Joshua 13-24, Volume 7B: Second Edition (7) (Word Biblical Commentary) [2 ed.] 9780310520122, 0310520126

Citation preview

WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY

7b

Joshua 13–24 Second Edition

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 1

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Editorial Board Old Testament Editor: Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (2011 – ) New Testament Editor: Peter H. Davids (2013 – )

Past Editors General Editors Ralph P. Martin (2012 – 2013) Bruce M. Metzger (1997 – 2007)

David A. Hubbard (1977 – 1996) Glenn W. Barker (1977 – 1984)

Old Testament Editors: John D. W. Watts (1977 – 2011)

James W. Watts (1997 – 2011)

New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin (1977 – 2012)

Lynn Allan Losie (1997 – 2013)

Volumes 1 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 7a 7b 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18a 18b 19 20 21 22 23a 23b 24 25 26 27

Genesis 1 – 15 . . . . . . . . Gordon J. Wenham Genesis 16 – 50 . . . . . . . Gordon J. Wenham Exodus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John I. Durham Leviticus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John E. Hartley Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philip J. Budd Deuteronomy 1:1 – 21:9, 2nd ed. . . Duane L. Christensen Deuteronomy 21:10 – 34:12 . . . . . . Duane L. Christensen Joshua 1 – 12, 2nd ed. . . . . . . Trent C. Butler Joshua 13 – 24, 2nd ed. . . . . . Trent C. Butler Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trent C. Butler Ruth – Esther . . . . . . . . . . . Frederic W. Bush 1 Samuel, 2nd ed. . . . . . . . . . Ralph W. Klein 2 Samuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. A. Anderson 1 Kings, 2nd ed. . . . . . . . . . Simon J. Devries 2 Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T. R. Hobbs 1 Chronicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Roddy Braun 2 Chronicles . . . . . . . . . Raymond B. Dillard Ezra, Nehemiah . . . . . .H. G. M. Williamson Job 1 – 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David J. A. Clines Job 21 – 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . David J. A. Clines Job 38 – 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . David J. A. Clines Psalms 1 – 50, 2nd ed. . . . . . Peter C. Craigie, Marvin E. Tate Psalms 51 – 100 . . . . . . . . . . . Marvin E. Tate Psalms 101 – 150, rev. ed. . . . .Leslie C. Allen Proverbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roland E. Murphy Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . Roland E. Murphy Song of Songs/Lamentations . . . .Duane H. Garrett, Paul R. House Isaiah 1 – 33, rev. ed. . . . . . .John D. W. Watts Isaiah 34 – 66, rev. ed. . . . . .John D. W. Watts Jeremiah 1 – 25 . . . . . . . . . . Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, Joel F. Drinkard Jr. Jeremiah 26 – 52 . . . . . . . . Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise, Thomas G. Smothers

28 29 30 31 32 33a 33b 34a 34b 35a 35b 35c 36 37a 37b 38a 38b 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50 51 52a 52b 52c

