relies on a comparison of various biblical texts—historiographical and other—supplemented by evidence from archaeological excavations regarding the date of habitation of a specific site. 41 The most striking example of the consequences of this geo-historical approach is Alt’s conclusion (now almost unanimously accepted by scholars in this field) that the list of Judahite cites reflects the provincial division prevalent in the Kingdom of Judah, most likely during the reign of Josiah, because this was the only period when Judah was extended in the west and north to the degree recorded in the roster. 42 Although some scholars dispute the scope of the list and its dating, they do not question the general outline described above. 43 In the following section, I shall examine the nature of the sources by comparing the biblical descriptions with a similar literary type from the ancient Near East. This process is designed to contribute to the question of whether the biblical texts reflect literary traditions known from ancient Near Eastern border demarcations. It will also help identify the literary processes that the tribal border delineations have undergone. The first issue to be investigated in this context is the historical and literary status of the texts. Next is to reconstruct the ancient reality and elaborate on the historical administrative function for which the delineations were composed—the Sitz im Leben or context in which they were originally written. I shall then examine the issue of ideology: what was the intention of the compiler in reworking his sources and creating a new text? The answer to this query will reveal the view of the composer of the extant biblical narrative—who included the border depictions in his account—about the settlement process.

41.  See, for example, Aharoni’s discussion of the archaeological finds from Ramat Rahel (identified with Beth-hakerem), Tel Beth-shemesh, and Tel Goren at En-gedi (The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 347–52, 394–95). 42. See Alt, “Judas gaue unter Josia.” 43.  The debate revolves around the issue of whether the list of Benjaminite cities (or the southern segment of the Benjaminite allotment) and the city lists of the Simeonites and Danites belong to the same administrative document: see, for example, Cross and Wright, “The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah”; Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 347–57; Nadav Naʾaman, “The Town-Lists of Judah and Benjamin and the Kingdom of Judah in the Days of Josiah,” Zion 54 (1989) 17–71 [Hebrew]. See also Dagan’s discussion of the Judahite Shephelah province, including earlier literature: Yehuda Dagan, “Cities of the Judean Shephelah and Their Division into Districts Based on Joshua 16,” ErIsr 25 (Aviram Volume; 1996) 136–46 [Hebrew].

The “Book of Settlement”

263

Hittite and Israelite Borders Hittite texts contribute substantially to elucidating the biblical concept of the border, due to the large number of documents that have survived and the nature of territorial conditions in the kingdom. The Hittite boundary depictions refer to the borders that passed through Anatolia and Syria, and the terrain of these areas more closely resembles the land of Israel than Mesopotamia. In Ḫatti and Israel alike, the topography required agricultural methods to be based principally on dry and pastoral farming—in contrast to the artificialirrigation system that was prevalent in areas that were watered by large rivers in Mesopotamia and Egypt. It is likely that this correspondence in circumstances also led to a typological and substantive parallel in the character and role attributed to borders in Ḫatti and Israel and that the affinities indicate a similar border concept in both countries. The analysis below focuses on the account of the borders of the Kingdom of Tarḫuntašša, a daughter-kingdom of Ḫatti during the thirteenth century b.c.e. 44 The Ulmi-Teššub treaty contains a detailed, place-by-place border description of the land of Tarḫuntašša that extends for 37 lines and is paralleled by 49 lines in the Bronze Tablet. 45 Comparison with this text is especially apt, due to its extraordinary length, great specification, and treatment of sovereigntyeconomic features rather than security issues. These factors appear to be due to the historical circumstances surrounding its composition. The fact that the king of Tarḫuntašša was a member of the royal family who harbored claims to the crown required Ḫattušili III and possibly also Tudḫaliya IV to maintain a

44. See my article “The Tribal Boundaries in Light of Tarḫuntašša Border Descriptions,” Shnaton 12 (2000) 165–85 [Hebrew]. The first scholar to examine the similarity in form and style between the Tarḫuntašša border description and the tribal-allotment delineations was Richard S. Hess, “Late Bronze Age and Biblical Descriptions of the West Semitic World,” in Ugarit and the Bible (ed. G. J. Brooke et al.; UBL 11; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994) 125–27, 136–38. For a geographical analysis of the description, see John Garstang and Oliver R. Gurney, The Geography of the Hittite Empire (London: British Institute of Archaeology, 1959) 65ff.; John D. Hawkins, The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (Südburg) (StBoT 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995) 50–53, 55. 45.  KBo IV 10+. See Theo van den Hout, Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag: Eine prosopographische Untersuchung (StBoT 38; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995), lines 15′–32′; Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (2nd ed.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 109–10, §§2–3 and 114–16, §§3–9.

264

Chapter 9

carefully balanced relationship with Tarḫuntašša and provide its king with support while simultaneously checking his ambitions. 46

Typological Resemblances 1. The sites mentioned in the biblical and Hittite boundary descriptions are identical in character: cities, mountains, bodies of water, and monuments. These features represent the most striking landmarks, which are what led to their selection as border markers. When a toponym is identified in relation to another point, it is denoted with an explanatory relative clause. Thus, for example, the depiction of the border of Tarḫuntašša runs: “Up behind the city of Kursawanta, border is the Stone Monument (ḫuwaši) of the Dog” (Ulmi-Teššub Treaty, line 21′); this is parallel with the biblical account of the northern Judahite border: “The boundary . . . turned north to Gilgal, facing the Ascent of Adummim which is south of the wadi” (Josh 15:7; cf. 18:17). 2. In the Hittite document, the identification of the site as a border post by means of the formula “in the direction of x, y is its border” does not determine on which side of the boundary the place is located. This is established in the third section of the statement: “y belongs to side a.” The descriptions of the tribal boundaries similarly failed to reveal whether the border stations belonged to the tribe whose territory they delimited or to that tribe’s neighbor(s). This characteristic is most striking in the southern tribal-allotment delineations, which separate the “place and verb” account from the city rosters. Thus, for example, the depiction of the northern Judahite boundary, which refers to three border stations in proximity to one another—Beth-hoglah, Betharabah, and the Stone of Bohan son of Reuben—states: “On the northern side, the boundary began at . . . ascended to Beth-hoglah and passed north of Betharabah; then the boundary ascended to the Stone of Bohan son of Reuben” (Josh 15:5–6). The notation “passed north of Beth-arabah” makes it clear that Beth-arabah fell within the Judahite territory. The parallel text, which demarcates the southern boundary of the Benjaminite allotment similarly indicates that Beth-hoglah lay within the Judahite portion: “The boundary passed on to the northern flank of Beth-hoglah” (Josh 18:19). Neither of these accounts 46.  See Trevor Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) 295–99. The controversy surrounding the relationship between Kurunta, king of Tarḫuntašša, in the Bronze Tablet, and Ulmi-Teššub, king of Tarḫuntašša, in the UlmiTeššub treaty—were they two separate persons or the same figure?—is of no immediate relevance to the present discussion. See also Horst Klengel, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 258.

The “Book of Settlement”

265

details on which side of the third site—the Stone of Bohan son of Reuben— the boundary ran, however, leaving us ignorant as to which of the tribes it belonged. The principal interest of the author of the biblical text appears to have been in identifying the ownership of economically significant places. The same thing is true of the Tarḫuntašša border text, which omits any notation of which side controlled the border marker “the Stone Monument of the Dog” (UlmiTeššub Treaty, line 21′). The conditions behind the two cases thus appear to be analogous: while they were considered important as boundary sites, neither the “stone” nor the monument possessed any economic value. 3. The Hittite document does not state who controlled the water sources demarcating the border—with the exception of one case, in which the supply served the shepherds equally on both sides of the boundary (Ulmi-Teššub Treaty, lines 25′–26′). The descriptions of the Judahite and Benjaminite borders similarly neglect to assign ownership to water sources in the land—such as the waters of En-shemesh (Josh 15:7, 18:17), En-rogel (Josh 15:7, 18:16), and the fountain of the Waters of Nephtoach (Josh 15:9, 18:15). This does not mean that the sites were at the disposal of all and sundry wishing to use them; natural water sources—springs and wells—apparently belonged to the family or tribe that occupied the territory in which they were located. 47 The author of the biblical text appears not to have found it necessary to note this circumstance explicitly—in the same way as he omitted any denotation regarding who owned the fields along the borderline. 4. While the mountains serve as border markers along the Tarḫuntašša boundary, the document does not indicate to which side they belong. This is also true of the peaks mentioned in the southern tribal border accounts—such as Mount Ephron (Josh 15:9) 48 and Mount Seir (15:10). Where the northern boundaries run at the feet of lofty mountains, the description notes this by use of the root ‫“( פגע‬touched”; Dabbesheth/Tabor/Carmel—see above, p. 137). A similar statement appears in the description of the Tarḫuntašša border: “In the direction of Mount Huwatnuwanta . . . his border is . . .” (Ulmi-Teššub Treaty, line 20′). We can speculate that the uncultivated hill country and the

47.  In distinction from the hewn cisterns, which were at the disposal of the individual: see Adam Zertal, “The Water Factor during the Israelite Settlement Process in Canaan,” in Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 b.c.) (ed. M. Heltzer and E. Lipiński; Leuven: Peeters, 1988) 345. 48.  The reading ‫ ערי הר עפרון‬is difficult, and the LXX, which omits the term ‫ערי‬, should perhaps be preferred here.

266

Chapter 9

desert/wilderness areas 49 were “middle ground,” the ownership of which was undetermined. 50 Even if we assume, however, that no such territories existed in the hill country and that the ownership of each portion (including uncultivated land) was known to the local inhabitants, delineation was the task of the native residents rather than of the central government. The exceptions to this principle prove the rule. The descriptions usually denote on which side of the mountain the border passes if the mountain is located in a significant region or if the territory has a settlement in it. Thus, for example, “The boundary then ran up to the top of the hill [the “edge of the hill” in the Benjaminite border— Josh 18:16] which flanks the Valley of Hinnom on the west, at the northern end of the Valley of Rephaim” (15:8); “The boundary . . . passed north of the slope of Mount Jearim—that is, Chesalon” (15:10). In the first case, the mountain lies near the area around Jerusalem, and the description of this region includes the greatest concentration of toponyms in relation to the territory. 51 49.  In contrast to the desert expanses used for pasture, for which the designation “desert/wilderness of x” indicates that they were perceived as belonging to the local inhabitants, as is still the custom today: see, for example, the sketch of the Benjaminite border described as crossing the Judean Desert: “ascended westward into the hill country and ran on to the Wilderness of Beth-aven” (Josh 18:12). 50. Contra Kallai’s premise that no unidentified areas existed between the tribes (Historical Geography of the Bible, 99–100 n. 5). 51.  Aharoni maintains that the great detail provided in the portrayal of the area around Jerusalem is evidence that the borders were delineated in similar fashion, but the biblical author—who displayed little interest in the issue—simply chose to abbreviate the accounts (The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 349). Comparison with the Hittite texts demonstrates, however, that the original document itself contained a short description alongside a detailed demarcation of the various segments of the border, and the measure of specificity reflects the degree of the original author’s interest. See, for example, the description of the partial (or even nonexistent) boundary between Tarḫuntašša and the Kingdom of Kizzuwatna: Hawkins, The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex, 50–51. The divergence between the sites, such as “the waters of Jericho east of the wilderness” (Josh 16:1) in the depiction of the southern Josephite boundary and “the northern flank of Jericho” (Josh 18:12) in the account of the northern Benjaminite border, which allude to the same boundary, shows the variations between the parallel texts and fails to support the premise that the original document included both notations, each sketch employing one of the markers alone: see Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times, 349. Thus, for example, the Ulmi-Teššub Treaty states that: “in the direction of Sinnuwanta, his border is Mount Lula” (line 26′), the author of the parallel passage in the Bronze Tablet adding a further indicator, perhaps for greater clarification: “in the direction of the city of Sinnuwanta, his border is Mount Lula [and] the Sphinx Mountains” (Bronze Tablet i, line 43): see Heinrich G. Otten, Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy: Ein Staatvertrag Tudhaliyas IV (StBoT 1; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988) 35.

The “Book of Settlement”

267

Table 9.3.  Comparison of Biblical and Hittite Border Depictions Demarcation of the Allotment of the Half-Tribe of Manasseh West of the Jordan (Joshua 17:7–13)

Tarḫuntašša Border Depiction (Ulmi-Teššub Treaty and Bronze Tablet)

1. (7) The boundary of Manasseh ran toward Asher

Toward the land of Pitassa . . . [they] are your border. (lines 16′-17′)

2. to Michmethath, which lies near Shechem.

Up behind the city of Kursawanta, border is the Stone Monument (ḫuwaši) of the Dog. (line 21′)

3. The boundary continued to the right, toward the inhabitants of En-tappuah. (8) The region of Tappuah belonged to Manasseh; but Tappuah, on the border of Manasseh, belonged to the Ephraimites.

His border is the sinkhole of the city of Arimmatta, but Arimmatta belongs to the land of Pitassa. (line 19′)

4. (9) Then the boundary descended to the The river Kastariya is his border. (Bronze Wadi Kanah. Tablet i line 61) 5. Those towns to the south of the wadi All the cities in the land of Tarḫuntašša that belonged to Ephraim as an enclave among belonged to the king of Ḫatti. (Bronze Tablet the towns of Manasseh. The boundary of i lines 68–69) Manasseh lay north of the wadi and ran on to the Sea. (10) What lay to the south belonged to Ephraim, and what lay to the north belonged to Manasseh, 6. with the Sea as its boundary.

The sea is his border. (Bronze Tablet i line 60)

7. [This territory] was contiguous with Asher on the north, and with Issachar on the east.

In the direction of the land/border district of Pitassa. (lines 16′, 19′)

8. (11) Within Issachar and Asher, Manasseh possessed Beth-shean and its dependencies, the inhabitants of Dor and its dependencies, the inhabitants of Endor and its dependencies, the inhabitants of Taanach and its dependencies, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and its dependencies; these constitute three regions.

All the cities in the land of Tarḫuntašša that belonged to the king of Ḫatti: the city of Anta and its deserted settlements, the cities of Laḫḫwiyassi, Wastissa, Ḫad­duwassa, Ḫandawa, Daganza, Simmuwa, Saḫita, the men of Kammama under service obligation, the golden charioteers of Walistassa, the cities of Inurta. . . . (Bronze Tablet i lines 68–90)

(12) The Manassites could not dispossess [the inhabitants of] these towns, and the Canaanites stubbornly remained in this region. (13) When the Israelites became stronger, they imposed tribute on the Canaanites; but they did not dispossess them.

268

Chapter 9

Apparently, great significance was attached to ownership of sites, fields, and land plots in this area, including the hill country. In the second case, the statement about which side of the mountain the boundary ran on is linked to the border crossing to Chesalon, which is situated in the territory of Mount Jearim. These examples indicate that, like the description of the Tarḫuntašša border, the primary interest of the biblical text was not to identify the property of the tribes but to record their territory for the central administration—that is, for tax-collection purposes. The boundary is thus principally demarcated in reference to the sovereignty held over the various territories. We may assume that, while the local inhabitants were aware of which fields, springs, and wells belonged to whom, the springs and mountains were irrelevant for tax-collection purposes. There was no need to describe which side of the border they lay on (if the border passed through sites such as these). This principle is valid irrespective of the descriptive methods used: while the biblical texts adopt the “place and verb” system, the Tarḫuntašša border depiction identifies boundary sites and then indicates to which side they belong. The issue of city sovereignty is stressed in the town rosters, which served as a parallel (and perhaps supplementary) way of describing the parameters of territory that was ruled by a local governing body. As we have seen, the lists of cities was an accepted way of defining land that passed from hand to hand; for example, the Hittite king used this method to mark the borders between the Kingdom of Ugarit and its southern and northern neighbors (see above, pp.  38–44). Such as they are, the rosters that appear in both biblical and extrabiblical texts indicate that the focus was the cities and their domains and populaces—as evident from the biblical depiction of the survey of the tribal allotments: “So the men went and traversed the land; they described it in a document, town by town, in seven parts” (Josh 18:9).

Stylistic Resemblances A comparison of the Hittite source and the biblical texts highlights the stylistic similarities that they exhibit even when they adopt diverse descriptive methods. The account of the allotment to the half-tribe of Manasseh west of the Jordan (Josh 17:7–13) provides a good example of the stylistic affinities between the two sets of texts. Only the southern boundary of this heritage is delineated in detail. The other sides are referred to in a compact summary: “. . . with the Sea as its boundary. [This territory] was contiguous with Asher on the north, and with Issachar on the east” (17:10). In table 9.3, the biblical text is

The “Book of Settlement”

269

presented in full in the left-hand column, and the right-hand column containing parallels from the Tarḫuntašša border depiction. 52 1. The biblical description commences with the notation, “The boundary of Manasseh toward Asher (‫( ”)ויהי גבול מנשה מאשר‬v. 7). The Asherites’ allotment borders the Manassites’ allotment in the north, but the description is clearly incomplete because it immediately proceeds to Michmethath, which is a site located on the tribe’s southern boundary (Josh 16:6). Contrary to usual practice, the preposition -‫ מ‬here should not be understood as referring to the starting point of the borderline (“from”), because the tribal name “Asher” is too-general a signifier and thus cannot serve as a precise definition of the beginning of the border (compare the detailed marker at the commencement of the southern Judahite border depiction: “Their southern boundary began from the tip of the Dead Sea, from the tongue that projects southward”—Josh 15:2). 53 Neither can the text be interpreted as a spatial merism that refers to the whole heritage—that is, “The boundary of Manasseh ran from Asher [to] Michmethath, which lies near Shechem.” 54 The preposition (‫ מ(ן‬in the term ‫ מאשר‬is instead an ablative of separation, and the opening indicator thus signifies “toward Asher.” In other words, the notation relates to the other side of the border in this region 55—similar to the first half of the repeated formulation in the Tarḫuntašša boundary description, in which the area on the other side of the border is designated by the Akkadogram IŠ-TU or ablative (of separation)—the literal meaning of the preposition ištu is “from”—denoting “toward.” 56 52.  The citations are from the Ulmi-Teššub Treaty, with the exception of the instances in which the text only appears in the Bronze Tablet. Where several parallels exist, a single representative example is presented. 53.  Kallai correctly rejects the attempt to interpret the name Asher here as referring to a settlement rather than to the tribe (Historical Geography of the Bible, 150 n. 109 and 174–75). 54.  “The portion of verse 7 in Joshua xvii: ‘And the territory of Manasseh was from Asher (to) Michmethah’ is undoubtedly intended to intimate succinctly the northern and southern borders respectively. Due to the extreme terseness, only Asher’s allotment is noted” (Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 174). 55.  One of the earliest scholars to suggest this was Simons, “The Structure and Interpretation of Josh. xvi–xvii,” 209 n. 2. 56.  See also the Akkadian delineation of the border between Ḫatti and the kingdom of Kizzuwatna in the fourteenth century b.c.e., which opens with the words ištu tâmti (that is, “in the direction of the sea”) followed by a notation of the cities belonging to the king of Ḫatti and those belonging to the king of Kizzuwatna (Tudḫaliyah’s treaty with Sunaššura, line 40). The preposition ištu appears three more times in this boundary depiction: twice preceding the name of a city (“in the direction of the city of Luwana,

270

Chapter 9

As we have seen, the “place and verb” method uses the phrase -‫פגע ב‬ (“touched on”) or the preposition ‫“( אל‬to”) to denote the region on the other side of the boundary—such as, for example, in the initial delineation of the Judahite border: “to the border of Edom” (Josh 15:1; cf. also 15:21). This formulation parallels the phrase “in the direction of border x,” which appears on numerous occasions in the Tarḫuntašša border text. In both instances, the name of the general area belongs to the neighboring land. As noted above, the biblical account has been interrupted following the opening statement (“The boundary of Manasseh ran toward Asher”), because the continuation does not specify the Asherite border north of Manasseh, as we would have expected, but speaks of the boundary running along the flank of the allotment’s southern side (“Michmethath, which lies near Shechem”). Given that the author feels no restraint about including double descriptions (such as the border of Ephraim and Manasseh) and the fact that the southern Asherite boundary is also almost completely absent (the delineation of the Asherite portion in Josh 19:24–31 is principally a city roster), 57 he appears to have lacked a full account of the northern boundary. It is difficult to avoid the impression that the description of the border between Manasseh and Ephraim was the sole account in his possession; nonetheless, he endeavored to draw an inclusive picture of all four sides of the Manassite allocation. 2. The first site delineated on the southern Manassite border is the unidentified Michmethath, demarcated as lying “near Shechem.” Similar descriptions of a location by reference to another place appear in the Hittite document: “Up behind the city of Kursawanta, border is the Stone Monument of the Dog” (Ulmi-Teššub Treaty, line 21′). 3. Tappuah is depicted the same way as Arimmatta in the portrayal of the Tarḫuntašša border. The first indicator marked is the boundary: “The boundthe city of Turpina is the border of Sunaššura” [lines 55–56] and “in the direction of the city of Zilapuna, the Shamri River is the border” [line 62]), and immediately following, in a fragmented context (“in the direction of . . . the river Shamri is indeed the border of Sunaššura” [lines 62–63]): see Gary Beckman (Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 24–25), whose translation “frontier” has been replaced with “border” here. 57.  Reconstruction of the southern Asherite boundary is dependent on the identification of the otherwise unknown site of “Shihor-libnath” (Josh 19:26). Abel and Alt associate this toponym with Nahal Tanninim (Crocodile Brook) south of the Carmel range, while Mazar relates it to the lower part of the Kishon River: Félix-Marie Abel, Géographie de la Palestine (Paris: Lecoffre, 1933) 1:470–71; Albrecht Alt, “Eine galiläische Ortsliste in Jos. 19,” ZAW 45 (1927) 69; Benjamin Mazar, ‫ שיחור לבנת‬,‫לבנת‬, EncBib 4:430. In either case, we do not possess a full description of the border here.

The “Book of Settlement”

271

ary continued to the right, toward the inhabitants of En-tappuah” (Josh 17:7). This is immediately followed by an elucidation of the specific side to which the border sites belonged: “The region of Tappuah belonged to Manasseh; but Tappuah, on the border of Manasseh, belonged to the Ephraimites” (v. 8). The only specifications that diverge from the Hittite description are the verb “continued (‫ ”)הלך‬and the direction “to the right.” In fact, very little of the portrayal of the southern Manassite boundary employs the standard “place and verb” system. The sole verbs in it are the general “continued” (very rare in border sketches) 58 and “descended” (v. 9), and the unit concludes with the typical expression “and ran on to the Sea” (‫( )ויהי תֹצאֹתיו הימה‬v. 9). Evidently the author of the book of Joshua possesed a delineation of the border that used a descriptive method similar to the Tarḫuntašša border text, and he tried to format his source in line with the system characteristic of the tribal allotment depictions, in correspondence with his efforts to draw as consistent a picture as possible. The affinities with the Tarḫuntašša boundary description that the biblical text exhibits are also related to the syntactical structure found in the two sets of texts. The waw-conversive that connects the two halves of the sentence in v. 8—“The region of Tappuah belonged to Manasseh; but Tappuah . . . belonged to the Ephraimites (‫ לבני אפרים‬. . . ‫—”)למנשה היתה ארץ תפוח ותפוח‬parallels the enclitic ma that appears in the toponyms found in the Hittite document and is generally rendered “but”: “his border is the sinkhole of the city of Arimmatta, but Arimmatta belongs to the land of Pitassa” (Ulmi-Teššub Treaty, line 19′, emphasis mine). 4. Josh 17:7–13 reflects another correspondence between the biblical and Hittite texts. The biblical passage delineates three locations linked to the region of Tappuah: (a) the border, which runs near “En-tappuah”; 59 (b) “the region of Tappuah,” which belonged to Manasseh; and (c) “Tappuah” itself, an

58.  The root ‫“( הלך‬to go”) only appears elsewhere in the Ephraimite border account, which parallels our present text. It appears there in an unusual grammatical form: “Westward, the boundary proceeded (‫ )ילך‬from Tappuah to the Wadi Kanah and ran on to the sea” (Josh 17:8): see p. 137 and table 9.2. 59.  The phrase ‫ ישבי עין תפוח‬is difficult and without parallel in the tribal border descriptions (see below, n. 61). The standard theory that we should read the place-name “Jassib” here—as in the LXX (see Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 151–53)—is grammatically problematic, because in that interpretation, the depiction would contain no verb or other linkage between the two sites. The term ‫ ישבי‬appears to have been attracted to its present position under the influence of v. 11.

272

Chapter 9

Ephraimite enclave in the Manassite allotment. 60 The Tarḫuntašša border text notes similar distinctions between the cities and their water sources: “his border is the sinkhole of the city of Arimmatta, but Arimmatta belongs to the land of Pitassa” (Ulmi-Teššub Treaty, line 19′, emphasis added). 5. Just as the continuation of the southern Manassite boundary delineation follows the course of Wadi Kanah to the sea, so in the Tarḫuntašša boundary description the border follows the course of the Kastaraya River. The phrase “with the Sea as its boundary” (v. 10) that concludes the passage is identical both substantively and stylistically with the Hittite depiction “the sea is his border.” Interestingly, both texts refer to the same sea—the Mediterranean. 6. Although the account of the southern Manassite boundary terminates at the coast, the depiction mentions additional Ephraimite enclaves: “Those towns to the south of the wadi belonged to Ephraim as an enclave among the towns of Manasseh” (Josh 17:9). Verses 11–13 also contain a lengthy roster of Canaanite cities that, although belonging to the Manassites, are located in the allotments of Issachar and Asher: (11) Within Issachar and Asher, Manasseh possessed Beth-shean and its dependencies, the inhabitants of Dor and its dependencies, the inhabitants of En-dor and its dependencies, the inhabitants of Taanach and its dependencies, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and its dependencies; these constitute three regions. (12) The Manassites could not dispossess [the inhabitants of] these towns, and the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in this region. (13) When the Israelites became stronger, they imposed tribute on the Canaanites; but they did not dispossess them. 61

The list of Canaanite enclaves parallels the register that appears (alongside an additional catalog) in Judg 1:27, from which it was apparently taken. Compari60. According to the archaeological survey conducted in the hill country of Manasseh, the settlements were not necessarily located in the vicinity of water sources. They were usually about 3 km distant and occasionally even 5 km or more: see Zertal, “The Water Factor during the Israelite Settlement Process in Canaan,” 344. 61.  Compare Judg 1:27: “Manasseh did not dispossess Beth-shean and its dependencies, Taanach and its dependencies, the inhabitants of Dor and its dependencies, the inhabitants of Ibleam and its dependencies, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and its dependencies. The Canaanites persisted in dwelling in this region.” The phrase “the inhabitants of x” is characteristic of the style of Judges 1. In the description of the tribal allotments in Joshua, this expression appears elsewhere only twice: “the inhabitants of Debir” in the story of Caleb’s heritage (Josh 15:13–20), which parallels Judg 1:10–15; and “the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (Josh 15:63), in a parallel notation that contradicts Judg 1:21. Judges 1 (or its source) thus appears to be the origin of these remarks in the tribalallocation depictions: see Aḥituv, Joshua, 250 (on “the inhabitants of Debir”).

The “Book of Settlement”

273

son with the Hittite border text, however, reveals that it resembles the description of towns located in Tarḫuntašša that belonged to the Hittite king. Even the order in which the items are given is analogous: the border delineation is followed by the roster of enclaves. This juxtaposing of enclave inventories/ boundary accounts thus appears to have been standard literary practice in the composition of border descriptions. 7. The notation “[This territory] was contiguous with Asher on the north and with Issachar on the east” (Josh 17:10) refers to the area on the other side of the border. Its association with the Asherite allotment is presented at the beginning of the delineation (Josh 17:7: “The boundary of Manasseh ran toward Asher”—§1 in table 9.3) via signification of the heritage’s general location in relation to other portions. Once the author has described the southern Manassite border (table 9.3, §§3–5) and the coastal border (§6), he completes the two remaining sides of the allotment in an effort to present an all-embracing account (compare the description of the Napthtalite boundary in Josh 19:34: “It touched Zebulun on the south, and it touched Asher on the west”; see also 19:27, and above, p. 137). As remarked above, identification of the border in relation to neighboring territory, its mountains and cities, is a standard feature of the Tarḫuntašša boundary document. 8. The formulation adopted in the final section of the Tarḫuntašša border description differs from the wording used in the first part. It does not depict the region through which the boundary ran via a delineation of specific sites but inserts lengthy rosters of all the towns belonging to Tarḫuntašša without any reference to locations that lie on the other side of the border. This segment of the account thus resembles the biblical city rosters—the second literary feature in the account of the tribal allotments west of the Jordan in Joshua. The heading prefacing the Judahite cites (15:21: “The towns at the far end 62 of the tribe of Judah”) recalls the notation inserted at the conclusion of each verse in this section of the Tarḫuntašša border document: “these cities belong to the land of the Ḫulaya River” (Ulmi-Teššub Treaty, line 32′; Bronze Tablet i  52, 55–56, 67). Also of interest is the fact that this segment of the Hittite boundary depiction speaks of the upati (rendered “dependencies” by Beckman)—a type of settlement that is also accentuated in the biblical passages: “Ekron, with its dependencies and villages. From Ekron westward, all the towns in the vicinity of Ashdod, with their villages—Ashdod, its dependencies and villages—Gaza, 62.  The term ‫ מקצה‬is difficult and is omitted in the LXX and Peshiṭta. A corruption may have occurred here under the influence of the heading to the Judahite boundary: ‫( ויהי הגורל למטה בני יהודה למשפחתם אל גבול אדום מדבר צן נגבה מקצה תימן‬Josh 15:1).

274

Chapter 9

its dependencies and its villages, all the way to the Wadi of Egypt and the Great Sea” (Josh 15:45–47). Thus, the combined use of border descriptions/city rosters in the framework of the review of tribal allotments does not appear to be a literary invention on the part of the biblical author. We may speculate that the sources at his disposal contained depictions formulated in a similar style, which is the reason for the apparent “mixture” of methods in the delineation of the northern tribal heritages. The well-known variations between these two features in the southern tribal-allocation depictions, on the other hand, attest that they were taken from various sources. The biblical author made use of the accepted practice characteristic of this literary genre, combining diverse sources in order to compose an account of the tribal allotments.

Conclusion The above comparison between the tribal-allotment accounts and the Tarḫuntašša border document highlights the literary style shared by the two sets of texts. The linguistic affinities reveal the use of standard compository practice in recording boundaries in the ancient Near East—the correspondence being most striking in light of the fact that it manifests itself precisely within essentially divergent descriptive methods. 63 In light of the typological and literary affinities between the delineations, a possible answer may be suggested to the question posed at the beginning of our discussion, which was: what role did the tribal allotment delineations play in the alleged administrative source, and what was the purpose behind their incorporation into the secondary literary context of the book of Joshua? The Tarḫuntašša border document demarcates the boundaries of the kingdom in relation to the countries around it, including the border with Ḫatti and the neighboring lands (which were not a party directly involved in the treaty), and even the borders toward Lukka in the west (which was not subject to Ḫatti). The description was written from the perspective of an overlord: the 63.  It should be emphasized that clarifying the typological and literary affinities does not aid in determining the historical framework of the texts—contra Hess, who considers the correlation with extrabiblical border documents from the second half of the second millennium b.c.e. to be evidence that the documents from this time period were the source for the biblical texts (“Late Bronze Age and Biblical Descriptions of the West Semitic World,” 196–205). Naʾaman similarly maintains that some of the tribalallotment depictions reflect this period, although he refers to geo-historical considerations that I do not examine here (“Canaanite City-States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances of the Israelite Tribes”).

The “Book of Settlement”

275

Hittite king defined for the king of Tarḫuntašša the territory that he was granting him. This perspective is characteristic of border delineations recorded in the context of specifying sovereignty. When the principal focus of the text was security issues, however, its composer only took pains to refer to the elements common to Ḫatti and the vassal kingdom and did not detail all the boundaries circumscribing the territorial unit (as, for example, in the depiction of the border between Ḫatti and Mira-Kuwaliya—see above, pp. 34–35). The biblical texts similarly delineate all the sides of the tribal allotment, leading to the occasional existence of double descriptions of the boundaries of each specific heritage. Thus, for example, the borderline between the Judahite and Benjaminite heritages is demarcated once east to west (Josh 15:5–11) and once west to east (18:14–19). This is not evidence of the double use of the same source here but of the incorporation of segments from originally independent sources. We can thus conclude that the accounts in the assumed administrative sources were also composed from the perspective of an overlord and may have been border delineations of an internal administrative division determined by the country’s ruler. The typological comparison with the Hittite boundary suggests that the tribal boundary accounts served in the conjectured administrative source to identify the territorial allocations for tax-collection purposes. 64 In attempting to determine which source lay at the biblical writer’s disposal, we must also take other possibilities into consideration, however— such as road itineraries. This helps to explain the unique description of the Zebulunite allotment. According to Lissovsky and Naʾaman, the author of this account employed a list of stations located on the caravan route that crossed the Jordan south of the Kinneret and proceeded westward. 65 Comparison with the Hittite documents further elucidates the ideology of the biblical author who incorporated the depictions into his composition. In Ḫatti, the king was regarded as the supreme sovereign, responsible for determining the territories ruled by the kings in subjection to him and for dividing and delineating their borders. 66 Delineation of the boundary by the supreme sovereign power is also a characteristic feature of the Mesopotamian border 64. That includes all the administrative goals associated with government, such as military conscription and service to the community, purveyance for the royal palace, and various levies: see Naʾaman, “The District- System of Israel in the Time of the United Monarchy,” 5. 65.  Lissovsky and Naʾaman, “A New Outlook at the Boundary System of the Twelve Tribes,” 306–7. 66.  See above, p. 25. In the Hittite world view, the land and its inhabitants belonged to the Storm-god, and the king was his representative: see Richard Haase, “Some

276

Chapter 9

demarcations—for example, Mesalim of Kish, who delimited the border between Umma and Lagash (see above, pp. 26–28). The relations between the sovereign overlord and vassal king, whose original context was political, were transferred onto a religious plane in the biblical texts. In their secondary literary life, the tribal-allotment descriptions represent a religious notion linked to the triad of God–People–Land and reflect a multicentric perspective. God denotes for his People the parameters of the allocation that he assigns them (Num 34:1–12); the tribal heritages west of the Jordan are portrayed as part of the Land that he grants to the Israelite tribes. The second section of Joshua underscores the principle that the land belongs to God and that he is its true proprietor. In Auld’s phrase, “part of being [the] God of Israel was responsibility for the Land of Israel.” 67 Such sovereign-vassal relations are the backdrop behind many other biblical texts, which borrow political and legal terminology from the field of political relations and apply it to the theological domain. God functions as the supreme overlord and owner of the land, and the land has been assigned, on his instructions, to the Israelite tribes. Problems of Hittite Law and Jurisdiction,” in Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 b.c.) (ed. M. Heltzer and E. Lipiński; Leuven: Peeters, 1988) 71. 67. Graeme Auld, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984) 86.

Chapter 10

The Dimensions of the Land according to Biblical Historiography Although they do not deal directly with the promise of the land and/or its fulfillment, a number of biblical texts provide us with information on the subject obliquely. In this chapter, I examine passages in the historiographical literature that reflect concepts about the land in the course of their account of Israelite history. These historical-like reports range from the spies’ exploration through the days of Joshua, David, and Solomon and up to Jeroboam II, and they use spatial merisms exclusively rather than providing detailed border delineations. The representative toponyms they refer to represent the geographical and ideological notion of the land and its boundaries held by their authors. As part of the discussion, I investigate the affinities that these sources demonstrate with the promissory/fulfillment texts.

The Territory of the “Land of Canaan” Expressed in Spatial Merisms The spatial merisms in the various strata of the historiographical texts reflect a geographical entity similar to that described in the account of the Promised Land in Numbers (“the land of Canaan with its various boundaries”—Numbers 34) and the future land envisioned by Ezekiel (Ezek 47:13–48:29). Although by their very nature the passages cannot be regarded as providing a comprehensive border delineation, the two sites most regularly listed in them are located on the northern and southern borders of the “land of Canaan,” implying that they are intended to represent all the territory lying between them. Herein, I shall examine the places named in the merisms that appear in the following references to the land and its parameters: •  The land explored by the spies: “They went up and scouted the land, from the Wilderness of Zin to Rehob, at Lebo-hamath” (Num 13:21). •  The land vanquished by Joshua: “Joshua took the whole of this country: the hill country, the whole Negeb, the whole land of Goshen, the Shephelah, the Arabah, and the hill country and coastal plain of Israel—

277

278

Chapter 10

from Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir, to Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon at the foot of Mount Hermon” (Josh 11:16–17). 1 •  The land of Israel during the reign of Solomon: “So Solomon and all Israel with him—a great assemblage, from Lebo-hamath to the Wadi of Egypt” (1 Kgs 8:65 = 2 Chr 7:8). •  The land of Israel during the reign of Jeroboam II: “It was he who restored the territory of Israel from Lebo-hamath to the sea of the Arabah” (2 Kgs 14:25). •  “But I, O House of Israel, will raise up a nation against you—declares the Lord, the God of Hosts—who will harass you from Lebo-hamath to the Wadi Arabah” (Amos 6:14).

Lebo-hamath In the majority of the biblical merisms, Lebo-hamath represents the northern limit, 2 and the southern edge of the land is delineated by a variety of locations along the length of the borderline from east to west: the sea of Arabah, Wadi Arabah, the Wilderness of Zin, Mount Halak which ascends to Seir, and the Wadi of Egypt. This phenomenon is even more striking when we include the sites in the merisms that reflect a territorial entity that, although relating to the same southern border, possesses a different northern boundary (or omits 1.  This text is in the category of descriptions of the fulfillment of the promise, as discussed in chap. 7, where I also propounded the view that the scope of this territory is the same as that of the “land of Canaan.” See also Josh 12:7. 2.  The identification of Lebo-hamath is linked to the syntactical function attributed to the term lebo: (a) It may be the infinitive of the root ‫בוא‬, carrying the adverbial sense “coming—i.e., the way or pass—leading to Hamath,” as understood by the targums: ‫( למטי חמת‬Targum Onqelos), ‫( ממעלנא דחמת‬Targum Jonathan), and similarly in the LXX and other translations. (b) It may be a compound that comprises a place-name + the name of the country or province in which that site is located—as in “Ashterothkarnaim” (Gen 14:5). For additional examples, see Benjamin Mazar, “Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Border of Canaan,” in The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies (trans. R. Rigbi and E. Rigbi; ed. B. A. Levine and S. Aḥituv; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986) 199. Those who adopt the first view identify Lebo-hamath with Marj-Ayyoun or Dan-Banias: see, for example, Robert North, “Phoenicia-Canaan Frontier LeBÔ of Hama,” Mélanges de l’université Saint-Joseph 46 (1970) 71–103. Those who favor the second alternative identify Lebo-hamath with the village of Lebweh in the northern Beqaʿ Valley, in the vicinity of one of the sources of the Orontes. A place with a similar name is mentioned in Egyptian and Assyrian texts and was known as “Libo” during the Byzantine period: see Mazar, “Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Border of Canaan,” 199–201. For discussion and additional references, see Magne Sæbø, “Grenzbeschreibung und Landideal im Alten Testament mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der min-ʿad-Formel,” ZDPV 90 (1974) 22–29.

Dimensions of the Land

279

the latter altogether): Kadesh-barnea and Gaza (Josh 10:41) and the Ascent of Akrabbim (Judg 1:36). The above evidence indicates that Lebo-hamath is closely and exclusively linked to the northern border of the “land of Canaan”: the northern boundary is almost always represented by Lebo-hamath, and Lebo-hamath delineates the northern border in all 11 of its occurrences in the biblical text. It appears 3 times in the descriptions of the complete boundary (Num 34:8; Ezek 47:20, 48:1), 3 and it represents the northern limit in spatial merisms in the remaining 8, whether the territory in question is the “land of Canaan” (as noted above: Num 34:21, 1 Kgs 8:65 = 2 Chr 7:8, 2 Kgs 14:25, Amos 6:14) or whether it possesses a different southern border: •  The northern perimeters of the “land that yet remains”: “. . . the land of the Gebalites, with the whole Lebanon, from Baal-gad at the foot of Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath” (Josh 13:5). •  The nations God left in the north: “. . . all the Canaanites, Sidonians, and Hivites who inhabited the hill country of the Lebanon from Mount Baal-hermon to Lebo-hamath” (Judg 3:3). •  All of Israel under David’s rule: “David then assembled all Israel from Shihor of Egypt to Lebo-hamath” (1 Chr 13:5). 4 As these texts indicate, the association between the northern boundary of the “land of Canaan” and Lebo-hamath holds across various biblical strata—the Pentateuch, the early and later historiography, and the prophets. This literary phenomenon points to a conceptual divergence between the northern and southern borders of the “land of Canaan.” Why is the northern boundary consistently represented by a single site while the southern boundary is demarcated by numerous alternative locations? Although the disparity can be attributed to a geo-residential variability between the two areas—the northern boundary running through partly forested and partially inhabited hill country, the southern border through wilderness regions or desert frontier—the known 3.  Given its selection as the point delineating the limit of the western border despite its location in the middle of the northern boundary, the account of the western border of the future land (Ezek 47:20: “The Great Sea shall be the boundary up to a point opposite Lebo-hamath”) also attests that Lebo-hamath was regarded as the most prominent post on the northern border. The name also appears in corrupt form in Ezekiel’s portrayal of the future land’s northern boundary: “These are the boundaries of the land: As the northern limit: From the Great Sea by way of Hethlon, Lebo, Zedad, Hamath [LXX correctly: ‘Lebo-Hamath, Zedad’], Berothah, Sibraim” (Ezek 47:15): see above, p. 171 note a. 4.  For this notion of the scope of the land, see above, p. 231.

280

Chapter 10

settlement patterns exhibit no substantial divergence between the forest hill country and wilderness areas. In both alike, the habitations are distant and isolated from one another, and the territory is largely unsuitable for agricultural cultivation. Other factors must thus be adduced in order to explain the choice of a single prominent site in the north. The roots of the discrepancy appear to have been an ancient and longstanding geo-conceptual tradition. As Mazar contends, the northern border of the “land of Canaan”—which had been the dividing line between “international” regions from an early period—was associated with Lebo-hamath, the central settlement in the region. 5 The constancy of the name Lebo-hamath in the biblical texts/merisms attests its identification with the southern boundary of the Kingdom of Hamath, which reached the height of its power in the days of Zakkur, in the first half of the eighth century b.c.e. In Tiglath-pileser III’s Summary Inscription, Lebo (URULa-ab-ʾu-ú) appears following a list of cities within conquered Hamath—that is, in his eyes, it belonged to the Kingdom of Aram. 6 Lebo thus not only denoted an ancient border concept but also a city on the southern boundary of the Kingdom of Hamath in the ninth–eighth centuries b.c.e. Its appendage to the Kingdom of Aram was perhaps responsible for the formation of the expression “Lebo-hamath,” a location that had the double sense of “Lebo in Hamath” and “Lebo on the way to Hamath.” In contradistinction, the southern border of the land was not an “international” boundary in early periods and was not represented by a fixed site deriving from ancient traditions. The account of the southern border of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” (Numbers 34) is adapted from the description of the southern Judahite border—or the literary source at the foundation of this sketch: a royal administrative document. Each of the literary sources delineating the dimensions of the land via spatial merisms thus selected its own representative site to denote the southern boundary of the land. An “international” border was only determined at the edge of the southern settlement during the expansion of the (Neo-)Assyrian Empire into Egyptian territory in the last third of the eighth century b.c.e.—at which point the “Wadi 5.  Mazar, “Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Border of Canaan.” This borderline was apparently established in an earlier period, as demonstrated by the accounts of Amenhotep II’s campaigns and the El-Amarna documents: see Nadav Naʾaman, “The Shihor of Egypt and Shur That Is before Egypt,” in Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction. Collected Essays, vol. 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005) 267. 6. Hayim Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science, 1994) 148, line 25; 149, comment 25.

Dimensions of the Land

281

of Egypt” came to define the southern boundary via a process similar to that in which Lebo-hamath became the fixed delimitation of the northern border. In the following section, I discuss the toponyms that represent the southern boundary in spatial merisms relating to the territory ascribed to the “land of Canaan” in the biblical texts.

The Wilderness of Zin In the section of the spies sent by Moses to scout out the “land of Canaan” (the full designation only appears in Num 13:17; in the remainder of the portion, the abbreviation “the land” is used) we read: “They went up and scouted the land, from the Wilderness of Zin to Rehob, at Lebo-hamath” (Num 13:21). 7 This verse is the Priestly elaboration of vv. 17b–20, 22–24, which are generally assigned by scholars to JE. 8 According to the original version, the spies’ exploration covered the southern hill country—as indicated by Moses’ directive “Go up there into the Negeb and on into the hill country” (Num 13:17)—and the description of its implementation: “They went up into the Negeb and came to Hebron. . . . They reached the wadi Eshkol” (Num 13:21–23). The interpolated verse (v. 21) thus extends the reconnoitering from the southern hill country to include the whole “land of Canaan.” While the JE source (or the Deuteronomist) states that the spies set out from Kadesh-barnea (Num 32:8, Deut 1:19), the Priestly version of this account identifies the place of their departure as the “Wilderness of Paran” (Num 12:16, 13:3, 26 9)—making no reference to the Wilderness of Zin. Although the delineation of the southern part of the land by reference to the “Wilderness of 7.  The Wilderness of Zin is normally linked with Kadesh-barnea (Num 20:1, 27:14; Deut 32:51), and the two sites are explicitly identified in Num 33:36: “They set out from Ezion-geber and encamped in the Wilderness of Zin, that is, Kadesh.” The Wilderness of Zin thus appears to have designated the desert area from the southeastern tip of the Dead Sea to the region of Kadesh-barnea: see ‫ מדבר צן‬,‫צן‬, EncBib 6:743–44. Rehob, which uniquely appears here before Lebo-hamath, was located on the southern border of Hamath and denotes the Aramean state of Beth-rehob (2 Sam 10:6), which possessed close connections with Zobah (2 Sam 8:3, 12). While not altering the northern geographical prospect, the author of this passage may have constructed the sense of Lebohamath as “the entrance to Hamath” and thereby turned it into a clause that required reference to another site (Rehob). 8. Baruch Levine, Numbers 1–20 (AB 4; NY: Doubleday, 1993) 354, 487. 9.  Later hands intervened in the section about the spies, which states that they returned from their exploration to “the Wilderness of Paran” (Num 13:26). The latter notation is a Priestly elaboration of the original, which merely said “to Kadesh”: see Menahem Haran, Ages and Institutions in the Bible (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1972) 43 [Hebrew]; Levine, Numbers 1–20, 53–56.

282

Chapter 10

Zin” rather than to the “Wadi of Egypt” derives from the narrative context—the Wilderness of Zin being part of the Wilderness of Paran 10—the choice of the Wilderness of Zin (rather than the Wilderness of Paran) reveals that the Priestly elucidation is dependent on the detailed Priestly description of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” and not on the story of the spies. 11

The Sea of the Arabah and Wadi Arabah The historiographer says of Jeroboam II (784–748 b.c.e.) that “it was he who restored the territory of Israel from Lebo-hamath to the sea of the Arabah” (2 Kgs 14:25a)—a statement that is echoed in Amos, who was Jeroboam’s contemporary: “But I, O House of Israel, will raise up a nation against you—declares the Lord, the God of Hosts—who will harass you from Lebo-hamath to the Wadi Arabah” (Amos 6:14). Amos is referring to the punishment to be meted out to Israel “measure for measure”: because of the people’s joy over their conquests and the expansion of their borders (Amos 6:13), God will raise up against them a nation that will pressure them in every part of their terri­tory. 12 Amos’s pronouncement appears to reflect a view of Jeroboam’s conquests of the type spoken of in 2 Kgs 14:25, which was evidently prevalent in his days. While the two geographical features that are presented as parallels to Lebo-hamath—the sea of the Arabah and Wadi Arabah—do not appear in the description of the “land of Canaan,” they represent the same geographical region as delineated in that account. The “sea of the Arabah” is the Dead Sea (Deut 3:17, 4:49; Josh 3:16, 12:3); the southern borderline in “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document commences from “the tip of the Dead Sea” (Num 34:3). The designation “Wadi Arabah” is unique and must be assumed to denote one of the streams flowing into the sea of the Arabah. 13 Although the sea of the Arabah is a prominent body of water, it is too large to serve as an unambiguous border marker. Moreover, 2 Kgs 14:25a refers to the feats of Jeroboam, who was king of Israel—the Northern Kingdom—whose territory could not have reached the southern limits of the “land of Canaan.” The selection of “the sea of the Arabah” thus permits the terrain under discussion—which refers to the Northern Kingdom alone—to reflect Jeroboam’s actual accomplishments without severing its affinity with the full scope of the 10. Yohanan Aharoni, ‫ מדבר פארן‬,‫פארן‬, EncBib 6:433–34. 11.  For the Wilderness of Zin, see Num 34:3–4; for Lebo-hamath, see Num 34:8. 12. Shalom Paul, Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1991) 221. 13.  Isa 15:7 mentions the “Wadi of Willows (‫ ”)נחל הערבים‬on the border of Moab and Edom, but this is not necessarily the same wadi: see Moshe Kochavi, ‫נחל הערבה‬, EncBib 5:810; and the commentaries on Amos 6:14.

Dimensions of the Land

283

Promised Land. “Wadi Arabah” provides a more precise delineation of the borderline, because wadis are more suitable as boundary indicators. The Arabah streams are not striking landmarks, however, and the Wadi Arabah is not known from any other context. We should therefore not be surprised that the “sea of the Arabah” and “Wadi Arabah” were not adopted as representative sites for the southern limit of the land. Use of the “sea of the Arabah/Wadi Arabah” to denote the territory of the land rather than features mentioned in the “land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document does not necessarily demonstrate that the author(s) who coined them was unacquainted with the document. In this respect, a comparison with Ezekiel’s portrayal of the future land is helpful. Although Ezekiel appears to be dependent on the depiction of the boundaries of the “land of Canaan,” he updates the toponyms delineating the border, replacing the original sites with locations known to his contemporaries. Thus, for example, he refers to the Dead Sea in his description of the edge of the eastern border as the “Eastern Sea” (Ezek 47:18). Since it is difficult to identify deliberate intentions by the authors of these passages to substitute familiar representative locations for rare and unusual ones, however, it is reasonable to theorize that 2 Kgs 14:25 (or its source) and Amos 6:14 are both earlier than the literary depiction of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document and that they neither depend on nor allude to it (in contradistinction to the author of the Priestly supplement to the narrative of the spies). The choice of the “sea of the Arabah” and “Wadi Arabah” to denote the southern border in these spatial merisms thus appears to indicate that they were composed before any prominent boundary marker regarding the southern boundary of the territory known as the “land of Canaan” had registered itself on the collective Israelite historical consciousness.

The Wadi of Egypt The “Wadi of Egypt” is the sole boundary marker to recur in other texts, either biblical or extrabiblical. 14 Like Lebo-hamath, the Wadi of Egypt only 14.  The Wadi of Egypt was commonly identified with Wadi el-Arish from the Hellenistic period on: see Samuel Loewenstamm, ‫נחל מצרים‬, EncBib 5:813–14. According to Naʾaman, the Wadi of Egypt mentioned in the biblical and Assyrian sources should be identified with Nahal Besor: Nadav Naʾaman, “The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Egyptian Border,” in Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction. Collected Essays, vol. 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005) 238–64 (esp. pp. 249–64) and pp. 204, 232. For Rainey’s reservations in this regard, see Anson F. Rainey, “Toponymic Problems (cont.): The Brook of Egypt,” Tel Aviv 9 (1982) 131–32.

284

Chapter 10

appears in the Hebrew Bible in relation to border descriptions. The site is mentioned seven times overall, and two additional references employ the abbreviation “the Wadi.” It is part of the delineation of the western limit of the southern Judahite boundary: “From there it passed on to Azmon and proceeded to the Wadi of Egypt” (Josh 15:4). It also appears in the parallel full-border depiction of the “land of Canaan”: “From Azmon the boundary shall turn toward the Wadi of Egypt” (Num 34:5). In Ezekiel’s portrayal of the southern border of the future land, it appears in the shortened version, “the Wadi” (Ezek 47:19, 48:28). The fact that the full name is not always used indicates that the wadi was well known to the author’s audience as a border post. The toponym also appears in a fragmented extremities formula delineating the strip of Philistine territory between Gaza and Judah: “From Ekron westward, all the towns in the vicinity of Ashdod, with their villages—Ashdod, its dependencies and villages—Gaza, its dependencies and its villages, all the way to the Wadi of Egypt and the Great Sea [reading ‫ הגדול‬for ‫ ]הגבול‬and its border” (Josh 15:46–47). Opposite Lebohamath, the Wadi of Egypt represents the southernmost geographical extent of the kingdom in the dedication of Solomon’s Temple: “So Solomon and all Israel with him—a great assemblage, from Lebo-hamath to the Wadi of Egypt—observed the Feast at that time before the Lord our God” (1 Kgs 8:65 = 2 Chr 7:8). This passage is possibly dependent on the earlier expression from the eighth century b.c.e., “from Lebo-hamath to the sea of the/Wadi Arabah,” and the substitution of the Wadi of Egypt for the unfamiliar Wadi Arabah reflects the fact that the former designation was becoming increasingly more representative of the southern border of Israel during this period. The Wadi of Egypt also signifies the south in phrases demarcating Eber-hanahar (2 Kgs 24:7, Isa 27:12; see below, pp. 292–293). At a certain stage, the Wadi of Egypt was identified with the limit of the southern settlement in the land. It is also mentioned as delineating the southern border in expressions relating to territorial areas other than the “land of Canaan”—such as Eber-hanahar or the Philistine coastal strip. It undoubtedly Hooker argues that the “Wadi of Egypt” was originally the name given to Nahal Besor and should be understood in this sense in Tiglath-pileser III’s inscription: see Paul K. Hooker, “The Location of the Brook of Egypt,” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes (ed. M. P. Graham et al.; JSOTSup 173; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 203–14. In Hooker’s opinion, the name came to designate Wadi el-Arish during the reign of Sargon II, who appointed Hezekiah to defend the passage to Egypt and preserve the trade route between Egypt and Assyria in exchange for receipt of the territory between Gaza and Wadi el-Arish. For our purposes, the precise geographical location of the wadi is irrelevant.

Dimensions of the Land

285

was the most appropriate site out of all the potential candidates for the standard representation of the land’s southern boundary. By their nature, wadis and rivers are clear-cut, indisputable dividing lines on the ground, and consequently, they were favored markers in biblical and extrabiblical sources. 15 Thus, for example, the Jordan signifies the boundary between the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh and the neighboring tribes west of the river: “The Lord has made the Jordan a boundary between you and us, O Reubenites and Gadites” (Josh 22:25). 16 The Arnon likewise serves as a clear dividing line: “For the Arnon is the boundary of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites” (Num 21:13). In the Antakya stele, the Orontes constitutes the border between the kingdoms of Hamath and Arpad: “The river Orontes between them” (line 7). 17 Since the Wadi of Egypt—whether identified with Wadi el-Arish in line with the common view or with Nahal Besor according to Naʾaman—is not a constant, full-flowing river like the broad Orontes or even the Arnon, however, it required historical and geographical circumstances to make it a prominent border marker of the southern border in the merisms. It would thus appear that when the Wadi of Egypt came to represent the southern boundary of the land, its preference over other possible indicators derived from the fact that, in the dry region through which the border ran, a wadi—even a barren one—constituted a relatively clear marker on the ground. The Wadi of Egypt became a prominent border marker during the period of the expansion of the (Neo-)Assyrian Empire in the eighth–seventh centuries b.c.e. The Wadi of Egypt is referred to six times in royal Assyrian inscriptions, the first time during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 b.c.e.). Tiglathpileser’s Summary Inscriptions record that, during his campaigns to Philistia in 734 b.c.e., Hanun king of Gaza fled before him to Egypt. Tiglath-pileser erected a statue of the Assyrian gods and his own image in the city temple. 18

15.  For the function of rivers and streams in border descriptions, see my “Water Division in Border Agreements,” SAAB 10 (1996) 60. 16.  The names “Reubenites and Gadites” are a later gloss and are omitted in the LXX and Peshiṭta: see BHS. 17.  See Veysel Donbaz, “Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae in the Antakya and Kahra­man­ maraş Museums,” Annual Review of the RIM Project 8 (1990) 5–24. For the translation, see my “Water Division in Border Agreements.” 18.  See Hayim Tadmor, “Masaʾot ha-milchama ha-ashuriʾim le-peleshet [The Assyrian Military Campaigns in Philistia],” in Sepher Shmuel Yeivin (ed. S. Abramsky et al.; Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1970) 261–66.

286

Chapter 10

This description is followed by the account of Tiglath-pileser’s restoration of Hanun and his plunder of much of the city’s wealth. 19 In one of the inscriptions, the writer refers to another occasion on which: “My royal stele [I set up] in the City of the Brook of Egypt, a river-[bed].” 20 This inscription states that Tiglath-pileser set up his memorial in a city near the Wadi of Egypt 21—in accordance with the Assyrian royal custom of raising monuments at the most distant points that the ruler reached. The Wadi of Egypt is clearly understood here as the farthest reach of Assyrian territory—the boundary with Egypt. This event evidently made little impression during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III, however, since the erection of the monument at the Wadi of Egypt is an isolated notice that appears in only one of the Summary Inscriptions and does not appear together with the other motifs that are recounted about Tiglath-pileser’s campaign in Philistia. 22 Allusions to the Wadi of Egypt in subsequent royal Assyrian inscriptions, however—particularly those 19.  Summary Inscription 4, lines 8′–15′: see Tadmor, The Inscriptions of TiglathPileser III, King of Assyria, 138–40; compare Summary Inscription 8, lines 14′–19′ (pp. 176–78); Summary Inscription 9, lines 13–16 (p. 188). In another inscription, he merely records the spoils he took from Gaza: see Summary Inscription 7, rev. lines 12′– 13′ (p. 170). 20.  Summary Inscription 8, line 18′: ṣa-lam šarru-ti-ia ina āl Na-ḫal Mu-ṣur ˹nāru˺ [ša . . . ulziz]: see Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath–Pileser III King of Assyria, 178. The reconstruction is based on Borger’s suggestion about the passage referring to the Wadi of Egypt in Esarhaddon’s inscription: nāru la i-šu-u: see Riekele Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien (AfO Beiheft 9; Graz: Weidner, 1956) 112; Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath–Pileser III King of Assyria, 178 (comment on line 18); and below, n. 29. 21.  Tadmor, “Masaʾot ha-milchama ha-ashuriʾim le-peleshet,” 266. In his inscriptions, Esarhaddon twice repeats the statement “as far as the city of Raphia, to the border of Wadi Egypt.” On the first occasion, the determinitive uru (= “city”) appears before the “Wadi of Egypt,” while on the second it is omitted. According to Naʾaman, this attests the fact that, in the first instance, the determinative serves as a general indicator of no importance, and the monument was thus erected at the Wadi of Egypt itself and required no reference to a city in the area: Naʾaman, “The Brook of Egypt and the Assyrian Policy on the Egyptian Border,” 239. Since the determinative uru denotes any “place of habitation” rather than “city,” however, the phrase “city of the Wadi of Egypt” probably referred to a settlement, however small or insignificant, in the vicinity of the wadi. 22.  The narrative of the conquest of Gaza is one of three instances in which the author deviates from his customary practice of abbreviating the details: (a) the war against Sardur of Ararat; (b) that against Shamshi, Queen of the Arabs; and (c) Hanun’s flight to Egypt, return in defeat, and reestablishment as the ruler of Gaza in subjection to the Assyrian king: see Hayim Tadmor, “Tiglath-pileser III in Ancient Palestine,” Shnaton 10 (1986) 182 [Hebrew].