Ezekiel 1 – 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Leslie C. Allen Ezekiel 20 – 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . .Leslie C. Allen Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John E. Goldingay Hosea – Jonah** . . . . . . . . . . Douglas Stuart Micah – Malachi** . . . . . . . . . Ralph L. Smith Matthew 1 – 13 . . . . . . . . . Donald A. Hagner Matthew 14 – 28 . . . . . . . . Donald A. Hagner Mark 1 – 8:26** . . . . . . . . .Robert A. Guelich Mark 8:27 – 16:20 . . . . . . . . . .Craig A. Evans Luke 1 – 9:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Nolland Luke 9:21 – 18:34 . . . . . . . . . . . John Nolland Luke 18:35 – 24:53 . . . . . . . . . . John Nolland John, 2nd ed. . . . George R. Beasley-Murray Acts 1 – 14* . . . . . . . . . . . .Stephen J. Walton Acts 15 – 28* . . . . . . . . . . .Stephen J. Walton Romans 1 – 8 . . . . . . . . . . .James D. G. Dunn Romans 9 – 16 . . . . . . . . . .James D. G. Dunn 1 Corinthians* . . . . . . . . . Andrew D. Clarke 2 Corinthians, rev. ed. . . . . .Ralph P. Martin Galatians . . . . . . . . Richard N. Longenecker Ephesians . . . . . . . . . . . . Andrew T. Lincoln Philippians, rev. ed. . . .Gerald F. Hawthorne, rev. by Ralph P. Martin Colossians, Philemon** . . . Peter T. O’Brien 1 & 2 Thessalonians** . . . . . . . . . F. F. Bruce Pastoral Epistles . . . . . . William D. Mounce Hebrews 1 – 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . William L. Lane Hebrews 9 – 13 . . . . . . . . . . . William L. Lane James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ralph P. Martin 1 Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. Ramsey Michaels Jude, 2 Peter** . . . . . . Richard J. Bauckham 1, 2, 3, John, rev. ed. . . . . Stephen S. Smalley Revelation 1 – 5 . . . . . . . . . . . .David E. Aune Revelation 6 – 16 . . . . . . . . . . .David E. Aune Revelation 17 – 22 . . . . . . . . . .David E. Aune

*forthcoming as of 2014 **in revision as of 2014

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 2

9/18/14 9:20 AM

WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY

7b

Joshua 13–24 Second Edition

TRENT C. BUTLER Old Testament Editor: Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford New Testament Editor: Peter H. Davids

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 3

9/18/14 9:20 AM

ZONDERVAN Joshua 13 – 24, Volume 7B Copyright © 2014 by Trent C. Butler This title is also available as a Zondervan ebook. Visit www.zondervan.com/ebooks. Requests for information should be addressed to: Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 ISBN 978-0-310-52012-2 Any Internet addresses (websites, blogs, etc.) and telephone numbers in this book are offered as a resource. They are not intended in any way to be or imply an endorsement by Zondervan, nor does Zondervan vouch for the content of these sites and numbers for the life of this book. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmied in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher. Interior design: Matthew Van Zomeren Printed in the United States of America 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 /DCI/ 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 4

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Table of Contents Editorial Preface Author’s Preface Preface to First Edition Abbreviations Commentary Bibliography

7 8 15 17 27

Text and Commentary II. God’s Geographical Guidance (13:1–19:51) A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33) Excursus: The Philistines B. Beginning with Caleb (14:1–15) C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18) D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51) III. Identifying Israel (20:1–24:33) A. Setting Up Sanctuaries (20:1– 9) B. The Levitical Cities (21:1– 42) C. Gifts from God’s Goodness (21:43– 45) D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34) E. The Commander’s Concluding Charge (23:1–16) F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1-28) G. Faithful to the Finish (24:29-33) Scripture Index Subject Index Author Index

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 5

31 42 72 83 97 147 190 190 205 234 239 264 285 333 345 356 359

9/18/14 9:20 AM

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 6

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Editorial Preface The launching of the Word Biblical Commentary brings to fulfillment an enterprise of several years’ planning. The publishers and the members of the editorial board met in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new commentary on the books of the Bible that would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers of these volumes are entitled to know what such features were intended to be; whether the aims of the commentary have been fully achieved time alone will tell. First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a number of scholars from around the world who not only share our aims, but are in the main engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college, and seminary. They represent a rich diversity of denominational allegiance. The broad stance of our contributors can rightly be called evangelical, and this term is to be understood in its positive, historic sense of a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation and to the truth and power of the Christian gospel. Then, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and written for the purpose of inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary. Unlike several of our distinguished counterparts in the field of commentary writing, there are no translated works, originally written in a non- English language. Also, our commentators were asked to prepare their own rendering of the original biblical text and to use the biblical languages as the basis of their own comments and exegesis. What may be claimed as distinctive with this series is that it is based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly approach to a theological understanding of Scripture understandable by— and useful to—the fledgling student, the working minister, and colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers as well. Finally, a word must be said about the format of the series. The layout, in clearly defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited to consult the section headed Notes. If the readers’ concern is with the state of modern scholarship on any given portion of Scripture, they should turn to the sections on Bibliography and Form/Structure/Setting. For a clear exposition of the passage’s meaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the Comment and concluding Explanation are designed expressly to meet that need. There is therefore something for everyone who may pick up and use these volumes. If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editors will have been met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded. General Editors:

Old Testament Editor: New Testament Editor: Associate Editor:

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 7

Bruce M. Metzger† David A. Hubbard† Glenn W. Barker† Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford Ralph P. Martin† Lynn Allan Losie

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Author’s Preface Joshua: An Evangelical-Critical Approach The original edition of this commentary raised eyebrows and much more among my evangelical colleagues. The most interesting question came from Martin Woudstra, author of the at-that-time standard conservative commentary on Joshua. He asked whether the methods and presuppositions of my commentary would in any way become the norm within the evangelical community. A to-the-point critique came in a kind way from David Howard, whose commentary is now the standard for evangelicals. Listing my work as number three under “The Best Commentaries on Joshua,” Howard recommends its purchase with the note that the “work’s major flaw is its too- easy acceptance of higher- critical orthodoxy concerning the history of traditions and sources that supposedly went into the composition of the book, so it must be used with some caution.” Such reception of the work requires a new clarification of the methodology and presuppositions behind this commentary. I tried to state my lifelong love affair with God’s Word but found even that personal testimony to be misinterpreted as making me Barthian. So I will trace the writing of the commentary and the method behind it. The series editors asked me to do extensive textual study. Doing this in Joshua revealed what was for me— at that time as a beginning scholar— an amazing fact. Joshua has been considered a work whose text was relatively easy to reconstruct with only a few major questions such as the placement of 8:30– 35 and the bridge to Judges. I found such a description to be much too simplistic. Almost every verse raised questions of text from one angle or another. I was thus able to construct tables representing the various types of textual differences with hundreds of entities within the tables. I could not solve a large number of the textual issues by simply repeating the normal response: a copyist made an obvious copying error. Rather, many of the textual differences had to be classified as literary improvements, homiletic interpretation and exegesis, or avoidance of unacceptable language. I began to recognize an unexpected freedom the early translators and scribes employed both in translation and transmission of the text. It appeared that concern for a final, standardized, unchangeable written text came into play at a quite late date in the literary, transmission, and translation work that went into developing the present text forms (i.e., Dead Sea Scrolls, Masoretic Text, Septuagint in its several manuscript forms, Old Latin, Vulgate, Targums, etc.). If copyists and translators felt such freedom with the text in the later history of its transmission, why should I believe the early history of transmission did not reflect the same freedom of interpreting the text and passing it on to a new generation? Careful study then revealed how much of the language of Deuteronomy reappeared in Joshua. This gave some reason for adopting parts of Martin Noth’s theory of a Deuteronomistic Historian playing a significant role in preserving, interpreting, and passing on the stories of Joshua and the first battles in Canaanite territory.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 8