Dimensions of the Land

287

of Sargon II (722–705 b.c.e.)—attest that to raise a monument at the site known as the “Wadi of Egypt” (whether at the wadi itself or in a city nearby) was to follow the precedent of placing a mark at a site to denote the royal accomplishment. This act was a fitting symbol of the Assyrian king’s sovereignty and his extension of the “border of Assyria,” and it also contributed toward the determination of the Wadi of Egypt as a fixed boundary site representing the border. Sargon II recalls the Wadi of Egypt three times in his inscriptions. In recounting the campaign to southern Philistia that he undertook in 716 b.c.e., he speaks of the transfer of peoples from the Zagros region to a place neighboring “the borderland of the Wadi of Eg[ypt].” 23 Another, fragmentary text employs the same expression. 24 According to Tadmor, Sargon’s goal in resettling the deportees—who served as a form of Assyrian garrison—was to strengthen Assyrian control over the region in order to facilitate trade with Arabia and Egypt. 25 The third reference occurs in a Summary Inscription, in which Sargon delineates the territory he conquered via a series of merisms that are interwoven with a list of nations. One of the merisms states: “from the land of Rashi on the border of Elam the peoples Puqudu (and) Damunu, the cities Dūr-Kurigalzu (and) Rapiqu (and) until the Brook of Egypt, the wide land of Amurru and all the land of Ḫatti.” 26 In another Summary Inscription, Sargon determines the boundary of his rule in a merism: “from the land of Yadnana [Cyprus] in the middle of the western sea, until the border of Egypt.” 27 A comparison of the inscriptions shows that the Wadi of Egypt is identical with the border of Egypt. This phenomenon is analogous to the transposable designations “Wadi/border of Egypt” in the biblical descriptions of Eber-hanahar (1 Kgs 5:1, 2 Kgs 24:7). Since Sargon regarded the Wadi of Egypt as the southwestern border of his rule, on the other side of which stretched Egyptian territory, the term “Wadi of Egypt” was registered in the public mind and royal inscriptive terminology alike as the boundary of the Assyrian Empire. The Wadi of Egypt is mentioned on two other occasions in Esarhaddon’s inscriptions (681–669 b.c.e.). During a campaign to the region that the king 23.  Idem, “Masaʾot ha-milchama ha-ashuriʾim le-peleshet,” 271; Naʾaman, “The Brook of Egypt and the Assyrian Policy on the Egyptian Border,” 208. 24.  See Ernst F. Weidner, “Šilkan(ḫe)ni, König von Muṣri, ein Zeitgenosse Sargons II,” AfO 14 (1941) 43, col. 2, line 5; Hayim Tadmor, “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study,” JCS 12 (1958) 77, line 5. 25.  Tadmor, “Masaʾot ha-milchama ha-ashuriʾim le-peleshet,” 271. 26.  See Andreas Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II aus Khorsabad (Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1994) 33 (lines 12–13), 290 (translation). 27.  Ibid., 194 (lines 16–17), 343.

288

Chapter 10

conducted in 679 b.c.e., he plundered the city of Arzâ, “in the district of the Brook of Egypt.” 28 In an account of his campaign to Egypt in 671 b.c.e., Esarhaddon notes the stations through which he passed in a literal extremities formula: I broke camp and headed straight to Meluḫḫa [Ethiopia], a distance of thirty double-hours from Aphek that is in the district of Samaria to the city of Raphia to the borderland of the Wadi of Egypt, a place where there is no [flowing] river. 29

Once Esarhaddon had subjugated Egypt itself, the Wadi of Egypt lapsed from use as a delineation of the reach of Esarhaddon’s conquests; thus, it again ceased to denote the border and simply became a landmark on the route to Egypt. The fact that it is referred to at all, however, shows that the site made an impression on the royal scribes as a significant marker. These royal Assyrian inscriptions provide us with a reference point for the dating of the biblical merisms that delineate the territory of the land. Since the inscriptions refer to the “Wadi of Egypt” as representative of the boundary only after the erection of Tiglath-pileser III’s monument in 734 b.c.e., because the location was established as a border site subsequent to Sargon II’s conquests in the region, this date must be the terminus a quo of the biblical passages that treat the “Wadi of Egypt” as an indicator of the southern boundary—even though all-encompassing depictions of the line can, in principle, designate the border earlier than this. It is even possible that the “Wadi of Egypt” was used in spatial merisms due to the influence of the terminology of the royal inscriptions of Sargon II, who was the first to coin the phrase “to the Wadi of Egypt.” In light of this conclusion, the account of the cities of the Philistine strip inside the Judahite allotment, Josh 15:46–47, which adopts this usage appears to originate from the end of the eighth century b.c.e. at the earliest, certainly no earlier than 734 b.c.e. 28.  uruAr-za-a ša pa-a-ṭi na-ḫal mât Mu-ṣur(-ri) (Nimrud Prism): see RINAP 4: Esarhaddon 1 iii 39 (E. Leichty, Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011] 17). Arzâ is identified with El-Arish—i.e., “the City of the Wadi of Egypt”—or alternatively, according to Naʾaman, with Tell Jemmeh on the banks of Nahal Besor: Naʾaman, “The Brook of Egypt and the Assyrian Policy on the Egyptian Border,” 243–44. 29.  In Akkadian: a-na i-te-e na-ḫal mât Mu-ṣur a-šar nāru la i-šu-u. Here, the term for “border” is itû. RINAP 4 87: Esarhaddon 34: lines 15–17 (translation mine); Naʾaman, “The Brook of Egypt and the Assyrian Policy on the Egyptian Border,” 245; see also Tadmor, “Masaʾot ha-milchama ha-ashuriʾim le-peleshet,” 281.

Dimensions of the Land

289

The Scope of the Land, Eber-hanahar, and Solomon’s Rule The Wadi of Egypt is also mentioned in the depiction of the conquests of the king of Babylon during the reign of Jehoiachin: “The king of Egypt did not venture out of his country again, for the king of Babylon had seized all the land that had belonged to the king of Egypt, from the Wadi of Egypt to the River Euphrates” (2 Kgs 24:7). This account paints a historically reliable picture of the new balance of power created in the area of Syria–Palestine following Nebuchadnezzar’s victory at Carchemish in 605 b.c.e. and the expansion of his territorial conquest to Ashkelon in 604 b.c.e. 30 This region constituted the fifth Persian province in the fifth–fourth centuries b.c.e. 31 It was officially known as Eber-hanahar, a name that appears in biblical sources from the Restoration period (Ezra 8:36; Neh 2:7, 9; 3:7), as well as in Aramaic: ‫ה‬/‫( עבר נהרא‬Ezra 4:10, 11, 16, 17, 20; 5:3, 6; 6:6, 8, 13; 7:21, 25). Akkadian Eber nāri appears in Assyrian documents referring to the Syro-Palestinian region west of the Euphrates from the beginning of Esarhaddon’s rule (681–669 b.c.e.). 32 According to Herodotus (middle of the fifth century b.c.e.), the Persian fifth province included Syria, Phoenicia, Israel (“Palestine”), and Cyprus, and bordered Egypt (History 2.116). Herodotus describes the territory via several spatial merisms, general indicators, and rosters: 33 30. Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings (AB 11; New York: Doubleday, 1988) 307–8. 31.  See, for example, Rainey’s map of the Promised Land: Anson F. Rainey, “Minahar mitzrayim ad ha-nahar ha-gadol nahar prat [From the River of Egypt to the River, the Euphrates],” in Bereishit (ed. M. Weinfeld et al.; Olam hatanakh; Tel Aviv: Davidson-Ittai, 1982) 111. 32.  Thus, for example, in the inquiry of the god Shamash: “[If he ta]kes the road and goes, will the subject of [this] q[uery], Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, re[ach TransEuphrates] (and) the city Ashkelon in good health?” See Ivan Starr, Queries to the Sungod (SAA 4; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1990) 94, document 81, lines 7–13, esp. line 11; CAD E 8, s.v. eber nāri 2; Anson F. Rainey, ‫עבר הנהר‬, EncBib 6:46–48. The designation possibly existed even earlier than this as a geographical rather than political term, parallel to the modern epithet “Levant”: see George B. Cressey, Crossroads: Land and Life in Southwest Asia (Chicago: Lippincott, 1960); Rainey, “Mi-nahar mitzrayim ad ha-nahar ha-gadol nahar prat,” 112. 33. Although Herodotus (History 3.88–95) ascribes the division of the Persian Empire into 20 provinces to Darius I (522–486 b.c.e.), the number appears to have reflected his contemporary circumstances instead—that is, the reign of Xerxes (Ahasuerus)  I (486–464 b.c.e.), prior to which, Eber-hanahar formed part of the province of Babylon: see Ephraim Stern and Hayim Tadmor, “Shilton paras (538–332 b.c.e.) [The Persian

290

Chapter 10

The fifth province was the country (except the part belonging to the Arabians, which paid no tribute) between Posideion, 34 a city founded on the Cilician and the Syrian border by Amphilochus the son of Amphiaraus, and Egypt; this paid three hundred and fifty talents; in this province was all Phoenice, and the part of Syria called Palestine, and Cyprus. (History 3.91 [Godley, LCL]) 35 Now the only manifest way of entry into Egypt is this. The road runs from Phoenice as far as the borders of the city of Cadytis, 36 which belongs to the Syrians of Palestine, as it is called. From Cadytis (which, as I judge, is a city not much smaller than Sardis), to the city Ienysus the seaports belong to the Arabians; then they are Syrian again from Ienysus as far as the Serbonian marsh, beside which the Casion promontory stretches seawards; from this Serbonian marsh . . . the country is Egypt. (History 3.5 [Godley, LCL])

Like his contemporaries, Herodotus does not refer to the province’s eastern border, merely noting points along the coast. 37 While the boundaries of the province were not precisely delineated on all sides—and perhaps were never accurately demarcated along the sparsely populated areas—no doubt exists that we are dealing here with a political and administrative concept anchored in the physical reality of the fifth–fourth centuries b.c.e. This fact is related to the biblical descriptions of Solomon’s rule. A summary of the days of David’s son that portrays the extent of his authority via a series of Empire (538–332 b.c.e.)],” in Israel and Judah in the Biblical Period (ed. I. Ephʿal; Jerusalem: Keter, 1984) 230 [Hebrew]. 34.  Perhaps El-Mina on the Orontes delta: see Stern and Tadmor, “Shilton paras,” 230. 35.  This sketch is unique to the fifth province and has no parallel in the other provincial accounts. According to Kochman, the deviation from the stereotypical description of the districts derives from the fact that this province possessed an ethnically and politically diverse population composed of Syrians, Phoenicians, and Arabs: Michael Kochman, The Status and Extent of Judah in the Persian Period (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1980) 2 [Hebrew]. 36.  Cadytis = Gaza. For this city, see Herodotus, History 2.159. 37.  Stern and Tadmor, “Shilton paras,” 230. A fourth-century b.c.e. source—a guide to those descending to the sea, attributed to Scylax—describes “Coele Syria” as stretching “[from Thapsacus on the river to] Ashkelon”: see Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–84) 3:8–12. In contrast to the accepted identification of Thapsacus with Tiphsah on the Euphrates, mentioned in 1 Kgs 5:4 (Stern and Tadmor, “Shilton paras,” 12), however, Stern notes that the “name cannot be brought into relation with the inland city situated on the Euphrates and named in the Bible . . . ‫תפסח‬, since the river should be located near the sea” p. 12). The reconstruction “from Thapsacus on the River to” may itself be incorrect.

Dimensions of the Land

291

merisms and general indicators includes the name “Eber-hanahar.” It reflects the territorial and political dimensions of the Persian province: Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sands of the sea; they ate and drank and were content. Solomon’s rule extended over all the kingdoms [Chronicles: kings] from the River [Chr adds: “to” (‫ ])עד‬the land of the Philistines and the boundary of Egypt. They brought Solomon tribute and were subject to him all his life. (1 Kgs 4:20–5:1 = 2 Chr 9:26) For he controlled the whole region Eber-hanahar—all the kings of Eberhanahar from Tiphsah to Gaza—and he had peace on all his borders roundabout. All the days of Solomon, Judah and Israel from Dan to Beer-sheba dwelt in safety, everyone under his own vine and under his own fig tree. (1 Kgs 5:4–5)

The plethora of delineations at this key point in the narrative of the Israelites’ history shows that Solomon’s reign was perceived as a “Golden Age,” and the various authors and supplementers sought to stress this glory with all the means at their disposal. The secondary nature of these verses is revealed by their detached locations in the Lucianic recension of the Septuagint, which contains lacunas in this passage. It omits 4:20, 5:1, and part of 5:4–5 (‫ הנהר‬. . . ‫)מתפסח‬, which appear in the gloss after 1 Kgs 2:46a. The text is homogenous in the LXX, and the demonstrative pronoun “those prefects” (1 Kgs 5:7) refers directly to the roster of provinces in 4:7–19. 38 The summary’s content is eclectic, including such common phrases as “from Dan to Beer-sheba” (1 Kgs 5:5) and “everyone under his own vine and under his own fig tree” (1 Kgs 5:5; cf. Mic 4:4), which in itself hints at its late dating. The depiction of the scope of Solomon’s rule—“from the River [= Euphrates] to the land of the Philistines and the boundary of Egypt”—appears to be the earlier text, the other general indicators and delineations being added subsequently. 39 According to scholarly consensus, v.  4 is a secondary, late gloss— 38.  See Charles F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903) 47. Although the second option, that the verses are missing due to homoioteleuton, may explain the absence of the sentence from v. 4 (“from Tiphsah . . . the River”; see ibid., 48), it does not elucidate the omission of the remainder of the verses in Lucian. 39.  “An early coinage (v. 1) and a later coinage (v. 4)” (Zecharia Kallai, “The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible,” ErIsr 12 [Glueck Volume; 1975] 29 [Hebrew]). The formulation recalls the expression “to the border of Egypt” which first occurs in Sargon II’s Summaries (722–705 b.c.e.): see above, n.  27. This phrase continued to be used in successive periods to define the political-administrative units in the Judean region, as the appointment of the Hasmonean Simeon in 145 b.c.e. as governor of the territory “from the Ladder of Tyre to the borders of Egypt” (1 Macc 11:59)

292

Chapter 10

an anachronistic editorial comment delineating the boundaries of Solomon’s empire via contemporary concepts: “For he controlled the whole region Eberhanahar—all the kings of Eber-hanahar, from Tiphsah to Gaza.” 40 Its late character is demonstrated by the names Eber-hanahar and Tiphsah (Thapsacus) on the western bank of the Euphrates: Tiphsah is an important administrative center of the Persian Empire that is only mentioned in extrabiblical sources from the Greek period onward. 41 As we have seen, Herodotus refers to Gaza by the name “Cadytis” (History, 3.5). The later biblical compiler thus identified the extent of Solomon’s rule in reference to a defined political unit: Eber-hanahar. According to this late summary, Solomon’s reign was the Israelite golden age, during which the promises of numerous offspring, political power, maximal territorial rule, and peace “on his borders roundabout” came to fulfillment, 42 but the imperial ideal reflected the geo-political reality of the compiler’s own day. 43 The promissory texts also resonate in the statement that “Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sands of the sea” (1 Kgs 4:20; see also 1 Kgs 3:8)— which recalls the pledge of progeny to the patriarchs: “I will bestow My blessing upon you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sands on the seashore” (Gen 22:17; cf. Gen 13:16, 15:5, 26:4, 28:14). The depiction of Solomon’s rule in 1 Kgs 5:1 (“from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and the boundary of Egypt”) also resembles God’s oath in the Covenant between the Pieces: “To your offspring I assign this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen 15:18). These are not analogous expressions, however. The description of Solomon’s rule enumerates the political units “the land of the Philistines” and the “(boundary of) Egypt,” together with cities such as Tiphsah and Gaza (1 Kgs 5:4). While the territory indicates. The following verse describes how “Jonathan set forth and travelled beyond the river and among the cities.” For the designation “from the Ladder of Tyre to the borders of Egypt,” see also Josephus, Ant. 13.146. The “Ladder of Tyre” is also mentioned in rabbinic literature (cf. b. Šabbat 26a), being identified there with Rosh Haniqra (“the promontory of Tyre”). 40. Moshe Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies 3; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 67 n. 37. 41. See ‫תפסח‬, EncBib 8:922; Rainey, ‫עבר הנהר‬, EncBib 6:43–48. 42.  The final verse hints at Solomon’s own name and the explicit folk etymology given in God’s words to David in 1 Chr 22:9: “But you will have a son who will be a man at rest, for I will give him rest from all his enemies on all sides; Solomon will be his name and I shall confer peace and quiet on Israel in his time.” See Sara Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1993) 398. 43.  Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, 47.

Dimensions of the Land

293

thus designated is very broad, it does not correspond to the territory delineated in the promissory texts. The accounts of the land in the promissory texts do not intimate the province of Eber-hanahar, nor do they include the political terms characteristic of the portrayals of Eber-hanahar; it is also difficult to ascertain a geographical equivalence between the southern border of the province at the edge of the populated region (the “boundary of Egypt”) and the Nile. While the author of the summary of Solomon’s rule clearly links together the promissory texts and Eber-hanahar, conjoining them in his depiction of the “rest” and “quiet” that the people enjoyed during this period, the affinities between the parameters of the Promised Land and those of the province of Eber-hanahar are nonetheless the consequence of a later historical outlook and should not be retrojected onto the patriarchal promissory passages. 44 They do not reflect the territory of Eber-hanahar—just as the descriptions of the rule of the Assyrian kings do not. The two notations that designate the Babylonian king’s conquests (2  Kgs 24:7)—the Wadi of Egypt and the River—also appear in Isaiah 27, a prophecy that speaks of the ingathering of the exiles: (12) And in that day, the Lord will beat out [the peoples like grain] from the channel of the River [= Euphrates] to the Wadi of Egypt; and you shall be picked up one by one, O children of Israel! (13) And in that day, a great ram’s horn shall be sounded; and the strayed who are in the land of Assyria and the expelled who are in the land of Egypt shall come and worship the Lord on the holy mount, in Jerusalem.

Although scholars dispute the date of this section of Isaiah (24–27), 45 verses 27:12–13 appear to be later than Isaiah. The affinity that the first verse exhibits with the description of the territory conquered by the king of Babylon (2 Kgs 24:7) demonstrates that it reflects the period of Babylonian rule in the land. The 44. See, for example, Bustenay Oded, “Pnei ha-tequphah: Ha-mamlakha hameuchedet, ha-pilug le-shtei mamlakhot ve-ha-chorban [The Features of the Period: The United Kingdom, the Division into Two Kingdoms, and the Destruction of the Temple],” in Israel ve-yehudah be-tequphat ha-mikra (ed. I. Ephʿal; The History of Eretz Israel 2; Jerusalem: Keter, 1984) 114. 45.  As early as 1817, de Wette argued that these chapters are later than Isaiah: Wilhelm M. L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Bibel Alten und Neuen Testamentes (7th ed.; Berlin, 1852) 283–84, §209b; see also George B. Gray, The Book of Isaiah I–XXVII (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912) 397–404. For the argument that the chapters belong to Isaiah, see Yehezkel Kaufmann, Toldot ha-emuna haisraelit (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute–Dvir, 1976) 3:185–92. For a survey of the literature pertaining to this issue, see Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39 (trans. R. A. Wilson; OTL; London: SCM, 1974) 173–79.

294

Chapter 10

second represents an even later phase, when the exiles had settled in Babylon and Egypt. In contrast to the traditional understanding of this passage as a single literary unit, in my view these two verses appear originally to have been two independent prophecies, the former dealing with the punishment of the nation inhabiting Eber-hanahar 46 and the second referring to the return of the exiles from Assyria and Egypt, outside this territory. The two pericopes may have been inserted together due to the three motifs they possess in common: the heading (“And in that day”), 47 the fact that they are both eschatological texts, and the reference to Egypt and Assyria (= the “River [Euphrates]” in the first verse). The secondary linkage between the two verses creates the impression that v.  12 also deals with the Babylonian and Assyrian exiles—as Rashi explains: “‘From the channel of the River [Euphrates]’—These are those lost in the land of Assyria. ‘To the Wadi of Egypt’—Those are the ones exiled in the land of Egypt.” 48 In reality, the verse reflects the territory of Eber-hanahar, situated between Egypt and Assyria. The Wadi of Egypt, which became an “international” boundary during the period of the Assyrian Empire, also represented the border in this region in later periods, since it ran through the boundary district of the Persian province of Eber-hanahar. Its appearance in the border descriptions of the Persian province attests the conservative nature of geographical terminology: having attained representative status, a site was likely to retain it for many years.

Conclusion The territory of the “land of Canaan” clearly was a well-known and accepted geographical notion in the biblical period. Its most prominent northern point was Lebo-hamath, and its roots appear to be embedded in the geopolitical re46.  The recipient of the castigation expressed by the verb ‫ יחבט‬is the nation in whose midst Israel is dwelling, as Radak (David Kimchi) observes: “Just as He beats wheat from the chaff and just as He beats olives from the tree, so the God of Israel will beat Israel out of the nations.” A comparison with 2 Kgs 24:7 indicates that the reference is probably to Babylon. 47.  Cf. the interpolation of the late prophecy in Isa 11:11–16, which reflects Israel’s post-exilic scattering to “the four corners of the earth” (v. 12), following v. 10. Here, too, the two prophecies commence with the formula “In that day”: see Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12 (2nd ed.; OTL; trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM, 1983) 262. 48.  Those commentators who regard the “Wadi of Egypt” as referring to the Nile are forced into a similar rendering: see, for example, Yair Hoffman (ed.), Yeshaiah [Isaiah] (Olam hatanakh; Tel Aviv: Davidson-Ittai, 1994) 132 [Hebrew].

Dimensions of the Land

295

ality of the second millennium b.c.e. A conservative conceptual and literary tradition fixed it in the minds of the local inhabitants. Since the southern borderline, which corresponded to the limit of the populated area, did not become an “international” boundary until the Assyrian period, the merisms relating to the territory of the “land of Canaan” are not dependent on a similar conceptual heritage with respect to this prospect. The southern boundary was an imprecise line that followed the edge of the populated area and stretched from the Dead Sea to the Wadi of Egypt and the Mediterranean and could be delineated by various geographical notations. The designation “from Lebo-hamath to the sea of the Arabah/Wadi Arabah” was introduced in the middle of the eighth century b.c.e. and reflects the political and military accomplishments of Jeroboam II. At the end of this century, the international boundary between Assyria and Egypt was demarcated in the region of the southwestern border of the Israelite land, turning the Wadi of Egypt into the most well-known southern boundary location. This circumstance is represented by the elucidation of “all Israel” as “from Lebo-hamath to the Wadi of Egypt” in the description of Solomon’s rule (1 Kgs 8:65 = 2 Chr 7:8). The description of the southern border of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” is literarily dependent on the depiction of the southern limit of the Judahite allotment, dating at the earliest to the end of the seventh century b.c.e. The latest designations are those in which the Wadi of Egypt occurs alongside the Euphrates in a merism (2 Kgs 24:7, Isa 27:12). Similar to these is the phrase that parallels the Euphrates with the boundary of Egypt (1  Kgs 5:1). These expressions reflect the Syro-Palestinian region following Nebuchadnezzar’s victory at Carchemish in 605 b.c.e. and the expansion of his territory to Ashkelon in 604 b.c.e. The scope of the land they embody is the territory that constituted the Persian province of Eber-hanahar in the middle of the fifth century b.c.e. In these texts, the imperial boundary of the Promised Land is integrated with the Persian political-territorial concept and retrojected back onto the Golden Age of the United Monarchy.

Conclusion The idea of the Promised Land and its dimensions played a vital role in the construction of Israelite self-identity over the generations. It stood at the center of public and intellectual discussion in every period in which controversies arose and struggles took place between various groups—internal or external— regarding control of the land. It is thus not surprising that, during the period of the composition of the biblical literature, certain parties held divergent views regarding the issue. These perspectives are reflected in the extant biblical texts across a whole range of forms and genres, which contain diverse geographical details and employ several literary models. The notions of the Promised Land are embodied in the promissory statements given to the patriarchs and Israelites prior to their entry into the land, in the descriptions of the fulfillment of the divine promise (in the various sections of the book of Joshua—the Book of Conquest, the “land that yet remains” document, the account of the assignment[s] of the tribal allotments and their settlement), and the depictions of the scope of the land in discrete periods of Israelite history. In this volume, I have endeavored to trace these views in the interface between literature, history, geography, and ideology. Although the accounts of the Promised Land are ideological texts rather than original archival documents, they are molded in the literary conventions characteristic of border descriptions that were familiar to their readers. In order to understand their nature, we have had to rely on a comparison of boundary depictions from ancient Near Eastern literature in general and the territorial expanse of the Hittite kingdom in the fourteenth–twelfth centuries b.c.e. in particular. We have also needed to examine the accounts of imperial expansion that were characteristic of the Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions during the height of the Assyrian Empire and its spread toward the Levant. These extrabiblical sources provided us with the depth and background necessary to analyze the biblical texts and assisted us in surmounting the problem caused by the lack of an important link in the chain. In other words, we have no extant border descriptions from the kingdoms of Israel and Judah themselves—texts that might have served as indirect (via formulations) or perhaps even direct (sources)—inspiration for the authors of the biblical boundary delineations. We have identified two types of promissory texts (covering both stylistic and conceptual aspects) through our literary analysis and comparison of the biblical material with ancient Near Eastern literature:

296

Conclusion

297

1. Detailed geographical border descriptions: the “land of Canaan” (Num 34:1–12), Ezekiel’s vision of the future land (Ezek 47:13–48:28), and the account of the tribal allocations (Joshua 15–19). These portrayals reflect a multicentric world view of the Israelites as residing in the midst of the peoples populating the region and inhabiting a specific, delimited territory. In this perspective, the land possesses borders, and neighboring nations also live in proximity to it. 2. Expressions signifying the dimensions of the land via the extremities trope “from . . . to . . .”—which I have designated “spatial merisms.” The first of these appears in God’s statement to Abraham at the conclusion of the Covenant between the Pieces (Gen 15:18–21), followed by the repeated promise of the land to the people (Exod 23:31; Deut 1:7, 11:24; Josh 1:4). When the spatial merisms refer to specific sites—settlements (such as Kadesh-barnea), wadis (the Wadi of Egypt), or even local mountains (Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir)—they probably represent a multicentric world view and denote a defined, well-known territorial entity. When they contain broader geographical notations, on the other hand—such as the Great Sea, the River of Egypt, the Euphrates, a desert, or Mount Lebanon—their perspective is likely to be monocentric. The locations mentioned in the later passages refer to geographical and mythological “ends of the earth,” promises outlining the expansion and conquest of a borderless and nameless territory warranted by divine oath—or even by a heavenly directive to act out imperialistic tendencies. These expressions exhibit clear affinities with the Deuteronomistic literature. Similar formulas appear in the accounts of the Neo-Assyrian royal expansion campaigns, which portray the way in which the Assyrian rulers imposed their sovereignty over wide areas and populations. Our historical, literary, and ideological analysis has also shed new light on the dimension(s) attributed to the land in Joshua, the book that describes the conquest of the Promised Land and its settlement. The realization of the promise—that is, the ancient implementation of the instruction to conquer the land and take possession of it—forms a central part of biblical thought and has thus been the cause of controversy and required revisitation by various circles and authors over the generations. Joshua is a complex, layered composition that has undergone a greater degree of reworking and transmission than other biblical historiographical texts. The book exhibits signs of various sources and editorial and redactory processes, the nature and order of which are disputed. It also reflects diverse—and occasionally conflicting—theological and historiographical approaches to its central themes. These include the figure of Joshua

298

Conclusion

as leader, 1 the question of the amount of time during which the subjugation was accomplished (“at a single stroke” versus “over a long period”), the measure of the conquest’s success (full or partial), the attitude adopted toward the local inhabitants (an arbitrary, absolute proscription or a proscription imposed only after the inhabitants’ refusal to come to terms with the vanquishers), and the geographical extent of the conquered land (or what was intended to be conquered)—the latter being one of the subjects that I have addressed. The dimensions ascribed to the land are adduced from God’s declarations of encouragement and support to Joshua in Joshua 1 and the summary statements in Joshua 21, from the conquest resumés that conclude the subjugation narratives in Joshua 1–12, and from the description of the “remaining land” in Joshua 13. The book also contains an additional delineation of the scope of the land, which we may infer from the sum of the tribal-allotment borders depicted in Joshua 15–19. These chapters reflect the notions and ideals of various “Promised Lands” and occasionally reveal mutual polemical affinities or a link with outlooks found in other literary strata. Although the polemical character of some of these texts can be clearly identified, it is not always easy to reconstruct the processes whereby the texts were created or the stages of the book’s formation—questions that remain unresolved in biblical studies. The prevalent approach of scholars who follow the geo-historical approach to the issue under discussion has been to view the texts indicating the scope of the land in Joshua (as well as Judges 1–3) as supplementary and as reflecting a uniform conception. Efforts have therefore been spent on filling in material that is missing in one passage by reference to others, frequently leading to harmonizing interpretations. 2 This method obscures the unique character of each particular text, its specific agenda, and its world view. My analysis has demonstrated that the book of Joshua contains four principal outlooks on the scope of the Promised Land, the process whereby the Israelites took possession of the land, the measure to which the conquest was successful, and the existence and location of the territory and nations that remained within it:

1.  For this discussion, see Alexander Rofé, “Joshua son of Nun in the Biblical Traditions,” Tarbiz 73 (2004) 333–64 [Hebrew]. 2.  For representative examples, see Nadav Naʾaman, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography (Jerusalem: Simor, 1986); Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible in Biblical Times: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 248–55 (including earlier literature); Nurit Lissovsky and Nadav Naʾaman, “A New Outlook at the Boundary System of the Twelve Tribes,” UF 35 (2003) 292.

Conclusion

299

1. The first view is embodied in the description of the tribal allocations (Josh 13:7–19:49). According to this unit, the vanquishing of the residents of the land commenced with the subjugation of the east side of the Jordan and was not completed while the Israelites were encamped at Gilgal. The first allocations to be assigned west of the Jordan were those of the two and a half larger tribes—Judah, Ephraim, and half of Manasseh. At this stage, the clans engaged in various initiatives—personal and tribal (but not necessarily national)—in order to take possession of their heritages. Caleb conquered his portion and the Josephites deforested the hill country. Since successes were accompanied by failures, with Canaanite enclaves remaining within some of the tribal portions, it is clear that conquest was not necessarily complete before the settlement of the land. The clans subsequently assembled at Shiloh, where they set up the Tent of Meeting. Henceforward, the tribes were allocated their inheritances without campaigns or shortfalls, for “The land was now under their control” (Josh 18:1). At this stage, no foreign enclaves existed. The cities referred to as still being unsubdued in Judges 1 were presented as towns belonging to the northern tribes just like all the other tribal cities. According to the author of this section, even if, due to one sort of limitation or another, the conquest was not complete and non-Israelite enclaves continued to exist within the tribal allotments, the conquest nonetheless circumscribed and encompassed the tribal inheritances in full. The author of the Book of Settlement adopts a clear position regarding the extent of the southern part of the land: its boundary is represented by the southern Judahite border. He fails to do the same with respect to the north and northeastern prospects, however: the Asherite and Naphtalite allocations do not extend to the northern boundary of the “land of Canaan.” His vagueness in this regard is apparently due to a lack of sources, clarity, or information concerning this region. Nor does he provide an alternative delineation. The concluding verse of this section alludes to the conception of the “land of Canaan”: “When they finished allotting the land by its boundaries” (Josh 19:49a). Our examination of the relationship between the various sections of Joshua indicates that the Book of Settlement was an independent source. It does not refer to any of the other views, nor does it engage in any polemics with them. It also appears to be unfamiliar with “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document. The affinities between the southern Judahite border and the border of the “land of Canaan” are due to the literary and conceptual “borrowing” by the author of “the land of Canaan with its various boundaries” document (see above, pp.  139–159) with regard to the southern (and western) Judahite boundary.

300

Conclusion

The terminology employed in the conquest account in Joshua 10 reveals that its author probably alludes to the Book of Settlement—and is thus a later composition than the latter. 2. The first two conquest resumés in Joshua (Joshua 10, 11) are clear-cut regarding the complete success of the conquest: all the land, to its full extent, was taken possession of, and all its kings were eradicated. Joshua 10 stresses the military aspect of the subjugation, describing Joshua as “taking” (“smiting”— ‫)הּכָה‬ ִ all the land, while Joshua 11 addresses its geographical facet through use of the root ‫לקח‬. The conquest was total: the territory contained no residual nations within it or unvanquished lands around it. The scope of the land according to these texts included the area from Mount Halak to Baal-gad. Although Joshua 10–11 represents the land as parallel in dimension to the “land of Canaan,” it is not dependent on the standard descriptive terminology. The insertion of a resumé at the conclusion of the depiction of the southern conquest and the designations “the hill country and coastal plain of Israel” (Josh 11:16) in the general summary reveal the Judahite background and orientation of the author of the resumés. 3. The third resumé of Joshua’s conquests, which appears at the head of the roster of the kings of the land whom Joshua annihilated in Joshua 12 contains the same expressions as the previous full-conquest resumé but reflects a divergent attitude regarding the extent of the land. Although the author of this text also depicts a complete subjugation, in his view the taking-possession of the western side of the Jordan formed part of the broader conquest that commenced with Moses’ conquest of the eastern side of the Jordan, an outlook characteristic of the later Deuteronomistic stratum. The text makes a clear distinction between the subduing and the settlement of the land. The author presents the conquest and settlement as two consecutive stages in his resumé of the conquests of the eastern side of the Jordan: “These were vanquished by Moses, the servant of the Lord, and the Israelites; and Moses, the servant of the Lord, assigned that territory as a possession to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh” (Josh 15:6); and the western side: “And the following are the kings of the country whom Joshua and the Israelites smote on the west side of the Jordan—from Baal-gad in the Valley of the Lebanon to Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir—which Joshua assigned as a possession to the tribal divisions of Israel” (Josh 12:7). 4. The “remaining land” document, which follows the conquest resumés and precedes the description of the tribal allotments, is a general account of the scope of the land prior to the delineation of its internal division and holds a unique viewpoint in the biblical texts. It interrelates polemically with the

Conclusion

301

conquest resumés and thus must have been compiled later than them. In the perspective of this text, Joshua lacked sufficient opportunity to conclude his conquests. Some territories and peoples thus remained unsubdued, to be captured only in the future. The extent of the land represented in this source is the broadest of all the descriptions: it stretches from the Shihor of Egypt in the south (the Nile) to Lebo-hamath in the north. It does not distinguish between the processes of conquest and settlement, and none of the tribes was required to live “outside” its allotment before it was completely conquered. In contradistinction to the dogmatic position characteristic of the Book of Conquest and its resumés, the “land that yet remains” document promotes a realistic attitude of territorial and historical compromise: “I Myself will dispossess those nations for the Israelites,” God promises; “you have only to bequeath it to Israel, as I have commanded you” (Josh 13:6). The four views of the dimensions of the Promised Land contained in Joshua share a common multicentric perspective, in which the land forms a delineated and delimited territorial unity promised by God to the Israelites. Joshua 1 also restates the monocentric Deuteronomistic outlook that God has promised unbounded “world dominion” to His people, from river to ocean. The multicentric and monocentric conceptions lie side by side: the first relates to the formative stage of the Israelite nation; the second pledges a glowing imperial future in response to the imperial reaches asserted in Assyrian propaganda. As we have seen, a vision of the dimensions of the Promised Land is also manifest in various parts of the historiographical and prophetic literature in passages addressing diverse stages of Israelite history—during the days of the spies and the reigns of David, Solomon, and Jeroboam II. These texts all employ a common descriptive method: the extent of the land is intimated through spatial merisms. On numerous occasions, the sites representing the land as a whole are located on the borders of the “land of Canaan,” whether the descriptions refer to names derived from the full literary delineation (such as the “Wilderness of Zin” or “Lebo-hamath”) or are alternatively identified with places in the vicinity of the boundary (such as “Mount Halak, which ascends to Seir”). Some spatial merisms also denote a geographical scope that is reminiscent of the territory of the Persian “fifth province” known as Eber-hanahar. This delineation is projected back retrospectively onto the reign of Solomon and also links his days with the promissory statements. Solomon is portrayed as realizing God’s promises, but the description of his rule applies the pledge of unconstrained imperial power to the dimensions of the Persian province known in the author’s own lifetime. These texts are the latest in date and suggest that the imperial promissory declarations, which reflect a distinctively monocentric

302

Conclusion

view and assure “world dominion,” were fulfilled in the “Golden Age” of Solomon’s days. The phenomenon of discrete and even polemical conceptions of the scope of the Promised Land and its borders is not foreign to us as residents of the State of Israel in the twenty-first century. The question of the relationship of God– People–Land, the central axis around which Israeli(te) identity has revolved throughout the generations, also lies at the heart of contemporary political and theological discourse, generating renewed controversy and dispute. In this volume, I have not endeavored to engage these issues or to provide answers or solutions to present-day conflicts. Instead, I have sought to highlight the fact that the borders of the Promised Land have been a complex problem since the initial formulation of the promise of the land, as reflected in the foundational literature of the Jewish people—the Hebrew Bible.

Bibliography Abel, Félix-Marie. Géographie de la Palestine. 2 vols. Paris: Lecoffre, 1933. _____ .  La Sainte Bible: Le livre de Josué. Paris: Cerf, 1958. Adams, Robert. “The Mesopotamian Social Landscape: A View from the Frontier.” Pages 1–20 in Reconstructing Complex Societies. Edited by C. B. Moore. BASORSup 20. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1974. Aharoni, Yohanan. Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1975. [Hebrew] _____ .  The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Translated by A. Rainey. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967. _____ .  ‫לבנון‬. Pages 425–30 in vol. 4 of EncBib. _____ .  ‫ משרפות מים‬,‫משרפת מים‬. Page 641 in vol. 5 of EncBib. _____ .  ‫פארן‬, ‫פארן מדבר‬. Pages 433–34 in vol. 6 of EncBib. _____ .  “Tamar and the Roads to Elath.” IEJ 13 (1963) 30–42. Aḥituv, Shmuel. “The Alliance Oath of the Canaanite Vassals to the Pharaoh.” Pages 55–60 in Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loe­ wenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Y. Avishur and J. Blau. Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1978. [Hebrew] _____ .  The Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating to the History of Palestine in the Biblical Period. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1979. [Hebrew] _____ .  Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: From the Period of the First Commonwealth and the Beginning of the Second Commonwealth (Hebrew, Philistine, Edomite, Moabite, Ammonite, and the Bileam Inscription). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1992. [Hebrew] _____ .  Joshua. Mikra LeYisraʾel. Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1995. [Hebrew] _____ .  ‫עוים‬. Page 100 in vol. 6 of EncBib. _____ .  ‫צוער‬, ‫צער‬. Pages 695–96 in vol. 6 of EncBib. _____ .  ‫שור‬, ‫שור דרך‬, ‫שור מדבר‬. Pages 600–602 in vol. 7 of EncBib. Ahlström, Gösta. The History of Ancient Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest. JSOTSup 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Akkermans, P. M., J. Limpens, and R. H. Spoor, “On the Frontier of Assyria: Excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad, 1991.” Akkadica 84–85 (1993) 1–52. Akzin, Benjamin. Yesodot ha-medinaʾut ha-beinleʾumit [The Principles of International Relations]. Jerusalem: Academon, 1984. Albright, William F. “The Administrative Divisions of Israel and Judah.” JPOS 5 (1925) 17–54. _____ .  ‫גבל‬. Pages 404–11 in vol. 2 of EncBib. Alt, Albrecht. “Eine galiläische Ortsliste in Jos. 19.” ZAW 45 (1927) 59–81. _____ .  “Judas gaue unter Josia.” PJ 21 (1925) 100–16. _____ .  Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 2 vols. Munich. Beck, 1953. _____ . “Das Stützpunktsystem der Pharaonen an der phönikischen Küste und im syrischen Binnenland.” ZDPV 68 (1950) 97–163.

303

304

Bibliography

_____ .  “Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Josua.” Pages 13–24 in Festschrift Ernst Sellin: Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte und Archäologie Palästinas. Edited by W. F. Albright et al. Leipzig: Deichert, 1927. _____ . “Die Weisheit Salomos.” TLZ 76 (1951) 139–44 [ = “Solomonic Wisdom.” Pages 102–12 in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom. Edited by J. C. Crenshaw. New York: Ktav, 1976.] Amir, Yehoshua. ‫מדבר‬. Pages 674–78 in vol. 4 of EncBib. Anbar, Moshe. “Abrahamic Covenant: Genesis 15.” Shnaton 3 (1979) 34–52; “Additional Notes to Shnaton III, pp. 34–52.” Shnaton 4 (1980) 275–79. [Hebrew] _____ .  “Genesis 15: A Conflation of Two Deuteronomic Narratives.” JBL 101 (1982) 39–55. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. London: Verso, 1991. Annus, Amar. Epic of Anzu. SAA Cuneiform Texts 3. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001. Ariel, Israel. Atlas of the Land of Israel: Its Borders according to the Sources. Jerusalem: Cana, 1988. [Hebrew] Astour, Michael C. “Les frontières et les districts du royaume d’Ugarit.” UF 13 (1981) 1–12. _____ .  “The Kingdom of Siyannu-Ušnatu.” UF 11 (1979) 13–28. _____ .  “A North Mesopotamian Locale of the Keret Epic?” UF 5 (1973) 29–39. Auld, A. Graeme. Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1984. _____ .  Joshua, Moses and the Land. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980. _____ .  “Judges 1 and History: A Reconsideration.” VT 25 (1975) 261–85. Avalos, Hector. “Berothai.” Page 679 in vol. 1 of ABD. Avishur, Yitzhak. Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989. [Hebrew] Avi-Yonah, Michael. “The Date of the ‘Limes Palestinae.’” ErIsr 5 (Mazar Volume; 1958) 135–37. [Hebrew] Baltzer, Klaus. The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings. Translated by D. E. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Baradez, Jean. “Fossatum Africae.” Pages 17–22 in The Congress of Roman Frontier Studies 1949. Edited by E. Birley. Durham, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1952. Bar-Ilan, Meir. “What Was the Purpose of the Tannaim in Describing the Borders of the Land of Israel?” Pages 95–110 in Studies in Judaica, Source 7. Edited by M. A. Friedman. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1991. [Hebrew] Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967. Barré, Michael L. “A Phoenician Parallel to Psalms 29.” HAR 13 (1991) 25–32. Bartlett, John R. “The Edomite King-List of Genesis XXXVI 31–39 and I Chron. I 43– 50.” JTS 16 (1965) 301–14. Beckerath, Juergen von. Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen. Münchner ägyptologische Studien 20. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1984. Beckman, Gary. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. 2nd ed. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Beit-Arieh, Itzhak. “Judean-Edomite Rivalry in the Negev.” Qadmoniot 36 (2003) 66– 76. [Hebrew] Ben-Dov, Meir. “NAFA (‫)נפה‬: A Loan-Word from the Language of the Gentile Seafarers.” Tarbiz 43 (1974) 217–19. [Hebrew] Benjamin, Paul. “Baal-Gad.” Page 551 in vol. 1 of ABD.

Bibliography

305

Berg, Sandra. The Book of Esther. SBLDS 44. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. Bienkowski, Piotr. “The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan: A Framework.” Pages 1–12 in Early Edom and Moab. Sheffield Archaeological Monograph 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Birley, Eric (editor). The Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, 1949. Durham, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1952. Boadt, Lawrence. “Ezekiel, Book of.” Page 720 in ABD. Bodde, Derk. “The State and Empire of Ch’in.” Pages 21–102 in vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of China. Edited by D. Twitchett and J. K. Fairbank. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Boling, Robert G. Joshua. AB 6. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982. Boman, Thorleif. Das hebräische Denken im Vergleich mit dem grieschen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954. Boorer, Suzanne. “The Earth/Land (‫ )ארץ‬in the Priestly Material: The Preservation of the ‘Good’ Earth and the Promised Land of Canaan throughout the Generations.” Australian Biblical Review 49 (2001) 19–33. Bordreuil, Pierre. “À propos de la topographìe économique de l’Ougarit: Jardins du midi et pâturages du nord.” Syria 66 (1989) 263–74. Borger, Riekele. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien. AfO Beiheft 9. Graz: published by the editors, 1956. Brawer, Moshe. Israel’s Boundaries: Past, Present and Future. Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1988. [Hebrew] Briar, Idan. The Buffer State in the Ancient Near East in the Biblical Period. Ph.D. Diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2000. [Hebrew] Bright, John. “Joshua.” Pages 539–673 in vol. 2 of IB. Brongers, Hendrik A. “Merismus, Synekdoche und Hendiadys in der Bibel-Hebräischen Sprache.” Pages 110–14 in Kaf-Hē: 1940–1965—Jubilee Volume, Published on the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Dutch O.T. Society. Edited by P. A. H. de Boer. OtSt 14. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Bryce, Trevor R. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Bunimovitz, Shlomo. “The Problem of Human Resources in Late Bronze Age Palestine and Its Socio-Economic Implications.” ErIsr 25 (Aviram Volume; 1996) 45–54. [Hebrew] Burney, Charles F. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903. Cagni, Luigi. Das Erra-Epos: Keilschrifttext. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970. Caminos, Ricardo A. Late Egyptian Miscellanies. London: Oxford University Press, 1954. Cassuto, Umberto. Biblical and Oriental Studies. 2 vols. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973–75. _____ .  A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. 2 vols. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984. _____ .  The Goddess Anath: Canaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age. Translated by I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971. Chay, John, and Thomas E. Ross (editors). Buffer States in World Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1986. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Clements, Ronald E. Abraham and David: Genesis XV and Its Meaning for Israelite Tradition. London: SCM, 1967.

306

Bibliography

Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. AB 11. New York: Doubleday, 1988. Cohen, Rudolf. “Fortresses and Roads in the Negev during the First Temple Period.” Pages 80–126 in Eilat: Studies in the Archaeology, History and Geography of Eilat and the Aravah. Edited by Y. Aviram et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/ Israel Antiquities Authority, 1995. [Hebrew] Cohen, Rudolf, and Yigal Yisrael. “The Excavations at ʿEin Haẕevah / Israelite and Roman Tamar.” Qadmoniot 29 (1996) 78–92. [Hebrew] Conklin, Blane W. “Arslan Tash I and Other Vestiges of a Particular Syrian Incantatory Thread.” Bib 84 (2003) 89–101. Cooke, George A. The Book of Ezekiel. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936. _____ .  The Book of Joshua. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1918. _____ .  “Some Considerations on the Text and Teachings of Ezekiel 40–48.” ZAW 42 (1924) 105–15. Cooper, Jerrold S. Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions: The Lagash-Umma Border Conflict. Sources from the Ancient Near East 2/1. Malibu, CA: Undena, 1983. _____ .  Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986. Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976. Cressey, George B. Crossroads: Land and Life in Southwest Asia. Chicago: Lippincott, 1960. Cross, Frank M., and George E. Wright. “The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah.” JBL 75 (1956) 202–26. Curzon, George N.  Frontiers. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907. Repr. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1976. Dagan, Yehuda. “Cities of the Judean Shephelah and Their Division Based on Joshua 16.” ErIsr 25 (Aviram Volume; 1996) 136–46. [Hebrew] Daube, David. Studies in Biblical Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947. Demsky, Aaron. “‘From Kzib unto the River near Amanah’ (Mish. Shebi῾it 6:1; Halla 4:8): A Clarification of the Northern Border of the Returnees from Egypt.” Shnaton 10 (1990) 71–81. [Hebrew] _____ .  “Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon: An Historico-Geographic Riddle.” BASOR 212 (1973) 26–31. Dhorme, Éduard. La Bible: l’Ancien Testament. Paris: Gallimard, 1959. Diakonov, Igor M. “Economy of the Ancient Oriental City (Western Asia 3rd–2nd Millennia b.c.).” Pages 1–21 in Fifth International Congress of Economic History: Leningrad, 1970. 3 vols. Edited by Herman van der Wee, Vladimir Aleksandrovich Vinogradov, and G. G. Kotovskiĭ. The Hague: Mouton, 1970–79. _____ .  “On the Structure of Old Babylonian Society.” Pages 15–31 in Bei­träge zur sozialen Struktur des alten Vorderasien. Edited by H. Klengel. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 1. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1971. Diepold, Peter. Israels Land. BWANT 5/15. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972. Dijk, H. J. van. Ezekiel’s Prophecy on Tyre: Ez. 26,1–28,19. BibOr 20. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968. _____ .  Lugal ud me-lam-bi nir-gál. Leiden: Brill, 1983. Dillmann, August. Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. KEHAT 13. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1886.

Bibliography

307

Donbaz, Veysel. “Some Observations on the Treaty Documents of Kadesh.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43 (1993) 27–37. _____ .  “Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae in the Antakya and Kahramanmaraš Museums.” Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project 8 (1990) 5–24. Dossin, Georges. “Les archives épistolaires du Palais de Mari.” Syria 19 (1938) 105–26. Driver, Samuel Rolles. The Book of Exodus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. _____ .  Deuteronomy. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895. _____ .  An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. 6th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897. Drummond, Steven K., and Lynn H. Nelson, The Western Frontiers of Imperial Rome. New York: Sharpe, 1994. Durand, Jean-Marie. “Le Mythologème du combat entre le Dieu de l’orage et la Mer en Mésopotamie.” MARI 7 (1993) 41-61. Edel, Elmar. Die ägyptische-hethitische Korrespondenz aus Boghazköi in babylonischer und hethitischer Sprache. Ahandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 77. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994. _____ .  “Weitere Briefe aus der Heiratskorrespondenz Ramses’ II: KUB III 37 + KBo I 17 und KUB III 57.” Pages 29–63 in Geschichte und Altes Testament: Festschrift A. Alt. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 16. Tübingen: Mohr, 1953. Edelman, Diana. “Tel Masos, Geshur and David.” JNES 47 (1988) 253–58. Ehrlich, Arnold B. Mikra kiphshuto [Literal Exegesis of the Bible]. 3 vols. Berlin, 1899–1901. _____ .  Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel. Leipzig, 1908. Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel. Translated by C. Quin. OTL. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970. Elliger, Karl. “Die Nordgrenze des Reiches Davids.” PJ 32 (1936) 34–73. Emerton, John A. “New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrud.” ZAW 94 (1982) 2–20. _____ .  “The Origin of the Promises to the Patriarchs in the Older Sources of the Book of Genesis.” VT 32 (1982) 14–32. Engelhard, David H. “Ezekiel 47:13–48:29 as Royal Grant.” Pages 45–56 in Go to the Land I Will Show You: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young. Edited by J. E. Coleson and V. H. Matthews. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Ephʿal, Israel. The Ancient Arabs. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982. Ephʿal, Israel, and Joseph Naveh, “Hazael’s Booty Inscriptions.” IEJ 39 (1989) 192–200. Fales, Frederick M. “The Enemy in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: ‘The Moral Judgement.’” Pages 425–35 in Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4 bis 1 Jahrtausend v. Chr.—XXV recontre assyriologique internationale, Berlin, 3 bis 7 Juli 1978. Edited by H.-J. Nissen and J. Renger. Berlin: Reimer, 1982. Febvre, Lucien. A Geographical Introduction to History. Translated by E. G. Mountford and J. H. Paxton. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1966. Fenton, Terry. ‫סברים‬. Page 996 in vol. 5 of EncBib. Finkelstein, Israel. “Edom in Iron Age I.” ErIsr 23 (Biran Volume; 1992) 224–29. [Hebrew] Fischer, A. “Ausdrücke per Merismum im Arabischen.” Pages 46–58 in Streitberg Fest­ gabe. Edited by Wilhem Streitberg. Leipzig: Markert and Petters, 1924.

308

Bibliography

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995. Fleming, Daniel E. “Emar: On the Road from Harran to Hebron.” Pages 222–50 in Mesopotamia and the Bible. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger Jr. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002. Forrer, Emil. “Die Arzaova-Länder.” Forschungen. Berlin: published by the author, 1926. _____ .  Die Provinzeinleitung des Assyrischen Reiches. Leipzig, 1920. Foster, Benjamin R. Before the Muses. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1996. Frandsen, Paul J. “Egyptian Imperialism.” Pages 167–90 in Power and Propaganda. Edited by M. T. Larsen. Mesopotamia 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979. Frankena, Rintje. “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy.” Pages 122–54 in Kaf-Hē: 1940–1965—Jubilee Volume, Published on the Occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Dutch O.T. Society. OtSt 14. Edited by P. A. H. de Boer. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Frayne, Douglas R. Old Babylonian Period: 2003–1595 b.c. RIMA 4. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1990. Friedrich, Johannes. Kurzgefaßtes Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1991. _____ .  Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache, vol.  1. MVAG 31/2. Leipzig, 1926. _____ .  Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache, vol.  2. MVAG 34/1. Leipzig, 1930. Fritz, Volkmar. “Die sogenannte Liste der besiegten Könige in Josua 12.” ZDPV 85 (1969) 136–61. Fuchs, Andreas. Die Inschriften Sargons II aus Khorsabad. Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1994. Gadd, Cyril J. “Babylonia, c. 2120–1800 b.c.” Pages 595–643 in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 1/2: Early History of the Middle East. 3rd ed. Edited by I. E. S. Edwards et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Galán, Jose M. Victory and Border: Terminology Related to Egyptian Imperialism in the XVIIIth Dynasty. Hildesheimer ägyptologische Beiträge 40. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1995. Galil, Gershon. “The Administrative Districts of the Judean Hill Area.” Zion 49 (1984) 205–24. [Hebrew] _____ .  “Gebaʿ-Ephraim and the Northern Boundary of Judah in the Days of Josiah.” Tarbiz 61/3–4 (1991–92) 1–13. [Hebrew] _____ .  “Gvulot eretz hamuvtachat [The Borders of the Promised Land].” Page 147 in Shemot. Edited by Y. Avishur and S. Talmon. Olam hatanakh. Tel Aviv: DavidsonIttai, 1993. Galil, Gershon, and Yair Zakovitch (editors). Yehoshua [Joshua]. Olam hatanakh. Tel Aviv: Davidson-Ittai, 1994. Garstang, John, and Oliver R.  Gurney. The Geography of the Hittite Empire. London: British Institute of Archaeology, 1959. Gelb, Ignace J. “The Early History of the West Semitic People.” JCS 15 (1961) 27–47. [Hebrew] Gelb, Ignace J., Piotr Steinkeller, and Robert M. Whiting Jr. Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. OIP 104. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.

Bibliography

309

Gevaryahu, Haim. “Maʾaseh sophrim be-sepher yehezkel [Scribal Activity in the Book of Ezekiel].” Pages 23–42 in Iyunim besepher Yehezkel. Edited by I. Avishur. Jerusalem: Society for the Study of the Bible in Israel/WZF, 1982. Gichon, Mordechai. “The Military Significance of Certain Aspects of the Limes Palaestinae.” Pages 191–200 in Roman Frontier Studies 1967. Edited by S. Applebaum. Tel Aviv, 1971. Ginsberg, Harold L. (Haim). ‫לשע‬. Page 532 in vol. 4 of EncBib. _____ .  “A Preposition of Interest to Historical Geographers.” BASOR 122 (1951) 12– 14; “Postscript.” BASOR 124 (1951) 29–30. _____ .  The Ugaritic Texts. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1936. [Hebrew] Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1947. Goelet, Ogden. “Kemet and Other Egyptian Terms for Their Land.” Pages 23–42 in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine. Edited by R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo, and L. H. Schiffman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Goldingay, John. “The Patriarchs in Scripture and History.” Pages 1–34 in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. Goldstein, Ronnie. “Joshua 22:9–34: A Priestly Narrative from the Second Temple Period.” Shnaton 13 (2002) 43–81. [Hebrew] Gordon, Edmund I. “The Meaning of the Ideogram dkaskal.kur = ‘Underground Water-Course’, and Its Significance for Bronze Age Historical Geography.” JCS 21 (1967–69) 70–88. Götze, Albrecht. Die Annalen des Muršiliš. MVAG 38. Darmstadt, 1933. _____ .  Kizzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography. YOSR 22. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1940. _____ .  Madduwattaš. MVAG 32/1. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1928. _____ .  “The Struggle for the Domination of Syria (1400–1300 b.c.).” Pages 1–20 in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 2/2: History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1380–1000 b.c. 3rd ed. Edited by I.  E. S.  Edwards et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Gray, George B. The Book of Isaiah I–XXVII. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912. _____ .  Numbers. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903. Grayson, Albert Kirk. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. 2 vols. Records of the Ancient Near East 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976. _____ .  Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium bc I (1114–859 bc). RIMA 2. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1991. _____ .  Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium bc II (858–745 bc). RIMA 3. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1996. _____ .  Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia bc (to 1115 bc). RIMA  1. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1987. Greenberg, Moshe. “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration.” Int 38 (1984) 181–208. _____ .  Ezekiel 1–20. AB 22. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. _____ .  “Idealism and Practicality in Numbers 35:4–5 and Ezekiel 48.” Pages 59–65 in Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser. Edited by W. W. Hallo. AOS 53. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1968. [ = Pages 313–26 in Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995.]

310

Bibliography

_____ .  “The Terms ‫ נפל‬and ‫ הפיל‬in the Context of Inheritance.” Pages 251–59 in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levin. Edited by R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo, and L. H. Schiffman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Grintz, Yehoshua. “The Southwestern Border of the Promised Land.” Pages 7–19 in Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Religion Dedicated to Yehezkel Kaufmann on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by M. Haran. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960. [Hebrew] Grosby, Steven. Biblical Ideas of Nationality Ancient and Modern. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Gurney, Oliver R. The Hittites. London: Penguin, 1952. Güterbock, Hans G. “The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by His Son, Mursili II.” JCS 10 (1956) 41–68, 75–98, 107–30. Ha, John. Genesis 15. BZAW 181. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Haase, Richard. “Some Problems of Hittite Law and Jurisdiction.” Pages 69–77 in Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 b.c.). Edited by M. Helt­zer and E. Lipiński. Leuven: Peeters, 1988. Hagelia, Hallvard. Numbering the Stars. ConBOT 39. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994. Haldar, Alfred O. The Notion of the Desert in Sumero-Accadian and West-Semitic Religions. Uppsala Universitet Årsskrift 3. Uppsala: Lundquist, 1950. Halevi, Judah. The Kuzari. Jerusalem: Sefer ve Sefel, 2003. Hallo, William W. “The Road to Emar.” JCS 18 (1964) 57–88. Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger Jr. (editors). The Context of Scripture: Archival Documents from the Biblical World. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002. Handel, Michael. Weak States in the International System. London: Cass, 1981. Haran, Menahem. Ages and Institutions in the Bible. Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1972. [Hebrew] Havers, Wilhelm. Handbuch der erklarenden Syntax. Heidelberg: Carl Winters, 1931. Hawkins, John D. The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the Sacred Pool Complex at Hattusa (Südburg). StBoT Beiheft 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995. Heinhold-Krahmer, Susanne. Arzawa. Texte der Hethiter 8. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1977. Heltzer, Michael. The Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976. Hertzberg, Hans W. I and II Samuel. Translated by J. S. Bowden. OTL. London: SCM, 1964. Herzfeld, Ernst E. The Persian Empire. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1968. Hess, Richard S. Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996. _____ .  “Late Bronze Age and Biblical Descriptions of the West Semitic World.” Pages 123–38 in Ugarit and the Bible. Edited by G. J. Brooke, A. H. Curtis, and J. Healy. UBL 11. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994. Hoffman, Yair (editor). Yeshaiah [Isaiah]. Olam hatanakh. Tel Aviv: Davidson-Ittai, 1994. Hoffmann, Inge. Der Erlass Telepinus. Texte der Hethiter 11. Heidelberg: Carl Winter / Universitätsverlag, 1984. Hofmann, Johann B. “Zum Wesen der sog. polaren Ausdrucksweise.” Glotta 15 (1927) 45–53.

Bibliography

311

Hoffmeier, James K. Israel in Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Hölscher, Gustav. Geschichtsschreibung in Israel. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1952. Honeyman, Alexander M. “Epigraphic Discoveries at Karatepe.” PEQ 81 (1949) 21–39. _____ .  “Merismus in Biblical Hebrew.” JBL 7 (1952) 11–18. Hooker, Paul K. “The Location of the Brook of Egypt.” Pages 203–14 in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes. Edited by M. P. Graham et al. JSOTSup 173. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Horowitz, Wayne. “The Babylonian Map of the World.” Iraq 50 (1988) 147–65. _____ .  Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Mesopotamian Civilizations 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998. Hout, Theo P. J. van den. Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag: Eine prosopographische Untersuchung. StBoT 38. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995. Houwink ten Cate, Philo H. J. “Urhi-Tessub Revisited.” BO 51 (1994) 233–48. Hurvitz, Avi. “‘Diachronic Chiasm’ in Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 248–55 in Bible and Jewish History: Studies in Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver. Edited by B. Uffenheimer. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1972. [Hebrew] Hutchens, Kenneth D. “Defining the Boundaries: A Cultic Interpretation of Numbers 34:1–12 and Ezekiel 47:13–48:1, 28.” Pages 215–30 in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes. Edited by M. P. Graham, W. P. Brown, and J. K. Kuan. JSOTSup 173. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Isaac, Benjamin. The Limits of Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Ishida, Tomoo. “The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations.” Bib 60 (1979) 461–90. Jacobsen, Thorkild. “Early Political Development in Mesopotamia.” ZA 52 (1957) 91–140. _____ .  The Harps That Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987. Japhet, Sara. “The Concept of the ‘Remnant’ in the Restoration Period.” Pages 340–61 in Das Manna fällt auch heute noch. Edited by F.-L. Hossfeld and L. SchwienhorstSchönberger. Freiburg: Herder, 2004. _____ .  I and II Chronicles: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM, 1993. _____ .  The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. Translated by A. Barber. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997. _____ .  “Law and ‘the Law’ in Ezra-Nehemiah.” Pages 99–115 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1988. Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Jerusalem: Horev, 1903. [Reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005.] Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann (editors). TLOT. 3 vols. Translated by M. E. Biddle. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Jeremias, Alfred. Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients. Leipzig, 1916. Jewell, Elizabeth R. The Archaeology and History of Western Anatolia during the Second Millennium b.c. Ph.D. Diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1974. Joosten, Jan. People and Land in the Holiness Code. VTSup 47. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

312

Bibliography

Jones, Stephen B. Boundary Making: A Handbook for Statesmen, Treaty Editors and Boundary Commissioners. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law, 1945. Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2nd ed. SubBi 14/1–2. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993. Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 13–39. Translated by R. A. Wilson. OTL. London: SCM, 1974. _____ .  Isaiah 1–12. 2nd ed. Translated by J. Bowden. OTL. London: SCM, 1983. _____ .  Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Ägypten, Ugarit und Israel. BZAW 78. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1962. _____ . “Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Genesis 15.” ZAW 70 (1958) 107–26. Kaiser, Otto (editor). Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden: Historisch-chronologische Texte. TUAT 1/2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1983. Kallai, Zecharia. “The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible.” ErIsr 12 (Glueck Volume; 1975) 27–34. [Hebrew] _____ .  Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. Kalluveettil, Paul. Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982. Katzenstein, Hans J. “Gaza in the Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom.” JAOS 102 (1982) 111–13. _____ .  The History of Tyre. Jerusalem: Schocken, 1973. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine. 2nd ed. Translated by M. Dagut. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1953. _____ .  The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Translated and abridged by M. Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. _____ .  Sepher Yehoshua [The Book of Joshua]. Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1963. _____ .  Toldot ha-emuna ha-israelit [The History of the Israelite Religion]. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Dvir, 1976. Kelle, Brad E. “What’s in a Name? Neo-Assyrian Designations for the Northern Kingdom and Their implications for Israelite History and Biblical Interpretation.” JBL 121 (2002) 639–66. Kemp, Barry J. “Imperialism and Empire in New Kingdom Egypt (c. 1575–1087 b.c.).” Pages 8–57 in Imperialism in the Ancient World. Edited by P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Kestemont, Guy. Diplomatique et droit international en Asie occidentale: 1600–1200 av. J.C. Louvain: Université Catholique de Louvain, 1974. King, Leonard W. Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum. London: British Museum, 1912. Kittel, Rudolph. Biblia Hebraica. 3rd ed. Stuttgart, 1937. Klengel, Horst. Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches. Leiden: Brill, 1999. _____ .  Syria 3000 to 300 b.c.: A Handbook of Political History. Berlin: Akade­mie, 1992. Knauf, Ernst A., and Cherie J. Lenzen. “Edomite Copper Industry.” Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 3 (1987) 83–88. Knoppers, Gary. “The Vanishing Solomon.” JBL 116 (1997) 19–44. Kochavi, Moshe. ‫נחל הערבה‬. Page 810 in vol. 5 of EncBib.

Bibliography

313

Kochman, Michael. The Status and Extent of Judah in the Persian Period. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1980. [Hebrew] Kogut, Simcha. “Biblical Prepositions and Their Dependence on Exegesis: Doubts about Their Identification Due to Morphological Ambiguity.” Language Studies 10 (2006) 159–70. [Hebrew] Korošec, Viktor. Hethitische Staatsverträge. Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche Studien 60. Leipzig, 1931. Kosovsky, Moshe. Concordance to the Talmud Bavli. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture, 1972. [Hebrew] Krašovec, Joze. Antithetic Structure in Biblical Hebrew Poetry. Leiden: Brill, 1984. _____ .  Der Merismus. BibOr 33. Rome: Rome Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1977. Kraus, Fritz R. “Provinzen des neusumerischen Reiches von Ur.” ZA 51 (1955) 45–75. Kraus, Hans Joachim. Theology of the Psalms. Translated by K. Crim. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986. Kühne, Cord, and Heinrich Otten. Der Šaušgamuwa-Vertrag. StBoT 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1971. Kupper, Jean-Robert. “Northern Mesopotamia and Syria.” Pages 1–41 in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 2/1: History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1800– 1380 b.c. 3rd ed. Edited by I. E. S. Edwards. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Langdon Stephen H., and Alan H.  Gardiner. “The Treaty of Alliance between Hattusilli, King of the Hittites, and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt.” JEA 6 (1920) 179–205. Leichty, Erle, with a contribution by Grant Frame. The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 bc). Edited by J. Novotny, M. T. Rutz, and A. E. Barron. RINAP 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Lemche, Niels P. The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites. JSOTSup 110. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Levi, Thomas E., et al. “Reassessing the Chronology of Biblical Edom: New Excavations and 14C Dates from Khirbat en-Nahas (Jordan).” Antiquity 78 (2004) 865–79. Levin, Yigal. “The Land of Goshen, Gibeon and the Southern Frontier of Saul’s Kingdom.” Judaea and Samaria Research Studies 11 (2002) 51–68. [Hebrew] Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 1–20. AB 4. New York: Doubleday, 1993. _____ .  Numbers 21–36. AB 4A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Licht, Jacob. A Commentary on the Book of Numbers. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981– 91. [Hebrew] _____ .  Testing in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Postbiblical Judaism. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973. [Hebrew] Lissovsky, Nurit, and Nadav Naʾaman, “A New Outlook at the Boundary System of the Twelve Tribes.” UF 35 (2003) 291–332. Liver, Jacob. ‫כנען במקרא‬. Pages 202–4 in vol. 4 of EncBib. Liverani, Mario. “The Amorites.” Pages 100–133 in Peoples of Old Testament Times. Edited by D. J. Wiseman. Oxford: Clarendon, 1973. _____ .  “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire.” Pages 297–317 in Power and Propaganda. Edited by M. T. Larsen. Mesopotamia 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979. _____ .  International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600–1100 b.c. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

314

Bibliography

_____ . “Memorandum on the Approach to Historiographic Texts.” Or 42 (1973) 178–94. _____ .  Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–1100 b.c. HANE/S 1. Padua: Sargon, 1990. _____ .  Storia di Ugarit nell’età degli archivi politici. Studi Semitici 6. Rome: Università di Roma–Centra di Studi Semitici, 1962. Loewenstamm, Samuel. The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition. Translated by B. J. Schwartz. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992. _____ .  From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible and Its Oriental Background. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992. _____ .  ‫נחל מצרים‬. Pages 813–14 in vol. 5 of EncBib. _____ .  ‫ים סוף‬. Pages 695–700 in vol. 3 of EncBib. Lohfink, Norbert. Das Landverheissung als Eid: Eine Studie zu Gen 15. Stuttgart Bibel Studien 28. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967. Luckenbill, Daniel D. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926–27. Luria, Ben-Zion. “Gvul ha-tzaphon be-chazon yehezkel [The Northern Border in the Book of Ezekiel].” Pages 203–28 in Iyunim be-sepher yehezkel. Edited by I. Avishur. Jerusalem: Society for the Study of the Bible in Israel, 1982. Luzzatto, Samuel David. Perush shadal al chamisha chumshei torah [SDL’s Commentary on the Pentateuch]. Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1966. Machinist, Peter. “Palestine.” Pages 69–81 in vol. 5 of ABD. Machlin, Rachel. “Ha-milah ‘kol’: Mashmaʾuta u-nigudeiha [The Word ‘All’: Its Significance and Antitheses].” Pages 36–42 in Hagut ivrit bi-vrit ha-moʾazot. Edited by M. Zohori, A. Tartakover, and M. Zand. Jerusalem: Biblos, 1976. Malamat, Abraham. “Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon.” Pages 208–33 in History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues. Leiden: Brill, 2001. _____ .  “Campaigns to the Mediterranean by Iahdunlim and Other Early Mesopotamian Rulers.” Pages 365–73 in Studies in Honor of B. Landsberger. Edited by H. Güterbock and T. Jacobsen. AS 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. _____ .  “The Exodus: Egyptian Analogies.” Pages 15–26 in Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence. Edited by E. S. Frerichs and L. H. Lesko. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. _____ .  Mari and Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991. Malkin, Irad. “Colonization, the Word of God and Founders of Colonies in Ancient Greece.” Zmanim 12 (1983) 34–45. [Hebrew] Malul, Meir. “ʿĀQĒB ‘Heel’ and ʿĀQAB ‘to Supplant’ and the Concept of Succession in the Jacob-Esau Narratives.” VT 46 (1996) 190–212. _____ .  Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism. AOAT 221. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. _____ .  “Towards a Holistic-Integrative Investigation of Culture: A Case Study—The Motif of Spying and Conquering a Territory in the Bible.” Shnaton 14 (2004) 141–57. [Hebrew] Marcus, Michelle I. “Geography as Visual Ideology: Landscape, Knowledge, and Power in Neo-Assyrian Art.” Pages 193–202 in Neo-Assyrian Geography. Edited by M. Liverani. Quaderni di Geografia Storica 5. Rome: Herder, 1995.

Bibliography

315

Marfoe, Leon. “The Integrative Transformation: Patterns of Sociopolitical Organization in Southern Asia.” BASOR 234 (1979) 1–42. May, Herbert G. “Some Cosmic Connotations of mayim rabbîm, ‘Many Waters.’” JBL 74 (1995) 9–21. Mazar (Maisler), Benjamin. ‫אחלב‬. Page 227 in vol. 1 of EncBib. _____ .  “Ancient Israelite Historiography.” IEJ 2 (1952) 82–88. _____ .  ‫בעל גד‬. Pages 286–87 in vol. 2 of EncBib. _____ .  ‫בעל חרמון‬. Pages 288–89 in vol. 2 of EncBib. _____ .  “Eretz k’naan bi-yamei ha-mamlakha ha-tikhona shel mitzrayim [The Land of Canaan in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom Period].” Pages 11–47 in Canaan and Israel. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1980. _____ .  “The Historical Background of the Book of Genesis.” Pages 49–62 in The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies. Translated by Ruth and Elisheva Rigbi. Edited by B. A. Levine and S. Aḥituv. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986. _____ .  ‫חורן‬. Pages 63–64 in vol. 3 of EncBib. _____ .  ‫יהושפט‬. Pages 565–70 in vol. 3 of EncBib. _____ .  ‫ים המלח‬. Pages 692–95 in vol. 3 of EncBib. _____ .  ‫ שיחור לבנת‬,‫לבנת‬. Page 430 in vol. 4 of EncBib. _____ .  “Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Border of Canaan.” Pages 189–202 in The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies. Translated by Ruth and Elisheva Rigbi. Edited by B. A. Levine and S. Aḥituv. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986. _____ .  “Topographical Studies, I: From Geba to Beer-sheba.” Yediot 8 (1941) 35–37 [Hebrew]. [Repr., expanded, pp. 84–87 in Benjamin Mazar, Cities and Districts in Eretz-Israel. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1975 (Hebrew).] Mazor, Lea. “The Correlation between the Garden of Eden and the Temple.” Shnaton 13 (2002) 5–42. [Hebrew] _____ .  The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua: Its Contribution to the Understanding of the Textual Transmission of the Book and Its Literary and Ideological Development. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994. [Hebrew] McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. II Samuel. AB 9. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984. McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant. AnBib 21. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978. Mellor, Roy E. H. Nation, State and Territory: A Political Geography. London: Routledge, 1989. Mendenhall, George E. “Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East.” BA 17 (1954) 26–46, 50–76. Meshel, Zeʾev. “Iron Age Negev Settlements as an Expression of Conflict between Edom, Judah and Israel over Borders and Roads.” Pages 169–80 in Eilat: Studies in the Archaeology, History and Geography of Eilat and the Aravah. Edited by Y. Aviram et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/Israel Antiquities Authority, 1995. [Hebrew] _____ .  “The Southern Border of Canaan and Judea: The Geographical Aspect.” Judaea and Samaria Research Studies 9 (2000) 27–37. [Hebrew] _____ .  “Teman, Horvat.” Pages 1458–64 in vol. 4 of NEAEHL. Meyer, Eduard. Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme. Halle, 1906. Michalowski, Piotr. “Foreign Tribute to Sumer during the Ur III Period.” ZA 67 (1977) 37–49.

316

Bibliography

_____ .  The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. Mesopotamian Civilizations 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989. _____ .  The Royal Correspondence of Ur. Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1976. Mitmann, Siegfried. “ûgebûl: ‘Gebiet’ oder ‘Grenze’?” JNSL 17 (1991) 37–44. Mizrachi, Noam. “The Derivation of Abraham’s Name (Gen 17:5).” Tarbiz 71 (2002) 344–46. [Hebrew] Monte, Giuseppe F. del, and Johann Tischler. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte. Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 6. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1978. Moore, George F. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges. ICC.  Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895. Morag, Shelomo. Studies in Biblical Hebrew. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996. [Hebrew] Mowinckel, Sigmund. Tetrateuch, Pentateuch, Hexateuch: Die Berichte über die Landnahme in den drei altisraelitischen Geschichtswerken. BZAW 90. Berlin: Alfred Töplemann, 1964. Muffs, Yochanan. Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995. Musil, Alois. Arabia Petraea. 2 vols. Vienna, 1907–8. Naʾaman, Nadav. Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction. Collected Essays, vol. 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. _____ .  Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Jerusalem: Simor, 1986. _____ .  “Canaanite City-States in the Late Bronze Age and the Inheritances of the Israelite Tribes.” Tarbiz 55 (1996) 463–88. [Hebrew] _____ .  “The Canaanites and Their Land: A Rejoinder.” UF 26 (1994) 397–418. _____ .  “The District-System of Israel in the Time of the United Monarchy.” Zion 48 (1983) 1–20. [Hebrew] _____ .  “The Inheritances of the Cis-Jordanian Tribes of Israel and the ‘Land That Yet Remaineth.’” ErIsr 16 (Orlinsky Volume; 1982) 152–58. [Hebrew] _____ .  “Rule and Administration in the Late Bronze Age.” Pages 195–212 in The History of Eretz Israel: The Early Periods. Edited by I. Ephʿal. Jerusalem: Keter, 1982. [Hebrew] _____ .  “The Town-Lists of Judah and Benjamin and the Kingdom of Judah in the Days of Josiah.” Zion 54 (1989) 17–71. [Hebrew] Nelson, Richard. Joshua: A Commentary. OTL.  Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Nemet-Nejat, Karen R. Late Babylonian Field Plans in the British Museum. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982. Nicol, George. “The Chronology of Genesis xxvi, 1–33 as ‘Flashback’.” VT 46 (1996) 330–38. Niehaus, Jeffrey. “Paʿam ʾeḥāt and the Israelite Conquest.” VT 30 (1980) 236–39. Noort, Edward. “‘Land’ in the Deuteronom(ist)ic Tradition.” Pages 129–44 in Synchronic or Diachronic? Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. OtSt 34. Leiden: Brill, 1995. North, Robert. “Phoenicia-Canaan Frontier LeBÔ of Hama.” Mélanges de l’université Saint-Joseph 46 (1970) 71–103. Noth, Martin. Das Buch Josua. 2nd ed. HAT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953. _____ .  The Deuteronomistic History. Translated by J. Doull et al. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.

Bibliography

317

_____ .  A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by B. W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1972. _____ .  The Old Testament World. Translated by V.  I. Gruhn. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966. _____ .  “Das Reich von Hamath als Grenznachbar des Reiches Davids.” PJ 33 (1937) 36–51. _____ . “Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches.” ZDPV 58 (1935) 185–255. Nougayrol, Jean. Le palais royal d’Ugarit, vols. 3–4. Mission de Ras Shamra 6, 9, 11. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1955–65. O’Connor, Michael P. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980. Oded, Bustenay. “Observations on Methods of Assyrian Rule in Transjordania after the Palestinian Campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III.” JNES 29 (1970) 177–86. _____ .  “Pnei ha-tequphah: Ha-mamlakha ha-meuchedet, ha-pilug le-shtei mamlakhot ve-ha-chorban [The Features of the Period: The United Kingdom, the Division into Two Kingdoms, and the Destruction of the Temple].” Pages 101–201 in Israel ve-yehudah be-tequphat ha-mikra. Edited by I. Ephʿal. The History of Eretz Israel 2. Jerusalem: Keter, 1984. _____ .  ‫צדד‬. Page 673 in vol. 6 of EncBib. _____ .  War, Peace and Empire. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992. Oppenheim, A. Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Oren, Eliezer D. “The ‘Ways of Horus’ in North Sinai.” Pages 111–13 in Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period. Edited by A. F. Rainey. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1987. Orlinsky, Harry. “The Biblical Concept of the Land of Israel: Cornerstone of the Covenant between God and Israel.” Pages 27–64 in The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspectives. Edited by L. A. Hoffman. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986. Otten, Heinrich G. “Aitiologische Erzählung von der Überquerung des Taurus.” ZA 55 (1963) 156–68. _____ .  Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy: Ein Staatsvertrag Tutḫalijas IV. StBoT 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988. Ottosson, Magnus. “‫ ּגְבּול‬gebhûl; ‫ ָּגבַל‬gābhal; ‫ ּגְבּולָה‬gebhûlāh.” Pages 361–66 in vol. 2 of TDOT. Otzen, Benedikt. “Israel under the Assyrians.” Pages 251–61 in Power and Propaganda. Edited by M. T. Larsen. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979. Palache, Jehuda B. Semantic Notes on the Hebrew Lexicon. Translated by R. J. Z. Werblowsky. Leiden: Brill, 1959. Pardee, Dennis, and Pierre Bordreuil. “Ugarit: Texts and Literature.” Pages 705–21 in vol. 6 of ABD. Parker, Bradley J. The Mechanics of Empire. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 2001. Paul, Shalom. Amos. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1991. Perlitt, Lothar. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. Polanyi, Karl. Origins of Our Time: The Great Transformation. London: Gollancz, 1945. Pope, Marvin H. El in the Ugaritic Texts. VTSup 2. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Porten, Bezalel, and Ada Yardeni (editors). Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Egypt. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986–99.

318

Bibliography

Prescott, John R. V. The Geography of Frontiers and Boundaries. London: Hutchinson, 1965. _____ .  Political Frontiers and Boundaries. London: Allen and Unwin, 1978. Press, Isaiah. A Topographical Historical Encyclopedia of Palestine. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Reu­ven Mass, 1955. [Hebrew] Puhvel, Jaan. “The Sea in Hittite Texts.” Pages 225–37 in Studies Presented to Joshua Whatmough. Edited by E. Pulgram. The Hague: ’s-Gravenhage, 1957. Rabinowitz, Jacob J. “The Susa Tablets.” VT 11 (1961) 61–63. Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis. Translated by J. H. Marks. OTL. London: SCM, 1972. _____ .  Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962–65. _____ .  Studies in Deuteronomy. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. London: SCM, 1953. Rainey, Anson F. “Mi-nahar mitzrayim ad ha-nahar ha-gadol nahar prat [From the River of Egypt to the River, the Euphrates].” Pages 111–12 in Bereishit [Genesis]. Edited by M. Weinfeld et al. Olam hatanakh. Tel Aviv: Davidson-Ittai, 1982. _____ .  ‫עבר הנהר‬. Pages 43–48 in vol. 6 of EncBib. _____ .  “Toponymic Problems (cont.): The Brook of Egypt.” Tel Aviv 9 (1982) 131–32. _____ .  “Who Is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence.” BASOR 304 (1996) 1–15. Ratzel, Friedrich. Politische Geographie. 3rd ed. Munich, 1923. Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. _____ .  “A Gate Inscription from Karnak and Egyptian Involvement in Western Asia during the Early 18th Dynasty.” JAOS 99 (1979) 270–87. Rendsburg, Gary. The Redaction of Genesis. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986. Rendtorff, Rolf. “Genesis 15 im Rahmen der theologischen Bearbeitung der Väter­ geschichten.” Pages 74–81 in Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Claus Westermann zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by R. Albertz et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Reymond, Philippe. L’eau: Sa vie, et sa signification dans l’ancien testament. VTSup  6. Leiden: Brill, 1958. Richter, Wolfgang. Die Bearbeitungen des “Retterbuches” in der deuteronomischen Epoche. Bonn: Hanstein, 1964. Rofé, Alexander. “Joshua Son of Nun in the Biblical Traditions.” Tarbiz 73 (2004) 333– 64. [Hebrew] Russell, John M. Sennacherib’s Palace without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Sæbø, Magne. “Grenzbeschreibung und Landideal im Alten Testament mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der min-ʿad-Formel.” ZDPV 90 (1974) 14–37. _____ .  “Vom Grossreich zum Weltreich.” VT 28 (1978) 83–91. Sahlins, Peter. The Making of France and Spain in the Pyrenees. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Schmitz, Philip C. “Canaan.” Pages 828–31 in vol. 1 of ABD. Schuler, Einar von. “Grenze (B. Nach hethitischen Texten).” Pages 640–43 in RlA. Schwarzenbach, Armin W. Die geographische Terminologie im Hebräischen des Alten Testamentes. Leiden: Brill, 1954. Seeligmann, Isaac Leo. Gesammelte Studien zur hebräischen Bibel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

Bibliography

319

_____ .  “Zur Terminologie für das Gerichtsverfahren im Wortschatz des biblischen Hebräisch.” Pages 251–78 in Hebräisch Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburstag von W. Baumgartner. VTSup 17. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Seidel, Moshe. “Parallels between Isaiah and Psalms.” Sinai 38 (1955–56) 149–72, 229– 42, 272–80, 333–55 [Hebrew]. [ = Pages 1–97 in Studies in the Bible. Jerusalem: HaRav Kook Institute, 1978 (Hebrew).] Seux, Marie-Joseph. Épithètes Royales Akkadiennes et Sumériennes. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1967. Simon, Uriel. Time and Space in Biblical Thinking. Ph.D. Diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1961. [Hebrew] Simons, Jan J. “The Structure and Interpretation of Josh. xvi–xvii.” Pages 190–215 in Orientalia Neerlandica: A Volume of Oriental Studies. Leiden: Brill, 1948. Singer, Itamar. “A Concise History of Amurru.” Pages 135–95 in Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study, vol. 2. Edited by Shlomo Izre'el. HSS 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. _____ .  Hittite Prayers. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2002. _____ .  “A Political History of Ugarit.” Pages 603–733 in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Edited by W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt. HO 39. Leiden: Brill, 1999. _____ . “Western Anatolia in the Thirteenth Century b.c. According to the Hittite Sources.” Anatolian Studies 33 (1983) 205–17. Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930. Slanski, Kathryn. The Babylonian Entitlement Narus (Kudurrus): A Study in Their Form and Function. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2003. Smend, Rudolf. “Das Gesetz und die Völker.” Pages 494–509 in Probleme biblischer Theologie. Edited by H. W. Wolff. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971. _____ .  “Das uneroberte Land.” Pages 91–102 in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten 25. Edited by G. Strecker. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Smith, Henry P. The Books of Samuel. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899. Smith, Mark S. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. VTSup 55. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Soggin, J. Alberto. Joshua: A Commentary. OTL. London: Westminster, 1972. Sollberger, Edmond, and Jean-Robert Kupper. Inscriptions royales summériennes et akkadiennes. Paris: Cerf, 1971. Speiser, Ephraim A. “A Figurative Equivalent for Totality in Akkadian and West Semitic.” JAOS 54 (1934) 200–203. _____ .  Genesis. AB 1. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964. _____ .  Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser. Edited by J. J. Finkelstein and Moshe Greenberg. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967. Stadelmann, Luis I. J. The Hebrew Conception of the World. AnBib 39. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970. Starr, Ivan. Queries to the Sungod. SAA 4. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1990. Steible, Horst. Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. 2 vols. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1982. Stern, Ephraim, and Hayim Tadmor. “Shilton paras (538–332 b.c.e.) [The Persian Empire (538–332 b.c.e.)].” Pages 227–307 in Israel and Judah in the Biblical Period. Edited by I. Ephʿal. Jerusalem: Keter, 1984.

320

Bibliography

Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–84. Sussmann, Yaacov. “The Boundaries of Eretz Israel.” Tarbiz 45 (1976) 213–57. [Hebrew] Tadmor, Hayim. “Assyria and the West: The Ninth Century and Its Aftermath.” Pages 36–48 in Unity and Diversity: Essays in History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Edited by H.  Goedicke and J.  J. M.  Roberts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975. _____ .  “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological-Historical Study.” JCS 12 (1958) 22–40, 77–100. _____ .  “The Decline of Empires in Western Asia ca. 1200 b.c.e.” Pages 1–14 in Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1975). Edited by Frank M. Cross. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1979. _____ .  “Heʿarot le-shurot ha-pticha shel ha-chozeh ha-arami mi-sfireh [Comments on the Opening Lines of the Aramaic Sefire Treaty].” Pages 397–405 in Sepher Shmuel Yeivin. Edited by S. Abramsky et al. Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1970. _____ .  “History and Ideology in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.” Pages 13–33 in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons. Edited by F. M. Fales. Orientis Antiqui Collectio 17. Rome: Istituto per l’Oriente, 1981. _____ .  The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science, 1994. _____ . “Masaʿot ha-milchama ha-ashuriyim le-peleshet [The Assyrian Military Cam­paigns in Philistia].” Pages 397–405 in Sepher Shmuel Yeivin. Edited by S. Abramsky et al. Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1964. _____ .  “Philistia under Assyrian Rule.” BA 29 (1966) 86–102. _____ .  “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography: Cracking the Code of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.” Pages 325–38 in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995. Edited by S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997. _____ .  “The Southern Border of Aram.” Yediot 25 (1961) 201–10. [Hebrew] _____ .  “Tiglath-pileser III in Ancient Palestine.” Shnaton 10 (1986) 179–87. [Hebrew] _____ .  “Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East: An Historian’s Approach.” Pages 127–52 in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book. Edited by Douglas A. Knight and Gene M. Tucker. Chico, CA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1982. _____ .  “World Dominion: The Expanding Horizon of the Assyrian Empire.” Pages 55–62 in Landscapes, Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East: Papers Presented to the XLIV Rencontre assyriologique internationale, Venezia, 7–11 July 1997. Edited by L. Milano et al. Padua: Sargon, 1999. Tadmor, Hayim, and Mordechai Cogan. “Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser in the Book of Kings: Historiographic Considerations.” Bib 60 (1979) 491–508. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The ‘Desert Motif ’ in the Bible and in Qumran Literature.” Pages in 31–63 in Biblical Motifs. Edited by A.  Altmann. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966. _____ .  “‫ הַר‬har; ‫ ִּג ְבעָה‬gibhʿāh.” Pages 427–47 in vol. 3 of TDOT. _____ .  “‫ מדבר‬midbār.” Pages 87–118 in vol. 8 of TDOT. _____ .  “Shophtim perek 1 [Judges 1].” Pages 14–29 in Iyunim be-sepher shophtim. Edited by Y. Grintz, S. Talmon, and Y. Elitzur. Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1966. Tammuz, Oded. “Canaan: A Land without Limits.” UF 33 (2001) 501–43.

Bibliography

321

Thureau-Dangin, Francois. Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften. Leipzig, 1907. Tsafrir, Yoram. “The Security Problems of the Desert Border Area in the Byzantine Period.” Teva Vaaretz 17.5 (1975) 213–18. [Hebrew] Van Seters, John. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1975. Vaux, Roland de. The Early History of Israel. Translated by D. Smith. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1978. _____ .  “Le Pays de Canaan.” Pages 23–30 in Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser. Edited by W. W. Hallo. AOS 53. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1968. _____ .  “Téman: Ville ou région d’Édom?” RB 76 (1969) 379–85. Wasserman, Nathan. Style and Form in Old-Babylonian Literary Texts. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry. JSOTSup 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1984. Wazana, Nili. “From Biqʿat to KTK: ‘All Aram’ in the Sefîre Inscription in the Light of Amos 1:5.” Pages 713–32 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, vol. 2. Edited by C.  Cohen et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. _____ .  “‘I Have Erased the Borders of Peoples” (Isa. 10:13): Border Shifts as an Assyrian Power Tool in ‘The Land of Hatti.’” ErIsr 27 (Miriam and Hayim Tadmor Volume; 2003) 110–21. [Hebrew] _____ . “Natives, Immigrants and the Biblical Perception of Origins in Historical Times.” Tel Aviv 32 (2005) 220–44. _____ .  “The Tribal Boundaries in Light of Tarḫuntašša Border Descriptions.” Shnaton 12 (2000) 165–85. [Hebrew] _____ .  “Water Division in Border Agreements.” SAAB 10 (1996) 55–66. Weidner, Ernst F. Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien. Boghazköi Studien 8–9. Leipzig, 1923. Weinberg, Albert K. Manifest Destiny. Chicago: Quadrangle, 1963. Weinfeld, Moshe. “‫ ברית‬berîth.” Pages 253–79 in vol. 2 of TDOT. _____ .  “The Covenant of Grant in Old Testament and Ancient Near East.” JAOS 90 (1970) 184–293. [= Pages 69–102 in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by F. E. Greenspahn. New York: New York University Press, 1991.] _____ .  Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. [Reprinted: Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.] _____ .  Deuteronomy 1–11. AB 5. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991. _____ .  “The Extent of the Promised Land: The Status of Transjordan.” Pages 59–75 in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. Edited by G. Strecker. Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten 25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. _____ .  The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites. Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies 3. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. _____ .  “Tequphat ha-kibush ve-tequphat ha-shophtim ba-historiographia ha-israelit [The Period of the Conquest and Judges in Israelite Historiography].” Pages 187–205 in Sepher Shmuel Yeivin. Edited by S. Abramsky et al. Jerusalem: KiryatSepher, 1970.

322

Bibliography

Weiss, Meir. The Book of Amos. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992. [Hebrew] Weiss, Raphael. Studies in the Text and Language of the Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981. [Hebrew] Wensinck, Arent J. The Ocean in the Literature of the Western Semites. Amsterdam, 1918. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 12–36: A Commentary. Translated by J. J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984–86. _____ .  The Promises to the Fathers: Studies on the Patriarchal Narratives. Translated by D. E. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. _____ .  “Promise to the Patriarchs.” Pages 690–93 in IDBSup. Wette, Wilhelm M. L. de. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Bibel Alten und Neuen Testamentes. 7th ed. Berlin, 1852. Wevers, John W. Ezekiel. NCB. London: Thomas Nelson, 1969. Whitelam, Keith W. “Israel’s Traditions of Origins: Reclaiming the Land.” JSOT 44 (1989) 19–42. Whiting, Robert M. “Amorite Tribes and Nations of Second-Millennium Western Asia.” Pages 1231–42 in CANE, vol. 2. Whittaker, Charles R. Frontiers of the Roman Empire. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Wijngaards, J. N. M. The Dramatization of Salvific History in the Deuteronomic Schools. OtSt 16. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Wilcke, Claus. “Zur Geschichte der Amurriter in der Ur-III-Zeit.” Die Welt des Orient 5 (1969–70) 1–31. Wildberger, Hans. “‫ שאר‬šʾr To Remain.” Pages 1284–92 in vol. 3 of TLOT. Winter, Irene. “Royal Rhetoric and the Development of Historical Narrative in NeoAssyrian Reliefs.” Studies in Visual Communication 7/2 (1981) 2–38. Wright, David P. The Disposal of Impurity. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Wyatt, Nicholas. “Sea and Desert: Symbolic Geography in West Semitic Religious Thought.” UF 19 (1987) 375–89. Yellin, David. “Horaot nishkachot le-shorashim ivriyim [Forgotten Meanings of Hebrew Roots].” Leš 1 (1929) 1–24. Younger, K. Lawson, Jr. Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing. JSOTSup 98. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. _____ . “The Phoenician Inscription of Azatiwada: An Integrated Reading.” JSS 43 (1998) 11–47. Zakovitch, Yair. “The Exodus from Ur of the Chaldeans: A Chapter in Literary Archaeology.” Pages 429–39 in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levin. Edited by R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo, and L. H. Schiffman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Zertal, Adam. “The Water Factor during the Israelite Settlement Process in Canaan.” Pages 341–52 in Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 b.c.). Edited by M. Heltzer and E. Lipiński. Leuven: Peeters, 1988. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel. Hermeneia. 2 vols. Translated by R. E. Clements. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979–83.

Index of Authors Abel, F.-M.  213, 221, 235, 270 Adams, R.  48, 49 Aharoni, Y.  3, 4, 60, 95, 102, 103, 116, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 141, 142, 146, 151, 155, 157, 162, 165, 175, 195, 199, 213, 221, 223, 224, 225, 229, 254, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 266, 282, 298 Aḥituv, S.  52, 110, 116, 142, 144, 148, 153, 157, 188, 189, 191, 196, 198, 199, 205, 206, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 221, 222, 224, 226, 233, 236, 240, 242, 250, 253, 258, 261, 272 Ahlström, G.  119 Akkermans, P. M.  55 Akzin, B.  19, 21 Albright, W. F.  3, 223, 260 Alt, A.  3, 70, 119, 144, 151, 152, 233, 242, 253, 257, 259, 261, 262, 270 Amir, Y.  114 Anbar, M.  100, 108, 118, 221 Anderson, B.  22 Annus, A.  117 Ariel, I.  109 Astour, M. C.  39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 101 Auld, G. A.  133, 135, 168, 170, 228, 241, 245, 247, 255, 276 Avalos, H.  172 Avishur, Y.  120 Avi-Yonah, M.  16

Baltzer, K.  127 Baradez, J.  16

Bar-Ilan, M.  129 Barr, J.  70 Barré, M. L.  120 Bartlett, J. R.  108 Beckerath, J. von  51 Beckman, G.  24, 25, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 160, 162, 163, 172, 263, 270, 273 Beit-Arieh, I.  151, 157 Ben-Dov, M.  247 Benjamin, P.  195 Berg, S. B.  80 Bienkowski, P.  153 Birley, E.  16 Boadt, L.  169 Bodde, D.  16 Boling, R. G.  191, 221, 233, 240 Boman, T.  13, 72 Boorer, S.  86 Bordreuil, P.  40, 43 Borger, R.  286 Brawer, M.  22 Briar, I.  20 Bright, J.  213, 226, 235 Brongers, H. A.  61, 64 Bryce, T. R.  40, 264 Bunimovitz, S.  143 Burney, C. F.  291, 292

Cagni, L.  117 Caminos, R. A.  144 Cassuto, U.  88, 107, 111

323

324

Index of Authors

Chay, J.  20 Childs, B. S.  99 Clements, R. E.  102, 108 Cogan, M.  100, 157, 289 Cohen, R.  153, 156, 157 Conklin, B. W.  20 Cooke, G. A.  51, 169, 170, 171, 174, 214, 221, 230 Cooper, J. S.  27, 28, 29, 121 Craigie, P. C.  127 Cressey, G. B.  289 Cross, F. M.  257, 261, 262 Curzon, G. N.  108

Dagan, Y.  262 Daube, D.  91, 92 Demsky, A.  79, 190, 221 Dhorme, É.  211 Diakonov, I. M.  29, 30 Diepold, P.  66, 109, 113, 116, 200, 201, 204 Dijk, H. J. van  117, 180 Dillmann, A.  66 Donbaz, V.  45, 162, 285 Dossin, G.  23 Driver, S. R.  86, 113, 177, 211, 222, 230 Drummond, S. K.  16 Durand, J.-M.  23

Ephʿal, I.  120, 151

Fales, F. M.  125 Febvre, L.  22 Fenton, T.  172 Finkelstein, I.  153 Fischer, A.  62 Fitzmyer, J. A.  224 Fleming, D. E.  128 Forrer, E.  50, 165, 173 Foster, B. R.  117 Frandsen, P. J.  142, 144 Frankena, R.  127 Frayne, D. R.  46 Friedrich, J.  12, 25, 34, 35, 36, 38 Fritz, V.  199 Fuchs, A.  287

Edel, E.  144, 162 Edelman, D.  211 Ehrlich, A. B.  92, 108, 109, 113, 196, 208

Gadd, C. J.  48 Galán, J. M.  12, 46, 47, 51 Galil, G.  79, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 113, 114, 188, 217, 218, 221, 233, 260 Gardiner, A. H.  162, 163 Garstang, J.  172, 263 Gelb, I. J.  29, 48 Gevaryahu, H.  180 Gichon, M.  16 Ginsberg, H. L.  64, 120, 155 Ginzberg, L.  87 Goelet, O.  86 Goldingay, J.  87

Eichrodt, W.  131, 168, 169 Eliezer, R.  92 Elliger, K.  131, 162, 172 Emerton, J. A.  90, 148 Engelhard, D. H.  170, 182

Goldstein, R.  209 Gordon, E. I.  35 Götze, A.  24, 25, 32, 33, 36, 43, 50, 163, 164, 172 Gray, G. B.  108, 131, 165, 169, 293

Index of Authors Grayson, A. K.  46, 54, 55, 62, 64, 65, 69, 79, 120, 121, 122, 123 Greenberg, M.  168, 180, 181, 182, 217, 218 Grintz, Y.  52, 144 Grosby, S.  22, 23, 63 Gurney, O. R.  21, 172, 263 Güterbock, H. G.  49

Ha, J.  99 Haase, R.  275 Hagelia, H.  100, 102, 116 Haldar, A. O.  114, 115, 116 Hallo, W. W.  29 Handel, M.  18 Haran, M.  177, 281 Havers, W.  62 Hawkins, J. D.  31, 35, 263, 266 Heinhold-Krahmer, S.  30, 33, 35, 36, 50 Heltzer, M.  43 Herodotus  95, 107, 114, 289, 290, 292 Hertzberg, H. W.  119 Herzfeld, E. E.  48, 54 Hess, R. S.  143, 216, 263, 274 Hoffman, Y.  294 Hoffmann, I.  21 Hoffmeier, J. K.  51, 52 Hofmann, J. B.  62 Hölscher, G.  99, 108 Honeyman, A. M.  60, 61, 62, 70, 73, 74, 77 Hooker, P. K.  284 Horowitz, W.  107, 116, 229 Hout, T. P. J.  21, 30, 31, 35, 263 Houwink ten Cate, P. H. J.  38 Hurvitz, A.  58, 147 Hutchens, K. D.  128, 143 Isaac, B.  20, 45

325

Ishida, T.  61, 101, 102

Jacobsen, T.  28, 115, 121 Janzen, W.  125 Japhet, S.  63, 95, 101, 231, 239, 261, 292 Jeremias, A.  109 Jewell, E. R.  50 Jones, S. B.  13 Joosten, J.  90 Josephus  87, 292 Joüon, P.  138

Kaiser, O.  100, 107, 111, 293, 294 Kallai, Z.  3, 60, 78, 79, 103, 114, 132, 134, 137, 145, 153, 154, 173, 188, 217, 218, 219, 220, 242, 253, 255, 258, 259, 260, 261, 266, 269, 271, 291 Kalluveettil, P.  127 Katzenstein, H. J.  53, 180, 189 Kaufmann, Y.  101, 104, 110, 113, 120, 131, 169, 188, 199, 205, 214, 217, 221, 227, 232, 233, 240, 242, 245, 259, 293 Kelle, B. E.  123 Kemp, B. J.  144 Kestemont, G.  14, 163 King, L. W.  29 Klengel, H.  38, 39, 264 Knauf, E. A.  157 Knoppers, G.  119 Kochavi, M.  282 Kochman, M.  290 Kogut, S.  156 Korošec, V.  163 Kosovsky, M.  58 Krašovec, J.  59, 61, 62 Kraus, F. R.  152

326

Index of Authors

Kraus, H. J.  121 Kühne, C.  24 Kupper, J.-R.  23, 27

Langdon, S. H.  162, 163 Leichty, E.  288 Lemche, N. P.  95, 143 Lenzen, C. J.  157 Levin, Y.  191 Levi, T. E.  153, 157 Levine, B. A.  132, 146, 149, 150, 161, 165, 281 Licht, J.  88, 150 Limpens, J.  55 Lissovsky, N.  134, 151, 250, 258, 275, 298 Liverani, M.  17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 54, 62, 100, 107, 112, 119, 122, 124, 125, 221 Loewenstamm, S.  100, 102, 106, 112, 203, 216, 283 Lohfink, N.  101, 102 Luckenbill, D. D.  46 Luria, B.-Z.  172 Luzzatto, S. D.  71

Machinist, P.  95 Machlin, R.  72 Malamat, A.  46, 53, 119, 120 Malkin, I.  26 Malul, M.  92, 93, 228 Marcus, M. I.  122 Marfoe, L.  143, 164 May, H. G.  120 Mazar, B.  3, 79, 103, 119, 131, 132, 141, 153, 161, 162, 165, 169, 171, 172, 173, 180, 194, 195, 242, 261, 270, 278, 280

Mazor, L.  111, 113, 123, 159, 219, 245, 246, 255 McCarter, P. K., Jr.  119 McCarthy, D. J.  14, 127, 163 Mellor, R. E. H.  22 Mendenhall, G. E.  127 Meshel, Z.  148, 151, 194 Meyer, E.  66, 212 Michalowski, P.  48, 117 Mitmann, S.  160 Mizrachi, N.  156 Monte, G. F. del  179 Moore, G. F.  234 Morag, S.  13, 193 Mowinckel, S.  247 Muffs, Y.  71 Muraoka, T.  138 Musil, A.  194

Naʾaman, N.  3, 52, 53, 95, 103, 125, 132, 134, 137, 142, 143, 144, 145, 151, 188, 189, 212, 213, 220, 221, 248, 250, 257, 258, 260, 262, 274, 275, 280, 283, 285, 286, 287, 288, 298 Naveh, J.  120 Nelson, L. H.  16 Nelson, R. D.  188, 189 Nemet-Nejat, K. R.  29, 133 Nicol, G.  87 Niehaus, J.  192 Noort, E.  204 North, R.  278 Noth, M.  1, 3, 67, 113, 131, 135, 141, 146, 196, 203, 204, 205, 208, 214, 219, 221, 226, 228, 230, 233, 240, 256, 257, 259 O’Connor, M. P.  62 Oded, B.  121, 152, 162, 165, 166, 173, 293

Index of Authors Oppenheim, A. L.  20, 47 Oren, E. D.  52, 53 Orlinsky, H.  85, 93 Otten, H. G.  21, 24, 30, 31, 266 Ottosson, M.  12, 160 Otzen, B.  55, 165, 173

Palache, J. B.  12, 13 Pardee, D.  40, 115 Parker, B. J.  15, 19, 22, 55 Paul, S.  73, 81, 118, 282 Perlitt, L.  99, 100 Philo  87 Polanyi, K.  18 Polybius  19 Pope, M. H.  111 Prescott, J. R. V.  14, 16 Press, I.  172 Puhvel, J.  21, 107

Rabinowitz, J. J.  93 Rad, G. von  1, 98, 102 Radak  119, 294 Rainey, A. F.  95, 189, 283, 289, 292 Rashbam  73, 110, 116 Rashi  119, 136, 294 Ratzel, F.  15 Redford, D. B.  47, 51, 142, 144 Rendsburg, G.  102 Rentdorff, R.  100 Reymond, P.  107, 108, 111, 112, 120 Richter, W.  101 Rofé, A.  298 Ross, T. E.  20 Russell, J. M.  124 Sæbø, M.  60, 66, 110, 114, 116, 132, 278

327

Sahlins, P.  15 Schmitz, P. C.  95 Schuler, E. von  21, 25, 39, 49, 50 Schwarzenbach, A. W.  114 Seeligman, I. L.  85, 100 Seidel, M.  147, 151 Seux, M.-J.  25, 54, 120 Simon, U.  13, 61, 72 Simons, J. J.  139, 254, 269 Singer, I.  24, 33, 38, 39, 40, 43 Skinner, J.  71, 90, 100, 101, 103, 108, 154 Slanski, K.  29 Smend, R.  208, 227, 228, 233, 234 Smith, H. P.  119 Smith, M. S.  107 Soggin, J. A.  66, 208, 221, 226, 229, 235 Sollberger, E.  27 Speiser, E. A.  71, 86, 108, 111 Spoor, R. H.  55 Stadelmann, L. I. J.  111, 112, 114 Starr, I.  289 Steible, H.  27, 28, 29, 121 Steinkeller, P.  29 Stern, E.  289, 290 Stern, M.  290 Strabo  19 Sussmann, Y.  129

Tacitus  20 Tadmor, H.  19, 24, 25, 26, 54, 55, 100, 121, 125, 128, 142, 157, 160, 164, 173, 197, 280, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 Talmon, S.  13, 74, 80, 109, 113, 115, 117, 118, 247 Tammuz, O.  76, 95, 115, 130, 143, 144, 167, 221 Thureau-Dangin, F.  27

328

Index of Authors

Tischler, J.  179 Tsafrir, Y.  16

Van Seters, J.  99 Vaux, R. de  132, 148, 169, 170, 173, 221 Virgil  19

Wasserman, N.  61, 62 Watson, W. G. E.  59, 61, 66 Wazana, N.  21, 30, 36, 152, 160, 224, 234, 263, 285 Weidner, E. F.  38, 162, 163, 172, 287 Weinberg, A. K.  108 Weinfeld, M.  37, 66, 73, 85, 90, 93, 96, 98, 99, 103, 104, 106, 109, 113, 114, 119, 123, 127, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 203, 204, 210, 213, 217, 226, 227, 230, 292 Weiss, M.  81, 118, 119 Weiss, R.  147 Wensinck, A. J.  107 Westermann, C.  76, 93, 108

Wette, W. M. L. de  293 Wevers, J. W.  169 Whitelam, K. W.  88 Whiting, R. M., Jr.  23, 29 Whittaker, C. R.  15, 16, 18, 19 Wijngaards, J. N. M.  109, 110, 204 Wilcke, C.  48 Wildberger, H.  210 Winter, I.  124, 125 Wright, D. P.  115, 117, 118 Wright, G. E.  257, 261, 262 Wyatt, N.  116

Yellin, D.  64 Yisrael, Y.  156, 157 Younger, K. L., Jr.  56, 74, 187

Zakovitch, Y.  86, 87, 104, 109, 114, 217, 218, 221, 233, 260 Zertal, A.  265, 272 Zimmerli, W.  168, 171, 176

Index of Scripture Genesis

1  85 1–11  85 1:1–2  85 1:10  85 1:28  86 1:29  72 2:10  111 2:11  111, 212 2:14  109 6:7  63, 66 6:11–12  85 7:23  63, 66 9:1  86 10:19  155, 156, 189 10:29  212 11:1  85, 86 11:10–26  87 11:28–32  87 11:31  75 11:51  86 12  86 12:1  75, 87, 90, 92 12:4–5  86 12:5  86 12:6  86, 220, 222 12:7  1, 88, 89 12:8  81 12:10–20  52 13:3  76 13:5–12  76 13:6  154 13:7  222 13:10  154 13:12  154, 155, 156 13:14–15  81, 92 13:14–17  1, 89 13:16  292 13:17  92 14  154 14:2  155

Genesis (cont.)

14:2–3  156 14:3  154 14:5  278 14:8  155 14:23  71 15  99, 100, 108, 118 15:5  292 15:7  1, 89, 102 15:16  222 15:18  7, 99, 104, 108, 110, 204, 292 15:18–21  1, 89, 90, 97, 99, 102, 297 15:19–21  101, 105 17:5  156 17:8  1, 89, 220 18:11  228 18:25  62 19:4  77 19:20  156 19:20–23  156 19:28  154 19:29  154 21:34  197 22  87 22:2  87 22:17  292 24:1  227 24:3  222 24:7  1, 89 24:37  222 25:17  212 25:18  211, 212 26:2  52 26:3  89 26:4  292 27:11  194 28:4  1, 89 28:13  1, 89 28:14  292

329

Genesis (cont.)

31:13  91 31:24  61 32:11  104 33:13  192 34:30  222 35:12  1, 90 36:37  108 37:34  197 42:1–5  52 42:9  93 42:12  93 43:1–2  52 45:6  74 46:28  191 47:1–11  52 48:4  1, 90 48:22  193, 222 50:24  91

Exodus

3:8  101, 222 3:17  101, 222 9:25  66 11:5  66, 72 12:12  66 12:29  66, 72 13:9  73 13:11  220, 221 15:5  111 15:8  111 15:17  12 17:7  177 19:12  12 19:23  12 21–23  99 22:3  63 22:5  78 22:8  64 22:9  64 23:11  78

330 Exodus (cont.)

23:20–33  98, 99 23:23  99, 101, 105 23:27  99 23:28  99, 105 23:28–31  93, 97, 98 23:29–30  99, 197 23:29–33  209, 234 23:31  1, 7, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110, 113, 114, 204, 297 23:32–33  209 23:33  99 27:12  81 28:14  12 28:22  12 32:13  91 33:2  101, 222 34:11  101 34:21  73 39:15  12

Leviticus

13:12  71, 78 16:7–10  118 16:22  118 20:24  90 25:46  168

Numbers

1–20  281 3:13  66 5:2–3  61 6:4  70 11:19  192 11:35  215 12:16  281 13:3  281 13:17  281 13:21  2, 8, 65, 194, 233, 277, 281 13:21–23  281 13:26  281 13:29  220, 222 20:1  281 20:1–13  177 20:13  177 20:15  197

Index of Scripture Numbers (cont.)

21:11  212 21:13  65, 160, 180, 285 21:25  193 21:26  65 21–36  150, 165 22:36  65 23:28  12 26:33  247 27:1–11  133, 247 27:14  177, 281 27:24  177 31:2  236 31:6  236 32  133, 182, 203 32:4  203 32:5  91 32:7  203 32:8  281 32:18  168 33  134 33:8  136, 137 33:36  281 33:51  90 33:54  133, 168 34  103, 132, 156, 159, 172, 175, 181, 232, 240, 242, 243, 277, 280 34:1–12  7, 32, 94, 96, 104, 127, 128, 129, 136, 139, 147, 150, 167, 188, 225, 231, 276, 297 34:2  105, 166, 168, 243 34:3  138, 147, 149, 154, 156, 282 34:3–4  138, 213, 282 34:3–5  132, 139, 176, 241 34:3–12  241 34:4  105, 135, 136, 146, 189, 194, 222 34:4–5  136 34:5  136, 154, 157, 284 34:6  159, 160, 178, 179, 241 34:7–8  145, 165, 174

Numbers (cont.)

34:7–9  145, 161, 171 34:8  136, 158, 167, 279, 282 34:8–9  158 34:9  135 34:9–10  167 34:10  145, 164 34:10–11  175, 242 34:10–12  161 34:11  137, 146 34:11–12  135 34:12  136, 166, 241 34:13  168, 245 34:13–29  133 34:16–18  245 34:21  279 35  133 35:4–5  181 35:5  161 35:10  90 35:14  203 36:1  133

Deuteronomy

1–3  203 1:1–4:43  204 1:6  98 1:7  7, 93, 98, 109, 116, 191, 193, 204, 220, 297 1:7–8  1, 97 1:8  37, 98 1:10  98 1:18  98 1:19  281 1:21  98 1:23  98 1:28  216 1:29  98 1:35  104 1:40  104 1:44  222 2  2, 94 2:5  37, 126 2:9  37, 126 2:10  215 2:19  37, 126

Index of Scripture Deuteronomy (cont.)

2:20  215 2:21  215 2:23  215 2:26–36  198 2:29  200, 201 2:34–35  203 3  182 3:6–7  203 3:8–9  194 3:12  91 3:14  193, 211 3:16  160 3:16–17  178 3:17  160, 282 3:23–29  200 3:25  116, 194 3:27  81, 148 3:34  200 4:14  90, 98, 201 4:21–22  200 4:22  98, 201 4:26  90, 98, 201 4:45–49  204 4:47–49  68 4:49  282 6:1  90, 98, 201 6:7–9  72 6:11  78 7  99 7:1  99, 101, 215 7:1–2  198 7:13  98 7:16  99 7:20  99 7:22  99, 197, 209, 234 7:22–26  209 7:23  99 8:1  98 9:1  98, 201 9:1–2  216 9:1–3  216 9:3  197 9:5  98 11:8  90, 98, 201 11:9  98 11:11  90, 98, 201 11:21  98

Deuteronomy (cont.)

11:24  1, 7, 66, 93, 98, 106, 108, 110, 113, 116, 123, 204, 297 11:24–25  125 11:25  105 11:31  98, 201 11:31–32  201 12:1  201 12:10  204 12:20  204 17:19  73 19:2  203 19:8–9  204 19:14  12 20:15  203 20:16–18  198 20:17  101, 200 26:3  98 27:2–3  202 27:3  73 27:8  73 28:11  98 28:35  71, 77, 78 29:22  155, 156 30:18  90, 98, 201 30:20  98 31:2  228 31:6  98 31:7  98 31:8  98 31:13  90, 98, 201 32:8  11, 27 32:47  90, 98, 201 32:51  177, 281 33:2  148 33:8  177 34  155, 156 34:1–4  91, 155 34:3  155, 156

Joshua

1  98, 205, 298, 301 1–12  7, 185, 208, 233, 236, 240, 250, 298 1:2  98, 126, 202 1:2–4  1 1:3  125, 204

331 Joshua (cont.)

1:3–4  98, 123, 126 1:3–5  105 1:4  7, 65, 66, 93, 98, 104, 106, 109, 113, 116, 123, 159, 205, 297 1:5  236 1:5–9  98 1:6  98 1:8  73 1:11  90, 98, 201 1:12–18  203 1:13  91, 203 1:15  203 3–4  112, 202, 204 3:1  75 3:10  101 3:15  197 3:16  282 4:14  100 4:23  202 5:1  202, 220 5:2–9  202 5:12  202 6–10  187 6–11  199 6:3  192 6:11  192 6:14  192 6:21  63 8:13–14  139 8:14  139 8:30–35  202 9–10  189, 190 9–12  187 9:1  101, 159, 193, 200 9:6  250 10  187, 300 10–11  238, 300 10–12  226, 235 10:5–6  222 10:6  223, 250 10:9–10  75 10:10–12  199 10:14  197, 250 10:15  250 10:28  198

332 Joshua (cont.)

10:30  198 10:33  198 10:37  198 10:39–40  198 10:40  199, 207 10:40–41  67 10:40–42  2, 185, 187, 193 10:41  193, 250, 279 10:42  196, 197 10:43  250 11  192, 195, 200, 205, 236, 300 11:1–9  196 11:2  247 11:2–3  233 11:3  101, 196, 222, 223, 229, 250 11:6–8  197 11:7  197 11:8  196, 218, 223, 224, 233, 250 11:11  198, 210 11:12–17  207 11:14  198 11:16  191, 195, 199, 205, 226, 300 11:16–17  2, 61, 67, 185, 192, 196, 199, 225, 278 11:16–20  185, 201 11:17  199, 200, 206, 218, 223, 225, 226, 231, 250, 261 11:18  196, 236, 250 11:18–20  196 11:19  190 11:19–20  198 11:21  193, 216 11:21–22  205, 206 11:22  210, 215, 216 11:23  205, 206, 208, 237 12  198, 200, 202, 240, 300 12:1  65, 194, 202 12:3  282

Index of Scripture Joshua (cont.)

12:5  211 12:6  202 12:6–7  206, 236 12:7  194, 199, 200, 202, 205, 218, 223, 225, 226, 231, 250, 261, 278, 300 12:7–8  2, 67, 185, 201 12:7–24  198 12:8  101, 191, 193 12:23  247 13  196, 205, 217, 229, 298 13–19  143, 167, 240 13–21  226 13–22  240 13:1  207, 208, 226, 235 13:1–6  2, 7, 207, 210, 220, 225, 228, 230, 232, 237, 238, 240 13:2–3  232 13:2–4  211 13:2–5  67 13:2–6  67, 195, 225, 232 13:3  108, 215, 229, 232 13:4  66, 213, 220, 223, 230 13:4–6  224 13:5  76, 109, 194, 223, 225, 226, 233, 279 13:6  76, 168, 196, 223, 227, 233, 237, 301 13:7  181, 217 13:7–8  113, 159, 238 13:7–19:49  299 13:7–19:51  2, 244 13:7–21:43  7 13:7–21:45  240 13:8  113, 224, 244 13:8–32  133, 244 13:9–13  67 13:11  211 13:13  210, 211, 218 13:15  251 13:16  251 13:16–23  67

Joshua (cont.)

13:23  160, 178, 251 13:24  251 13:24–26  251 13:25  251 13:25–27  67 13:27  160, 178, 251 13:29  251 13:30  251 13:30–31  67 14  206 14:1  244, 245, 246 14:1–5  133 14:2  246 14:6  244, 258 14:6–15  247 14:12–15  206, 216 15  148, 149, 153, 156 15–16  226 15–17  244 15–19  32, 128, 131, 132, 220, 251, 297, 298 15:1  138, 147, 194, 245, 251, 270, 273 15:1–4  133, 139, 176, 180 15:1–12  151 15:2  147, 149, 153, 156, 176, 251, 269 15:2–4  213 15:3  134, 135, 136, 141, 146, 154, 189 15:3–4  134, 136 15:4  135, 136, 149, 218, 241, 284 15:5  147, 150, 153, 241 15:5–6  264 15:5–9  253 15:5–11  138, 275 15:6  138, 157, 254, 300 15:6–7  136 15:6–8  135 15:7  136, 138, 177, 209, 264, 265 15:8  137, 266 15:9  134, 135, 136, 138, 265

Index of Scripture Joshua (cont.)

15:10  134, 135, 136, 138, 154, 265, 266 15:10–11  136, 137, 257 15:11  134, 135, 136, 152, 241, 249 15:12  147, 159, 160, 178, 179, 241, 243 15:13–17  216 15:13–19  181, 247 15:13–20  272 15:20–21  148 15:21  138, 148, 151, 194, 270, 273 15:24  211 15:32  255 15:33  257 15:36  255 15:41  255 15:44  255 15:45–47  218, 274 15:46–47  284, 288 15:47  160, 178, 189 15:51  191, 255 15:54  255 15:57  255 15:59–60  255 15:61  254 15:62  255 15:63  210, 218, 219, 222, 245, 247, 272 16  262 16:1  135, 138, 245, 266 16:1–2  138 16:1–3  246, 254, 255 16:1–10  254 16:2  134, 135, 136 16:3  135, 136, 241 16:4  137, 246 16:5  251, 254 16:6  134, 135, 136, 154, 254, 269 16:7  135, 137, 241 16:8  136, 138, 241, 251 16:8–9  254 16:9  246, 254 16:10  210, 216, 218, 245, 247

Joshua (cont.)

17:1  148, 245, 246, 247 17:1–2  251 17:2  246 17:3–6  133, 247 17:6  246 17:7  136, 150, 251, 271, 273 17:7–9  254 17:7–10  254 17:7–13  268, 271 17:8  271 17:8–9  254 17:8–12  246 17:9  135, 138, 241, 272 17:10  137, 241, 246, 260, 268, 273 17:11  247, 248, 254 17:11–12  245 17:11–13  218, 247 17:12  210 17:14–18  181, 247 17:18  135 17:19  137 17:27  137 18:1  246, 249, 299 18:1–10  133, 181, 245, 248, 258 18:3  249 18:4  92 18:5  245 18:8–9  133 18:9  268 18:10  181, 246 18:11  147, 180, 251 18:12  135, 136, 137, 139, 150, 251, 266 18:12–13  137, 254 18:13  135, 136, 138, 254 18:13–14  138 18:14  135, 136, 154, 157 18:14–15  150 18:14–19  253, 275 18:15  134, 135, 138, 154, 265 18:15–19  138

333 Joshua (cont.)

18:16  137, 265, 266 18:16–18  135 18:17  135, 136, 138, 209, 264, 265 18:18  254 18:18–19  136, 137 18:19  135, 136, 153, 242, 254, 264 18:20  12, 150, 241, 243 18:21  137, 251, 254 18:22  254 18:23  255 18:24  255 18:25  190 18:28  255 19  242, 243 19:1  148, 251, 254 19:1–10  254 19:6–7  255 19:8  251 19:9  254 19:10  251, 252 19:11  137, 138 19:12  135, 136, 139 19:12–13  135 19:13  136, 253 19:14  136 19:15  253, 255 19:17–21  253 19:17–23  241, 248 19:18  139 19:22  137, 138, 253, 255 19:22–23  136 19:24–31  248, 253, 270 19:26  137, 213, 214, 270 19:27  135, 136, 260, 273 19:28  219, 252 19:28–30  248 19:29  136, 241, 242 19:30  219, 255 19:32–34  253 19:33  242, 253 19:34  81, 135, 136, 137, 242, 260, 273

334 Joshua (cont.)

19:35–38  253 19:38  255 19:40–45  242 19:40–46  248 19:41–45  253 19:46  254 19:47  247, 248, 249, 250 19:48  248, 257 19:49  243, 299 19:51  245 20–21  133 21  206, 298 21:41–43  235 21:42  227 22:9–34  209 22:10  209 22:25  160, 180, 285 23  227, 228, 237, 238 23:1  208 23:4  112, 159, 168, 209, 227, 238 23:7  209 23:12  209, 210 23:13  99 23:14  235 23:16  209 24:2  87 24:3  92, 220 24:11  101, 222 24:12  99 24:15  222 24:18  100

Judges

1  210, 222, 226, 247, 248, 249, 257, 272, 299 1–3  298 1:9  220 1:10–15  272 1:11–15  247 1:18  189 1:21  210, 222, 247, 272 1:27  272 1:27–28  247 1:27–33  222

Index of Scripture Judges (cont.)

1:27–35  210 1:29  247 1:30–33  248 1:31  248 1:32–33  210 1:33  248 1:34–35  222, 249 1:35  257 1:36  222, 223, 231, 239, 279 2:3  99 2:20–3:6  234 2:21  209 2:21–23  227 2:22  209 2:23  197, 209 3  230 3:1  209, 228 3:1–3  228, 229, 230, 237 3:2  209 3:3  195, 220, 230, 239, 279 3:4  209 3:4–6  209 3:5  101 3:11  206 3:28  202 3:30  206 5:4  148 5:31  206 6:4  189 6:10  100 7:24  202 8:28  206 9  69 9:8–9  69 9:11–13  69 9:15  69 11:14–15  94 11:26  150 12:5  202 15:5  78 17:8  74 18:1  168, 250 19:18  74 19:29  12

Judges (cont.) 19:38  248 20:1  58

1 Samuel

3:20  58, 76 6:12  12 6:16  229 7:14  100, 209 8:5  228 10:2  12 12:2  227 13:18  12 15:3  71 15:4  211, 212 15:7  212 17  216 17:50  205 22:19  63, 71 23–26  115 24:5–7  220 26:8  192 27:8  211, 238 31:6  205

2 Samuel

3:10  58 5:11  120 5:25  190 6:1  231 8:1–2  119 8:3  119, 281 8:6  119 8:8  172 8:12  281 8:14  119 10:6  281 10:7–11  119 10:15–19  119 10:19  119 13:37–38  211 14:25  71, 77, 78 17:11  58 20:2  74 21:15–22  216 23:8  192 24  134 24:1  63

Index of Scripture 2 Samuel (cont.) 24:2  58 24:5  136 24:5–7  134 24:6–7  219 24:7  134 24:16  58

1 Kings

1:1  228 2:46  291 3:8  292 4:7–19  258 4:9  257 4:11  247 4:14  148 4:20  292 4:20–5:1  291 5:1  110, 287, 292, 295 5:4  189, 290, 292 5:4–5  291 5:5  58, 291 5:7  291 5:13  70 5:15–26  120 5:22–24  120 6:15–16  59 7:9  59 8:65  2, 108, 278, 279, 284, 295 15:20  165 21:26  100

2 Kings

8:12  120 8:21  157 10:32–33  65 12:18  120 13:3  120 13:22  120 14:25  2, 278, 279, 282, 283 15:29  165 17:9  67 18:8  67 23:8  79, 190 23:33  165

2 Kings (cont.)

24:7  108, 110, 284, 287, 289, 293, 294, 295 25:21  165

Isaiah

1:6  71, 78 1:9  156 2:20  100 3:9  156 6:7  180 7:20  108 8:7  108 9:13  192 10:13  14, 39 10:17  192 11:11–16  294 11:15  108, 153 13:19  156 13:21  114 14:2  168 15:5  156 15:7  282 19:5  111 19:23  212 21:1  115 23:3  212 26:19  101 27  293 27:1  107, 111 27:12  108, 284, 295 27:12–13  293 34:11–14  115 40:12  117 40:28  114 43:6  148 44:13  136 47:9  192 49:12  80 66:8  192

Jeremiah

1:9  180 2:6  115 2:18  212, 214 2:31  115 5:22  12, 107

335 Jeremiah (cont.)

6:22  114 15:18  112 23:14  156 25:32–33  115 32:6–12  92 39:5  165 43:7  75 47:4  215 48:34  156 49:7  148 49:18  156 50:3  66 50:40  156 51:36  111 52:9  165 52:26–27  165

Ezekiel

3:1  180 9:4  161 11:10–11  13 14:13  66 14:14  180 14:17  66 14:19  66 14:20  180 14:21  66 16:3  220, 221 25:13  148 27  180 28:3  180 29:10  51 30:6  51 32:2  111 36:1–4  193 36:11  66 39:2  13 39:4  13 40–48  169 40:1  168 40:5  174 40:12  12 40:20  174 41:20  59 42:20  174 43:13  12 43:17  12

336 Ezekiel (cont.)

43:20  12 45:1  168 45:3  174 47–48  2, 155, 231, 241 47:8  209 47:13  168, 182 47:13–20  128, 240 47:13–48:1  128 47:13–48:28  297 47:13–48:29  167, 170, 182, 277 47:13–48:35  7, 104 47:14  105, 168, 181, 182, 232, 235 47:14–48:35  32 47:15  167, 232, 279 47:15–16  171 47:16  129, 167, 173 47:16–18  169 47:17  167, 171, 172, 175, 178, 232 47:18  129, 156, 166, 167, 175, 242, 283 47:19  75, 156, 167, 174, 176, 177, 178, 284 47:19–20  167 47:20  160, 178, 179, 279 47:21–22  182 47:22  168 48  181 48:1  128, 149, 167, 170, 171, 172, 175, 179, 279 48:1–8  177 48:2–8  75 48:21  156 48:22  180 48:23  167 48:23–27  177 48:28  128, 150, 156, 174, 176, 177, 178, 232, 284 48:29  105, 168, 182 48:30  135

Index of Scripture Hosea

7:11  212 11:8  155, 156

Joel

2:20  174 4:4  209

Amos

1:3  120 1:5  224 1:12  148 2:9  100 3:2  118 3:15  73 5:18–20  118 6:11  73 6:13  282 6:14  2, 278, 279, 282, 283 8:12  81, 118 9:7  118, 215 9:11  100

Obadiah

9  148

Jonah

3:4  192

Micah

4:4  291 5:3  118

Nahum

1:4  111

Habakkuk

3:3  148 3:5  111 3:6  117

Zephaniah 2:9  156

Zechariah 2:8  66 8:7  80

Zechariah (cont.) 9:1  81 9:2  12 9:10  118 14:8  174

Malachi

1:3–5  13

Psalms

1:6  62 2:8  118 18:44–48  118 24:1–2  111, 121 29  117, 120 29:3–8  120 48:11  114 60:2  119 63:2  115 66:6  112 68:21  136 72:8  81, 114, 118 74:13–15  107 75:7  80 78:54  12 80:12  118 81:8  177 89:26  118 95:8  177 104:9  11, 107 106:9  111 106:32  177 106:43  192 107:3  80 107:33  116 107:35  116 114  117 135:8  66

Job

2:7  71, 77, 78 6:15  112 7:12  107 26:12–13  107 30:3  115 30:8  115 38:26  114 40:23  112

Index of Scripture Proverbs

4:23  136 8:27–29  107 21:16  101

Qohelet

1:6  81 3:17  62 7:22  192

Esther

1:1  67, 79, 80

Ezra

4:10–11  289 4:16–17  289 4:20  289 5:3  289 5:6  289 6:6  289

Ezra (cont.)

6:8  289 6:13  289 7:21  289 7:25  289 8:36  289 9:1  101

Nehemiah

2:7  289 2:9  289 3:7  289 3:20–21  59 3:24  59 3:27  59 9:8  101

1 Chronicles 5:16  135 5:23  195

337 1 Chronicles (cont.)

11:11  192 13:5  108, 212, 231, 279 14:16  190 18:3  119 21:1  63 21:2  58 22:9  292 23:1  227 29:28  227

2 Chronicles

7:8  2, 278, 279, 284, 295 9:26  291 16:4  165 17:2  261 26:9–14  261 30:5  58

Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books 1 Maccabees

11:59  291

Index of Subjects, Geographical Names, and Personal Names Abdadānu (land)  69 Abdi-Anati (king of Siyannu)  41 Abdi-Ninurta (king of Amurru)  42 Abijah (king of Judah)  259 Abra(ha)m  7, 37, 62, 70–71, 75, 76, 86–92, 96–100, 102, 104, 125, 154–156, 227–228, 297 Absalom 78 Acco (city)  219, 221 Achsah (daughter of Caleb)  246–247 Achshaph (city)  195 Achzib (city)  242 Adad (god)  23 Adad-nirari I (king of Assyria)  54, 79 Adad-nirari III (king of Assyria)  123 Adana, Plain of  56 Adaniya (city, place)  172 see also Adana, Plain of Addar (border site of the tribe of Judah)  140–141, 176 see also Hazar-addar Admah (city)  155, 156 Adullam 199 Ahasuerus  67, 79–80, 289 see also Xerxes Ahhiyawa (land)  24 Ai  76, 199 Aijalon  249, 257 Ain  161, 165 Akkadian (language)  12, 19, 35, 38–39, 42, 58, 71, 78, 79, 92, 114, 117, 124, 141, 150, 160, 162, 193, 269, 288, 289 Alalakh (city)  38, 115 Algeria 16 A-Lisan 153 Allabria (city)  69 Amalek/Amalekites  71, 211–213 Amanah/Amanus, mountains of  45, 65, 69, 122, 123, 221

Amenhotep II (king of Egypt)  280 Amenhotep III (king of Egypt)  47 Ammon/Ammonites  2, 37, 94, 119, 215, 251 Amon Temple (Karnak)  52 Amorites  65, 66, 68, 89, 97, 100, 101, 103, 180, 186, 198, 200, 207, 209, 215, 217, 221–224, 231, 249, 257, 285 Amurru (land)  24, 37–38, 122, 123, 221, 287 Amutpiel (king of Qatna)  23 Anakite/Anakites (land/people)  193, 205–206, 215–216 see also Raphah Anamusta (place)  179 Anatolia  15, 32, 33–34, 49–50, 263 Aner 71 Anta (city)  267 Antakya, Stele of  45, 285 Anti-Lebanon  194, 223, 224 see also Lebanon Anzagar (place)  29 Aphek (city)  66, 207, 217, 219, 221 Aphek (in the Asherite allotment)  219 Aphek (in Samaria)  288 Apheq, Khirbet el-  221 see also Aphek ʿApiru 143 Apollo 26 Appawiya (land)  33–34 Appian 20 Ar (land of the descendants of Lot)  37 Arabah  67–68, 97, 151, 153–157, 175, 185, 186, 193, 198, 199, 201, 277, 283 Arabah, Wadi  278, 282–284, 295 Arabian Desert  see Desert, SyrianArabian (eastern)

338

Index of Subjects, GNs, and PNs Arabic (language)  12, 62, 117, 153 Arabs  286, 290 Arad 153 Arad/Beer-sheba, valley of  145, 153 Aramaic (language)  58, 160, 289 Aram–Damascus  120, 164, 166 see also Damascus; Beth Hazael Aramean(s) (people)  55, 61, 119, 165–166, 281 Aramu (king of Urarṭu)  64, 69 Aram Zobah  119, 172 see also Zobah Ari (city in Ugarit)  42 Arimmatta (city)  267, 271–272 Arish, Wadi el-  188, 283–285 see also El-Arish Ark of the Covenant  108, 231 Armenia 20 Arnon (river)  65, 68, 160, 285 Arnuwanda I (king of Ḫatti)  32 Aroer (city)  65, 68, 134, 251 Aroer, Tel  151 Arpad (city/land)  285 ʿArqu (place)  224 Arṣaškun (city in Urarṭu)  64, 69 ʿAru (land)  224 Aruna (place)  179 Arzâ (city)  288 Arzawa (land)  25, 33–36, 50, 142 Asa (king of Judah)  259, 261 Asag (monster)  117 Ascent of Adummim  138, 177, 264 Ascent of Akrabbim  104–105, 130–131, 140–141, 146, 154, 158, 176, 177, 222, 231, 279 Ascent of Beth-horon  75 see also Beth-horon Aseroth 215 see also Hazeroth Ashdod(ites)  189, 207, 211, 215, 216, 218, 273, 284 Asher (tribe/allotment of)  137, 143, 150, 210, 213, 219, 222, 241–243, 245, 248, 252–253, 255, 256, 257, 261, 267, 269–270, 272–273, 299 Ashkelon(ites)  207, 211, 215, 289, 290, 295 Ashtar-Chemosh (Moabite divinity) 72

339

Ashteroth-karnaim (city)  278 Ashur-dan II (king of Assyria)  55 Ashurnasirpal II (king of Assyria)  55, 68, 69, 122 Asia(tic)  24, 47, 51, 52 Assyria, land of/Asshur  15, 20–26, 39, 45–47, 54–56, 64, 94, 111, 121–126, 161, 186, 211, 212, 280, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 283–295, 297, 301 Assyrian provinces  165–166, 169, 173 Assyrian royal inscriptions  68, 123–124, 186, 187, 189, 214, 283, 285, 286, 288, 289, 296 Astarpa (river)  35–36 Aswan 51 Attalig (city)  44 Augustus 54 Aura (city)  35 Avian divination  43 see also Inquiry of the gods Avvim (ancient people)  207, 211, 214–216, 218, 219, 229, 230, 233 Ayyoun, Valley of  224 see also Mizpah, Valley of; Marj-Ayyoun ʿAyyun, Khirbet  165 see also Ain Azatiwada (king of the Danunians)  55– 56, 74, 126 Azekah  75, 199 Aziru (king of Amurru)  38 Azmon  130, 140, 141, 157, 158, 176, 177, 284 Baal (god)  107, 115 Baalah (city)  257 Baalath-beer 251 Baalbeq  172, 195 Baal-gad  67, 76, 109, 185, 186, 193–195, 198–201, 205, 207, 217, 218, 220, 223, 225, 226, 229, 250, 260, 275, 278, 279, 300 Baal-hermon  194–195, 228, 229, 230, 279 Baasha (king of Israel)  259 Babitu (city)  69

340

Index of Subjects, GNs, and PNs

Babylon (land/kingdom)  21, 23, 24, 29, 66, 92, 107, 110, 116, 122, 124, 126, 133, 143, 144, 170, 173, 289, 293, 294 Balikh (river/valley)  54 Banias  195, 278 see also Dan Bashan (land)  65, 68, 135, 148, 165, 195, 246, 247 Beer-sheba (city)  58, 59, 72, 76, 78–79, 109, 134, 147, 190, 219, 233, 291 Ben-Hadad (king of Aram)  165 Benjamin (tribe/allotment of)  12, 135, 137, 138–139, 141, 146–147, 150, 175, 180, 190, 209, 241–242, 243, 245, 247, 252–257, 259, 261–262, 264–266, 275 Benteshina (king of Amurru)  37 Bereitan 172 see also Berothah; Berothai Berothah 279 see also Bereitan; Berothai Berothai  172, 173 see also Bereitan; Berothai Beth-arabah (city)  157, 254, 264 Beth-aven, Wilderness of  266 Beth-el/Bethel  74, 76, 138, 199, 254 Beth-hakerem (city)  262 see also Ramat Rahel Beth-haram (city)  251 Beth Hazael  164 see also Aram–Damascus Beth-hoglah (city)  254, 264–265 Beth-horon  75, 138, 139 see also Ascent of Beth-horon Beth-horon, Lower (city)  138, 139 Bethlehem  74, 252, 255 Beth-nimrah (city)  251 Beth-rehob (Aramean state)  281 Beth-shean (city)  247, 267, 272, Beth-shemesh (city)  12, 138, 257, 262 Betonim (city in Gadite allotment)  251 Biqʿat Bashan  165 Boghazköy 162 see also Hattuša Book of Conquest  7, 170, 185, 189, 192, 202, 203, 207, 208, 240, 245, 246, 250, 296, 301

Book of the Covenant  7, 78, 93, 97–99, 103 Book of Settlement  7, 181–182, 185, 190–191, 205, 210, 218, 226, 238, 240–262, 299–300 Border agreement  15, 18, 24, 26, 28, 30, 56, 162 Conflicts  25–30, 39, 41, 44, 56, 76, 143 Definition of  1, 6, 7, 11–44 Marking of  5, 15, 28, 29, 31, 40, 43, 45, 115–116, Moving of  14, 38–39 Political (international)  13–14 Stele  27, 28, 30, 45 Transgression of  23, 24, 27 Bozrah (city)  148 Brook of Egypt  112, 286–288 see also Egypt, Wadi of Buffer state/region  20, 55 BZ (place)  224 Cadytis (city)  290, 292 see also Gaza Caleb son of Jephunneh  206, 216, 246, 247, 272, 299 Canaanites  86, 89, 97–98, 100–101, 198, 200, 207, 209, 210, 214–215, 217–224, 228, 230, 248–249, 267, 272, 299 Canaan, land of  7, 8, 53, 60, 75, 76, 86, 89–91, 94–96, 103, 104–105, 127–166, 167, 169–175, 178, 181, 182, 186, 188–189, 194–198, 199, 202–203, 205, 206, 209, 212, 213, 214, 220- 223, 225, 226, 228–229, 231–234, 237, 238, 240–244, 251, 277–288, 294–301 see also Kharu Caphtorites (Caphtorim)  215 Carchemish (city/land)  40, 289, 295 Carmel (mountain range)  137, 265, 270 Casion promontory  290 Chesalon  266, 268 Chisloth-tabor 139 Chronicler, the  212, 231, 239 Cilicia  55, 56, 290 Cities of the Plain  76, 154, 156

Index of Subjects, GNs, and PNs Coele Syria  209 Covenant between the Pieces  90, 97, 99, 102, 103, 110, 123, 108, 292, 297 Crocodile Brook  270 see also Nahal Tanninim Cyprus  287, 289–290 see also Yadnana Dabbesheth (geographic marker)  137, 265 Daganza (city)  267 Daiēnu (land)  64, 69 Damascus  120, 144, 161, 164–166, 169–175, 179 see also Aram–Damascus Damunu (people)  287 Dan (city)  58, 59, 72, 76, 78, 79, 109, 134, 147, 155, 195, 219, 233, 278, 291 see also Banias; Leshem Dan (tribe/allotment of)  170, 172, 175, 181, 222, 242, 243, 248–250, 252, 253, 257, 259, 261, 262 Dan(i)el 180 Danunians (people)  56, 74, 126 Darius I (king of Persia)  289 David  63, 74, 115, 118–121, 127, 131, 134, 136, 172, 190, 211, 219–220, 227–228, 231, 259, 277, 279, 290, 292, 301 Davidic Dynasty  121 Dead Sea  81, 112, 130, 131, 136, 138,141, 149, 153–154, 156–157, 161, 166, 174–176, 241–242, 269, 281–283, 295 see also Siddim, Valley of; Sea of the Arabah Debir (city)  272 Depths/deep  85, 111, 117, 120 Dēr (city)  27 Desert, Syrian-Arabian (eastern)  106, 113–114, 161, 195 Desert/wilderness  1, 11, 12, 47, 51, 59, 65, 66, 80, 97, 98, 104, 106, 110, 113–116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 126, 130, 136, 145, 186, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 215, 238, 266, 279–281, 297

341

Deuteronomistic school, literature  73, 88, 90, 94, 98–106, 112, 113, 118, 124–126, 156, 159, 182, 198, 200, 201–204, 226–228, 230, 235, 237, 238, 297, 200, 201 Diodorus 26 Dor (city)  247, 267, 272 Dua (canal)  28 Dūr-Kurigalzu (city)  287 Eannatum (ruler of Lagash)  27 Eber-hanahar (fifth Persian province)  8, 103, 284, 287, 289–295, 301 Ebron (city)  252 Edict of Telepinu  21 Edimgalabazu (place)  29, 76 Edom  108, 119, 123, 130, 138, 139, 140, 147–153, 156–157, 176, 194, 196, 270, 282 Egypt  21, 24–26, 45–47, 51–54, 55, 62, 66, 70, 72, 75, 80, 89–91, 97, 99, 104, 107, 108, 110, 112, 114, 118, 119, 130–132, 141–146, 153, 154, 162–165, 169, 170, 189, 191, 202, 207, 210, 211–215, 218, 219, 221, 222, 226, 229, 230, 235, 238, 263, 279, 280, 281, 285–295, 297, 301 Egyptian (language)  12, 86, 141, 161, 162, 212–213, 278 Egypt, Wadi of 3, 60, 108, 112, 130, 131, 135, 140, 141, 157, 158,176, 188–189, 212, 213, 214, 218, 219, 235, 274, 278, 282, 283–288, 289, 293, 294, 295, 297 see also Brook of Egypt Eilat, Gulf of  16, 104, 106, 157 Ein el-Kudeirat  152 see also Kadesh-barnea Ekron(ites)  152, 207, 209–215, 218, 232, 257, 273, 284 Elam (land)  27, 287 El-Amarna letters/documents  142–144, 280 El-Arish 288 see also Arish, Wadi elEleazar the priest  244–246, 249 Eliezer, Rabbi  92 El-Mina on the Orontes (city)  290

342

Index of Subjects, GNs, and PNs

Emar (city/kingdom)  128 Emim (ancient people)  215–216 Enakale (ruler of Umma)  27 En-dor  247, 272 En-gedi 262 Enlil (god)  27, 117, 121 Enmetena/Entemena (ruler of Lagash) 27 En-rogel 265 En-shemesh 265 En-tappuah  267, 271 Enzi (land)  64, 69 Ephraim (tribe/allotment of)  137–139, 155, 222, 241, 244, 245–249, 252, 254, 256, 257, 261, 267, 270–272, 299 see also Ephraim, Mount Ephraim, Mount/hill country  74, 247 Ephron, Mount  265 Erra (god)  117 Esarhaddon (king of Assyria)  286– 289 Esau 194 Esau, Mount  148 Eshkol 71 Eshkol, Wadi  281 Eshnunna (city/kingdom)  23 Eshtaol (city)  257 Etham, Wilderness of  137 Ethbaal (king of Tyre)  180 Ethiopia  47, 67, 79–80, 288 see also Meluḫḫa Euphrates  28, 46–48, 54, 65, 66, 69, 89, 90, 97–99, 103, 104, 106, 108–113, 114, 116, 118–123, 125, 126, 128, 204, 205, 289–295, 297 see also Eber-hanahar Extremities formula  143, 149, 233, 284, 288 Ezekiel  2, 7, 12–13, 51, 59, 75, 104, 105, 128–129, 135, 149–150, 155–156, 160, 165, 167–182, 193, 231–233, 235, 237, 240–241, 277, 279, 283–284, 297 Ezion-geber 281 Fatimids 164 Frontier  7, 11–57, 82, 108, 279

Gad (tribe/allotment of)  65, 67, 113, 135, 149, 174, 178, 202, 244, 251, 285, 300 Galba (city)  42–44 Gath (Philistine city)  120, 209, 215, 216 Gaza  53, 67, 154. 186, 187, 188–191, 215, 216, 218, 221, 273, 279, 284, 285–286, 290–292 see also Cadytis Geba (city)  79, 190, Gebalites  76, 207, 217, 223, 224, 233, 279 Gebal (Phoenician city)  223 Geder (city)  199 Gedera (modern city)  79 Gerar 154 Geshur (land in the north)  211 Geshur(ite) (people on the south)  207, 210–214, 218, 219, 229 Gezer (city)  190, 199, 210, 247 Gibeah (city)  74 Gibeon (city)  75, 79, 186–191, 196 Gibil-canal 28–29 Gideon 189 Gihon (river)  111 Gilead (land/province)  65, 134, 135, 148, 155, 165–166, 169, 173, 174, 175, 179, 219, 246, 247, 251 Gilgal (city)  75, 138, 177, 202, 204, 209, 236, 244, 246, 249, 250, 258, 264, 299 Gilzānu  68, 69, 122 Girgashites (people of Canaan)  89, 97, 101, 215 Girsu (city/kingdom)  26, 27 Gizrites 211 Goliath 216 Gomorrah 154–156 Goren, Tel  262 see also En-gedi Goshen (in Egypt)  191 Goshen (land of)  67, 185–188, 190–191, 193, 200, 201, 277, Great Wall of China  15–16, 48–50, 53 Greek thought  13, 114 Guʾedena (place)  27 Gutium (people)  117

Index of Subjects, GNs, and PNs Ḫaban (land)  69 Hadadezer (king of Zobah)  119 Hadduwassa (city)  267 Hadera (modern city) 79 Hadrian’s Wall  16 Halak, Mount  59, 67, 185, 186, 193–196, 198–201, 225–226, 278, 297, 300–301 Hamath  12, 164–166, 169, 171–173, 175, 278, 280–281, 285 see also Lebo-hamath Hamdans (Arab dynasty)  164 Hammon (city in Asherite allotment) 252 Hammurabi 23 Handawa (city)  267 Hanigalbat (kingdom)  20 see also Mitanni Hanun (king of Gaza)  285–286 Hapalla (city)  25, 34 Haral (place)  28 Haran (city)  75 Har-heres  249, 257 Ha-Riblah (city mentioned in Ezekiel’s border description)  104, 130, 137, 146, 161, 162, 165, 175 Hariyati (land of mount)  32, 33 Ḫarmana (city)  41–42 Harziuna (land)  50 Ḫašmar, Mount  69 Hatshepsut (queen of Egypt)  51 Ḫatti/Hittite (land, empire)  20, 21–22, 24–25, 30–44, 49–50, 53, 55, 57, 65, 69, 98, 122–123, 126, 127, 131, 142, 152, 161–164, 172, 174, 179, 263–276, 287, 296 Ḫattuša (city)  6, 162 Ḫattušili I (king of Ḫatti)  21 Ḫattušili III (king of Ḫatti)  37, 50, 144, 162, 163, 263 Hauran  165, 167, 169, 171, 173, 174, 175, 179 Havilah  111, 211, 212 Hawa, Mount  31 Hazael (king of Aram)  65, 120 Hazar-addar  130, 140, 141, 176 see also Addar Hazer-enan/enon 242

343

Hazerim 215 Hazeroth  see Aseroth Hazevah  155–156, 157, 175 see also Tamar Hebrew  12, 138, 141, 146, 153, 160, 161, 162, 211 Hebron  206, 216, 281 Hermon, Mount  65, 67, 68, 76, 109, 186, 193, 207, 217, 218, 223, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230, 258, 278, 279 see also Baal-hermon Heshbon (city/kingdom)  65, 198, 251 Hethlon (city)  171, 172, 179, 279 Hezekiah (king of Judah)  67, 259, 284 Hezron  140, 141, 176 Hinnom, Valley of  266 Hiram (king of Tyre)  120 Hittite (land, empire)  see Ḫatti/Hittite Hittite language  12, 107, 141, 150 Hittite people of Canaan  89, 97, 101, 186, 198, 200, 215 Hivites (people of Canaan)  97, 101, 137, 186, 190, 196, 198, 200, 215, 219, 228–230, 279 Homs 162 Horeb, Mount  118 see also Sinai, Mount Horites (ancient people)  216 Hor, Mount  130, 131, 145, 161, 171, 172 Horus, Waters of  212 see also Shihor Ḫubuškia 69 Hulaya River Land  31, 273 Huwatnuwanta, Mount  265 Iapygians 26 Ibalpiel (king of Eshnunna)  23 Idrimi (king of Alalakh)  115 Ienysus 290 Ijon (city)  165 India (land)  67, 79–80, 114 Inquiry of the gods  43, 289 see also Avian divination Inurta (city)  267 Iran 122 Irridu (city)  79 Isaac  37, 87, 89–91, 98, 104, 155 Isaiah  180, 293

344

Index of Subjects, GNs, and PNs

Ishmaelites 211–213 [. . .] Ishtaran (place)  29 Ishtaran (god)  27, 29 Israel (person)  91 see also Jacob Israel, land of  12, 16, 60, 65, 76, 78, 79, 85, 94, 95, 97, 116, 142, 165, 166, 173–175, 179, 182, 210, 263, 277, 282, 289, 291–292, 295–296 Coastal plain of  67, 185, 193, 201, 277, 300 Hill country of  67, 185–186, 190–191, 193, 198–199, 201, 216, 220, 222–224, 247, 249, 277, 300 Kingdom of  62–63, 95, 119, 120, 123, 126, 130, 193, 197–198, 234, 258, 261, 282 Mountains of  13, 193 People of  1–2, 5, 11, 23, 62–63, 65, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, 85, 86, 93–94, 96, 98, 105, 118, 125–128, 130–133, 136, 141, 145, 149, 152, 159, 162, 166, 170, 173, 177, 181– 182, 185–187, 189–192, 195–206, 207–210, 213, 215–217, 219–221, 224, 225, 227–230, 231–239, 240, 245–246, 249–250, 261, 267, 272, 277–280, 282–284, 291–302 Issachar (tribe/allotment of)  137–139, 241, 245, 248, 252–253, 255–257, 267, 269, 272–273 Jabneel 152 Jacob (Israel)  37, 61, 89–92, 98, 104, 155, 194 Jarkon (brook)  154 Jassib (city)  271 Jazer (city)  134, 251 Jearim, Mount  266, 268 Jebel al-Sheik  194 see also Hermon Jebel Halak  194 see also Halak, Mount Jebusites (people of Canaan)  89, 93, 97, 101, 186, 198, 200, 210, 215, 222 Jehoiachin (king of Judah)  289 Jehoshaphat (king of Judah)  261 Jemmeh, Tell  288

Jephtah 94 Jeremiah  92, 180 Jericho  63, 137, 138, 139, 155, 197, 199, 241, 266 Jericho, Valley of  155 Jeroboam II (king of Israel)  2, 277, 278, 282, 295, 301 Jerusalem  59, 74, 79, 118, 134, 135, 199, 210, 219, 222, 247, 266, 272, 293 Joab 134 Job 180 Jobab (king of Madon)  195 Jokneam (city)  137, 138 Jonathan the Hasmonean  292 Joppa 254 Joram (king of Judah)  156–157 Jordan River  12, 74, 75, 103, 104, 110, 112, 113, 114, 118, 125, 126, 130, 131, 134, 135, 136, 137, 149, 160, 161, 165–166, 174, 175, 178, 179, 180, 200–204, 209, 227, 238, 241–243, 247, 251, 285, Crossing of  134, 136, 197, 200–202, 275 East side of  2, 65, 67, 68, 91, 94, 103, 104, 110, 113, 126, 132, 133, 182, 202–204, 216, 244, 251, 257–258, 260, 299–300 see also Transjordan West side  113, 181–182, 185, 198, 199, 200, 202–204, 244, 246, 251–253, 255, 260, 267, 268, 273, 276, 299–300 Jordan Valley  146, 153–157, 220 Joseph (Josephites, house of)  135, 137–138, 147, 180, 218, 241, 244–247, 249, 252–257, 266, 299 Joseph, son of Jacob  90, 91, 247 Joshua  65, 75, 98, 125, 133, 135, 181, 185–206, 207–210, 216, 224–228, 231, 235–238, 244–249, 250, 277, 297, 298, 300–301 Book of  1, 3, 7,  67, 93, 97, 98, 104, 123, 128, 129, 131, 150, 159, 160, 167, 185, 187, 189, 199, 202, 203, 206, 207, 213, 219–220, 225, 230–231, 238, 240, 242, 244, 247, 250, 261, 271, 274, 276, 296–301

Index of Subjects, GNs, and PNs Josiah (king of Judah)  79, 152, 190, 262 Jotham (son of Jerubaal)  69 Judah (tribe/allotment of)  74, 133, 135, 137–141, 143, 145–160, 166, 170, 174, 177, 178, 180, 188–191, 194, 196, 209, 213, 218–220, 241, 243–249, 252–257, 259–262, 264–265, 270, 273, 275, 280, 284, 288, 295, 299 Judah, kingdom of  55, 62–63, 79, 95, 120, 126, 134, 151, 156, 191–193, 197, 198, 204–205, 211, 234, 238, 250, 259, 291–292, 296, 300 Judean hills/mountains  59, 146, 191, 193 Judean wilderness  191, 266 Jupiter (god)  19 Kadesh (in Hamath)  162 Kadesh-barnea  104, 105, 130–131, 140–141, 146, 147, 152, 157–158, 166, 176–177, 186–191, 213, 279, 281, 297 see also Ein el-Kudeirat; Meriboth-kadesh, Waters of; Zin, Wilderness of Kadesh, Wilderness of  120 Kadmonites (people)  89, 97, 101–102 Kammama (city)  267 Kanah (city in Zebulun)  252 Kanah, Wadi  138, 267, 271, 272 Kantara (modern city)  52 Karka (city)  140, 141, 147, 176 Karnaim (district)  165–166, 278 Karnak (city)  46, 51, 52, 162 see also Temple of Amon Kashtiliash IV (king of Bablyonia)  124 Kaška (tribe)  49 Kastariya (river)  267 Kenites (people of Canaan)  89, 93, 97, 101, 102 Kenizzites (people of Canaan)  89, 97, 101, 102 Kharu  144, 213 see also Canaan Kinneret  112, 130, 131, 137, 161, 165, 175, 233, 241, 242, 251, 275 Kiriath-baal (city)  157

345

Kiriath-jearim (city)  139, 231 Kirruru, Mount  68 Kish (city/kingdom)  27, 276 Kishon (brook)  270 Kitmit, Horvat  151 Kizzuwatna (kingdom)  43, 160, 161, 172, 174, 179, 266, 269 Knossos 47 KTK (land)  224 Kudurru stones  12, 29 Kullar, Mount  69 Kupanta-Kurunta (king of Mira-Kuwaliya) 34 Kursawanta (city)  264, 267, 270 Labarna (king of Ḫatti)  21 Labwe (village)  171 Ladder of Tyre  291, 292 see also Rosh Haniqra Lagash (city/kingdom)  26–30, 56, 57, 75, 276 Laḫḫwiyassi (city)  267 Lamiya (place)  179 Land grant  26, 33, 34, 36, 41, 43, 44, 96, 105, 127–129, 142, 189, 275, 276 Land of Canaan  see Canaan, land of Land, Promised  1–8, 14, 57, 65, 85–90, 97–99, 102, 104, 106, 108, 113, 119, 121, 123–124, 126, 167–168, 187, 191, 200, 204–205, 240, 243, 244, 296–302 Borders of  1, 3–5, 8, 14, 32, 56, 93–95, 106, 109–110, 112, 114, 116, 118–119, 125–126, 127–166, 182,194, 200–204, 225–226 Conquest and settlement of  202–203, 205, 206, 208 Dimensions/extent /parameters/perimeters /scope of  1, 2, 7, 95, 104, 181, 198, 202, 219, 229–230, 240, 243, 277, 283, 293, 295 “That yet remains”  207, 231–239 Laqû (land)  68 Larsa (city/kingdom)  23 Lasha (city)  155 Lebanon (land)  120, 223, 224, 226, 233–234, 279 Lebanon, coast of  224

346

Index of Subjects, GNs, and PNs

Lebanon, Mount  45, 46, 65–66, 68–70, 76, 98, 104, 106, 110, 116, 117, 120, 122, 123, 126, 161, 194–196, 200, 205, 207, 217, 221, 223, 224, 226, 228, 230, 235, 279, 297 see also Anti-Lebanon Lebanon, Valley of  67, 185, 186, 193–196, 198–199, 201, 223–226, 260, 278, 300 Lebo (city)  172, 280 Lebo-hamath  8, 65, 76, 116, 131, 145, 161, 164, 166, 171–172, 178–179, 194–195, 205, 207, 212, 217, 223, 225–226, 228–231, 233, 277, 278–281, 282–284, 294–295, 301 see also Labʾu; Labwe; Lebo Legal documents/texts/contexts/terminology  6, 32, 34, 40, 91–93, 95, 96, 162, 276 Leshem  248, 250 see also Dan; Banias Levites 180 Libo (city)  278 see also Labwe; Lebo; Lebo-hamath Lidbir (city)  251 Lists, lexical/genealogical/selective/ other  70, 77, 87, 88, 108, 112, 185, 195, 198–200, 202, 205, of peoples/nations  61, 93, 97, 99–102, 105, 122, 186, 199, 210, 214–216, 220, 222, 231, 233, 238, 287 of places  38, 41, 43–44, 60–63, 64, 67–69, 80, 122–123, 129, 131, 134–135, 137–139, 141, 146, 151, 164–165, 174–175, 179, 186, 189–191, 193, 199–200, 210, 214–216, 218–219, 242, 244, 247–248, 251–262, 268, 272, 275, 277, 280 Litani (river)  109, 242 Lot (Abraham’s nephew)  76, 89, 92, 154 Lots  133, 181, 245–246, 248–249 Lucian septuagintal text  291 Lugalzagesi (king of Umma and Uruk)  28, 75, 121 Lukka (lands of)  21, 274 Lula, Mount  31, 266

Luwana (city)  270 Luz 138 see also Beth-el/Bethel M[. .]W (place)  224 Maacathites 210 Machir (firstborn of Manasseh)  247 Maddunassa (city)  35 Madduwatta (ruler in Anatolia)  32–33 Madon (land)  195 Maḥalib, Khirbet el-  242 see also Mehebel; Mahaliba Maḥaliba 242 see also Mehebel; Maḥalib, Khirbet elMahanaim (city)  148, 251 Makkedah (city)  75 Mamre 71 Manapa-Tarhunta (king of the land of the Seha River)  34 Manasseh (tribe/allotment of)  67, 113, 137–138, 148, 150, 155, 181, 195, 202, 217, 245–248, 252, 254, 256–257, 267–273, 285, 299–300 Marduk (god)  107 Mari (kingdom of)  23, 46, Marj-Ayyoun 278 see also Ayyoun, Valley of; Mizpah, Valley of Mashuiluwa (king of MiraKuwaliya)  34, 37 Mearah of the Sidonians  207, 217, 221 Mediterranean  21, 28, 45, 46, 81, 106, 109, 114, 116, 121–123, 130, 136, 149, 213, 219, 259, 261, 272, 295 see also Western Sea Megiddo  247, 267, 272 Mehebel 242 see also Maḥaliba; Maḥalib, Khirbet elMe-jarkon 254 Melid (land)  64, 69 Meluḫḫa (land)  288 Meriboth-kadesh, Waters of  75, 150, 155, 175–177 Merism  59–61, 70, 80–82, 144, 156, 188, 190–191, 212–215, 229–230 antithetical (polar)  61–63, 73, 76

Index of Subjects, GNs, and PNs Merism (cont.) express  64, 66–67, 70, 72 implied  66–67, 73 spatial  7, 8, 58–82, 93, 97, 98–126, 155, 187–189, 191, 193, 199–200, 210–211, 220–226, 229, 233, 237–238, 251, 269, 277–295, 296–297, 301 Merneptah 144 Merom, Waters of  185, 192, 195, 196, 205, 223, 224, 226, 229, 231 Mesad Hashavyahu  152 Mesalim (king of Kish)  27–28, 276 Mesha Stele  71 Mesopotamia  29, 45, 47, 48–49, 111–112, 263 Mibtahiah document  59, 71 Micah (from Ephraim)  74 Michmethath (place)  267, 269, 270 Midian/Midianites  189, 236 Migdol 51 Mira-Kuwaliya (land)  34–37, 44, 275 Misrephoth-maim (Misrephothmaim/ miyyam)  76, 196, 207, 217, 218, 223, 224, 233 Mitanni (land)  54 see also Hanigalbat Mizpah (land)  196, 223, 224, 229, 233 Mizpah, Valley of  224 see also Ayyoun, Valley of; Mizpah Moab  2, 16, 37, 65, 71, 72, 94, 119, 155, 156, 180, 282, 285 Steppes of  244 Monocentric world view  7, 17, 20–22, 25–26, 45, 47, 51, 54, 55, 57,121, 125, 126, 187, 297, 301 Moses  1, 2, 37, 91, 98, 113, 123, 126, 129–130, 155, 156, 177, 181, 186, 196, 200, 202, 2–3, 205, 208, 228, 235, 236, 244–246, 251, 281, 300 Mount, the (central mountain in Eretz Israel)  12–13, 74, 76, 191, 193, 194, 293 Mukish (land)  38–40, 44, 95 Multicentric world view  7, 17–26, 32, 57, 91, 93,94, 96, 126, 187, 276, 297, 301

347

Mulukki (city)  42–44 Munna (land)  69 Murgushara (place)  29 Muršili II (king of Ḫatti)  24–25, 33, 34, 36, 39–41, 43–44, 49–50, 55, 127 Muwattalli (king of Ḫatti)  163 Nagnanshe (place)  28 Nahal Besor  188, 212, 283–285, 288 Nahal Tanninim  270 see also Crocodile Brook Naharin  46, 47, 109 Nairi (land)  65, 69, 122 Namri (land)  69 Naphtali (tribe/allotment of)  137, 155, 210, 219, 220, 222, 242, 243, 245, 248, 253, 255–257, 260, 299 Neah (city in Zebulonite allotment)  256 Nebo (city)  71 Nebo, Mount  155 Nebuchadnezzar  289, 295 Negeb  67, 76, 98, 114–115, 147, 148, 151, 152, 155, 157, 185–187, 190, 191, 193, 198–201, 212, 220, 277, 281 Neo-Assyria(n)  39, 45, 55, 68–69, 92, 121–126, 189, 296, 297 Neo-Babylonia(n)  29, 92, 133 Nephtoah, Waters of  138 Nile  104, 108, 109, 111, 212, 214, 219, 293, 294, 301 Delta  103, 212 Pelusic mouth/eastern branch/canal/ arms  52, 108, 212, 219 Valley 51 Nimrud Prism  288 Nina (city)  26 Ninainta (city)  31 Ningirsu (god of Lagash)  27–28 Ninurta (god)  117 Niqmaddu II (king of Ugarit)  38–40 Niqmepa (king of Ugarit)  39–41 Nirbu (land)  68 Noah  86, 88, 180 Nob (city)  63, 71 Nubia 46 Nuhašše-niya (land)  39

348

Index of Subjects, GNs, and PNs

Numidia 16 see also Algeria Nun-channel 27 Nuzi (city)  92 Og (king of Bashan)  68 Olam (city)  211 Ophrah (city)  255 Orontes (river)  119, 161, 278, 285, 290 Othniel  216, 247 Palestine  94–95, 289–290 see also Syria–Palestine Paran, Wilderness of  148, 281, 282 Parha (land)  21 Parsua (land)  69 Parthia(n) 20 Patriarchs/patriarchal narrative  1, 7, 52, 85–96, 97,99, 102–104, 120, 123, 125, 156, 167, 181–182, 204, 235, 292, 293, 296 Pazarcik Stele  45 Perizzites (people of Canaan)  89, 97, 101, 186, 198, 200, 215 Persia(n)  8, 17, 80, 103, 239, 289, 291, 292, 294, 295, 301 Persian Gulf  28, 109, 111, 121 Pharaoh  66, 72, 111, 142, 162 Philistia/Philistines  12, 55, 67, 78, 94, 119–120, 188, 190, 207, 209–216, 218–219, 226, 228–231, 234–235, 238, 285–287, 291–292 Philistia, Sea of  97, 106, 114 Phoenice (land)  290 Phoenicians  224, 290 Pisgah, slopes of  68, 91, 155 Pitassa (land)  30, 31, 267, 271, 272 Plague Prayers (Hittite)  24 Polybius 19 Pontus mountains  49 Priesthood/priests/Priestly literature  42–43, 44, 63, 71, 79, 85, 86–87, 94, 103–104, 106, 126, 128, 129, 150, 162, 169–170, 177, 180, 182, 194, 205, 209, 226, 243–246, 249–250, 281–283 Ptolemaic kingdoms  164 Puqudu (people)  287

Qaryatein (city)  162 Qatna (kingdom)  23 Rabbah 251 Rakkon 254 Ramat Hanegeb  151 Ramat Rahel  262 see also Beth-hakerem Ramath-mizpeh (city)  251 Ramesses II  144, 162, 163 Ramesses III  51 Raphah 216 see also Anakites Raphia (city)  288 Rapiqu (city)  68, 287 Rashi (land)  287 Rehob  8, 65, 233, 252, 277, 281 see also Beth-rehob; Lebo-hamath Rehob (in Beth-shean Valley)  129 Rephaim (ancient people)  89, 97, 101–102, 215, 216 Rephaim, Valley of  266 Reuben(ites) (tribe/allotment of)  65, 67, 113, 160, 202, 203, 244, 285, 300 Rhine (river)  16 Riblah (city east of the Kinneret)  104, 130, 137, 146, 165, 175 see also Ha-Riblah Riblah (city in Hamath)  162, 165 Rimmon (city)  256 Rim-Sin (king of Larsa)  23 Rome/Roman  16, 19, 20, 45, 48–50, 54, 91, 151 Rosh Haniqra  292 see also Ladder of Tyre Sabbath 74 Sabi Abyad, Tell  54 Sahita (city)  267 Saliya (place)  179 Samaria (land/district)  123, 288 Samos 120 Samson 78 Samuel  76, 228 Sanantarwa (city)  31 Sardis 290 Sardur (king of Urarṭu/Ararat)  286

Index of Subjects, GNs, and PNs Sargon (king of Akkad)  28, 46 Sargon II (king of Assyria)  284, 287–288, 291 Sarid (city)  252 Satyrion 26 Saul (king of Israel)  71, 115, 191, 211–212 Saul of Rehoboth-on-the-river (Edomite king), 108 Šaušgamuwa (king of Amurru)  24 Scylax 290 Sea(s)  12, 19, 21, 45, 46, 51, 52, 59, 66, 81, 85, 106–108, 110–112, 114–121, 123, 130, 131, 136, 138, 140, 141, 152, 153, 155, 157, 160,171, 176–177, 179, 241, 267, 269, 272–273, 290–292 of the Arabah  68, 278, 282–283, 295, 278, 282–284, 295 see also Dead Sea Black 21 Coast/shore  98, 292 Eastern  165, 174, 175, 283 see also Dead Sea of Galilee  112 see also Kinneret Great . . . (in the west)  65, 68, 75, 81, 98, 104, 106, 112, 113, 122, 123, 126, 130, 131, 145, 150, 156, 159–161, 167, 171–173, 175–179, 189, 218, 227, 238, 241, 243, 274, 279, 284, 297 Great . . . (in the east)  123 Lower  28, 65, 69, 120, 121, 122, 124 Red/of reeds  81, 97, 104, 106, 109–112, 114, 118, 202 Upper  28, 69, 120, 121, 122, 124 Western/of Philistia  65–66, 81, 98, 106, 110, 114, 116, 123, 155, 287 see also Mediterranean Sea peoples  221 Seha (river, land)  33–34, 37 Seidel’s law  147, 151 Seir, Mount/hill country  37, 59, 67, 138, 185, 186, 193, 194, 198, 199, 201, 225, 226, 265, 278, 297, 300, 301 Sela  222, 231 Seleucid kingdom  164

349

Senir (mountain)  195 Sennacherib (king of Assyria)  124 Serbonian marsh  290 Seti I (king of Egypt)  52 Shaalbim (city)  249, 257 Shahar (god)  115 Shalem (god)  115 Shalmaneser I (king of Assyria)  54, 62, 79 Shalmaneser III (king of Assyria)  46, 64, 65, 69, 120, 122 Shamash (god)  289 Shamna (city)  43 Shamri River  160, 179, 270 Shamshi (queen of the Arabs)  286 Shamshi-adad I (king of Assyria)  23, 46 Shara (god of Umma)  27–29, 76 Sharon 135 Shasu (tribes)  52–53 Sheba son of Bichri  74 Shechem(ite)  204, 267, 269, 270 Shepham (place)  130, 137, 146, 161, 165, 175 Shephelah, the  67, 97, 185, 186, 187, 190, 191, 193, 198, 199, 201, 220, 248, 262, 277 Shihor (Egypt)  108, 207, 210–215, 219, 230–232, 235, 279, 280, 301 see also Horus, Waters of Shihor-libnath 270 Shiloh  133, 141, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 258, 299 Shimron (land)  195 Shishak (king of Egypt)  152 Shittim 75 Shulgi (king of Ur)  48 Shumu-epukh (king of Yamkhad)  23 Shur (place)  211, 212, 214, 238 Shu-Sin (king of Ur)  48 Sibraim (city)  171–173, 179, 279 see also Ziphron Siddim, Valley of  154 see also Dead Sea Sidon(ians) (city/kingdom)  76, 120, 123, 134, 154, 196, 207, 209, 217, 219, 221, 223, 224, 228, 230, 234, 252, 279

350

Index of Subjects, GNs, and PNs

Sihon (king of the Amorites)  65, 58, 198 Sile  52–53, 144 Siluna, Mount  123 Simeon (tribe/allotment of)  147–148, 245, 251, 252–255, 257, 259–262 Simeon the Hasmonean  291 Simmuwa (city)  267 Sinai  53, 103, 114, 213 Desert  104, 113–114, 118, 144, 170, 177, 212–213, 229 Mount 118 see also Horeb Šinuwanta 31 Sion, Mount  68 Sirika (city)  179 Siyannu (land/kingdom)  40–44, 95 Siyanta River  35–36 Sodom  62, 70–71, 76, 77, 154–156 Solomon  2, 58, 70, 120, 199, 257–259, 277–278, 284, 289–293, 295, 301, 302 Sphinx Mountains (in Ḫatti)  268 Spies (Israelite)  2, 8, 65, 220, 277, 281–283, 301 Stone Monument (ḫuwaši) of the Dog  43, 264, 267 Stone of Bohan son of Reuben  138, 264, 265 Strabo 19 Stranger (resident alien)  182 Subnat (river)  68 Šubriya (land)  55 Succoth (city)  251 Suez Canal  52 Suḫni/Suḫnu (land)  64, 68, 69 Šuksi (city)  41, 42, 44 Sumer  26–30, 32, 48–49, 51, 53, 56, 75, 115, 117, 121 Sumerian (language)  114 Sunaššura (king of Kizzuwatna)  161, 172, 174, 179, 270 Suppiluliuma (king of Ḫatti)  24, 38–40, 49, 163, Susa 92 Syene 51 Symmachus  196, 233

Syria/Syrian  21, 37, 39, 40, 54, 94, 109, 112, 122, 132, 173, 263, 289, 290 Syrian-Arabian Desert  113, 114 see also Desert, Syrian-Arabian Syria–Palestine 95 see also Palestine Taanach (city)  247, 267, 272 Tabor, Mount  137–139, 265 Tacitus 20 Tadmor (city)  165 Tahpanhes (city)  75 Tahtim-hodshi, land of  134, 219 Taidu (city)  79 Talmai (king of Geshur)  211 Tamar (city)  75, 150, 155, 156, 157, 167, 174, 175, 176 see also Hazevah Tappuah (Manassite city/region)  136, 267, 271 Taras (land)  26 Targasnalli (king of Hapalla)  25, 34 Tarḫuntašša  21, 30–31, 57, 152, 263–275 Tax collection (tax-collection)  14, 17, 20, 22, 31, 44–45, 52, 268, 275 Telem (city)  211, 212 Teman  148–149, 233 Terah (Abraham’s father)  86 Thapsacus (city)  290, 292 see also Tiphsah Thutmose I (king of Egypt)  46, 51, 119 Thutmose III (king of Egypt)  46–47, 109, 119 Tiamat (monster)  107, 110 Tiglath-pileser III (king of Assyria)  122, 164, 165, 173, 280, 284–286, 288 Tigris (river)  28, 47, 48, 68, 69, 111, 116, 121, 122, 123 Tīl-Bāri (city)  68 Tīl-ša-Abtāni (city)  69 Tīl-ša-Zabdāni (city) 68–69 Timna 257 Tiphsah (city)  290–292 see also Thapsacus Tirzah (city)  199

Index of Subjects, GNs, and PNs Transjordan  104, 110, 113, 165–166, 200, 202–205, 211, 215–216, 244 see also Jordan, east side of Treaty, vassal  6, 24–25, 30, 33–44, 53, 94, 96, 127–128, 142–143, 161–163, 172, 174, 179, 263–274 see also Vassal states Tribute  267, 272, 290, 291 Tudḫaliya II (king of Ḫatti)  161, 172, 174, 179 Tudḫaliya IV (king of Ḫatti)  24, 25, 44, 263, 269 Tudḫaliya, fortified camp of  35 Tugliaš (land)  69 Tukulti-Ninurta I (king of Assyria)  20, 120, 121, 124 Tummu (land)  64, 69 Turkey  35, 116 Turpina (city)  270 Turutna (city)  172, 179 Tyre (city/kingdom)  120, 123, 134, 180, 209, 219, 291, 292 Ugarit  6, 19, 38–44, 95, 107, 111, 115–116, 142, 180, 268 Uhha-ziti (king of Arzawa)  33 Ukku (land)  55 Ulmi-Teššub (king of Tarḫuntašša)  30– 31, 127, 263–273 Umma (city/kingdom)  26–30, 56–57, 75, 276 United Monarchy  3, 88, 104, 109, 119–120, 235, 258, 260, 295 Upe (land)  144 Ur (of the Chaldees)  48, 75, 89, 115, 117 Urarṭu  55, 64, 69, 122 Urlumma (ruler of Umma)  27 Ur-Nama (king of Ur)  152 Uruk (city)  28, 121 Uš (ruler of Umma)  27 Ushnatu (land/kingdom)  41 Ushu 242 Uzza, Horvat  151 Uzziah (king of Judah)  261 Vassal states  13, 14, 25, 40, 45, 122

351

Via Maris  144 Walistassa 267 Walma (land)  36 Wastissa (city)  267 Wiyanawanda (city)  35 World view  see Monocentric world view; Multicentric world view Xerxes 289 see also Ahasuerus Yabrud 224 Yadnana (Cyprus)  287 Yaʾdy 224 Yaḫdunlim (king of Mari)  46 Yamkhad (land)  23 Yarim-Lim/Iarimlim (king of Yamkhad) 23 Yarkon (brook)  see Jarkon Yarmuk 165 Yavneh Yam  152 Yehud (province)  239 Zabala 26 Zaban (land)  68 Zab, Lower  68 Zagros region  287 Zair (city)  156 Zakkur (king of Hamath)  280 Zallara (land)  50 Zamzummim (people)  216 Zarephath 242 Zarniya (city)  31 Zeboim, Valley of  12 Zebulon (tribe/allotment of)  137, 139, 222, 257, Zedad (city)  130, 145, 158, 161, 166, 167, 171, 172, 179, 279 Zelophehad’s daughters  133, 247 Ziklag (city)  211 Zilapuna (city)  270 Zimri-Lim (king of Mari)  23 Zin, Wadi  194 Zin, Wilderness of  8, 65, 130, 138–141, 147–151, 157, 176, 177, 233, 277, 278, 281–282, 301

352

Index of Subjects, GNs, and PNs

Zin, Wilderness of (cont.) see also Ein el-Kudeirat; Kadesh-barnea Ziphron (place)  130, 145, 161, 171, 172 see also Sibraim

Zippasla, Mount  32–33 Zoar  155, 156, 157 Zobah  119, 172, 281 see also Aram Zobah Zorah (city)  257