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Author’s Preface

9

Similarly, removal of Deuteronomic language left complete stories moving from crisis to resolution, so that deeper literary study was required to understand the nature of the text and the literary genres that provided the core of the text. In reporting such study, I evidently raised hackles from some of my friends and colleagues, who could not correlate my methodology with a strong commitment to an inerrant Scripture. Still, year after year I have committed myself to the Evangelical Theological Society by signing the statement of belief and by presenting papers in the annual sessions. I simply see from the evidence of the text a different method God used to create, preserve, interpret, and transmit his holy text than do some of my colleagues. My commitment to the Word has never wavered. My method of interpreting the Word has gradually changed over the years. I remain convinced that the Word that led a small boy down the aisle of First Baptist Church in Sweetwater, Texas, so many years ago, still leads a retired editor in service to Christ and his church. I do not seek to change other peoples’ statements of belief or practice of exegesis. I simply want to testify to the depth I find in the biblical text the deeper I dig into it with standard tools of investigation. While reviews in more critical journals greeted the first “truly theological commentary” on Joshua, the more evangelical reviewers simply spoke of the dedication to critical method and literary development. My intent was and remains to use the critical methods—which I find justified by their results— and show how they lead to results more in touch with more conservative scholarship. The spring 1998 issue of Review and Expositor published my article on the theology of Joshua. Unexpectedly, several of my harshest Joshua commentary critics wrote to say how much they appreciated and valued the article and the great change it showed in my perspective. The outline for the article came directly from the commentary and must have shown how a bit of more mature reflection on how to communicate validated the conclusions to which I came even if my methodology remained suspect. In the meantime, evangelical, conservative scholars writing on Joshua and Judges, such as Block, Hess, and Hubbard, also have begun to recognize the ties to Deuteronomy but have talked more about what Daniel I. Block speaks of as “an independent literary composition, written in light of the authentically Mosaic theology of Deuteronomy.”1 K. Lawson Younger allows for an exilic date or afterwards for Judges.2 Hubbard sees that Joshua “comprises an edited compilation of source materials. . . . Acceptance of a deuteronomistic historian does not deny the antiquity of the contents of much of Deuteronomy nor does it preclude the possibility that the DH, or at least part of it, may have found written form as early as the early monarchy.”3 Hubbard then concludes “one may tentatively regard the Deuteronomist as its author, whatever date one assigns him, since that person effectively wrote it drawing on earlier sources.”4 Such conservative opinions certainly do not verify the opinions of my Joshua commentary but do show that evidence is pushing conservatives to join in seeing a connection of an important kind between Joshua and Deuteronomy and between Joshua and Samuel/Kings. 1 2 3 4

Judges, Ruth, NAC 6 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999) 49. Judges and Ruth, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002) 23. Joshua, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009) 30– 31. Ibid., 32.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 9

9/18/14 9:20 AM

10

Author’s Preface

Interestingly, the same type of study when used to create my Judges commentary in this series did not lead to the same literary results, for I found very little reason to attribute Judges materials to a Deuteronomist. I hope this shows some objectivity on my part in using the various methods I employ to see the history of the transmission, preservation, and canonization of the text. At the same time as I was writing the Judges volume, many other scholars began questioning the existence and/or contributions of the Deuteronomistic editor. Most of them went in a direction quite distinct from my own as they pushed the date late into the Persian period and discovered more and more sources or editors or redactors for the book. This, in my view, is critical scholarship gone wild with their methods and assumptions. Each new theme, new vocabulary word, or new variation on a theme does not necessarily lead to a new editor. New study continues to tie Deuteronomistic language and Priestly language together at some late point in the process. I cannot see how the small kingdom of the united monarchy or of Judah and of Israel could have developed competing scribal schools whose theological and cultic language and views were so nicely separated from one another. The assumed rather small number of literate scribes in Jerusalem would certainly understand and could utilize both the theological and the Priestly language of the day. The task of the exegete thus becomes a much simpler duty than to see how many contributors one can find in one brief text. My view of the development of the present text of Joshua is quite simple, far too simple for the dedicated redaction critics of today. I have divided the task into the following sections for analysis, conscious that observations in one area influence conclusions in another. The exegete works in many methodological disciplines.

I. Text An examination and comparison of the various Joshua manuscripts leads to decisions as to the reconstruction of a Hebrew text that comes as close as possible to the earliest Hebrew source, with the understanding that literary differences appeared early in the text’s history and continued well into the postexilic period. Text notes attempt to show major manuscript variations, scholarly options, and the understanding of the current writer.

II. Translation A study of lexicons, commentaries, grammars, and translations leads to decisions about how to render each Hebrew phrase or sentence into understandable English, which is more literal at most points in the commentary than in a translation one would produce for public and devotional reading. Here one seeks for consistency in the rendering of key literary and theological words and concepts, knowing that no English translation can reproduce exactly the meaning of Hebrew terms that by the nature of language have either broader or narrower semantic ranges than the English terms chosen. Text notes and comments attempt at key points to show the distinctive meanings.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 10

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Author’s Preface

11

III. Tradition History Tradition study seeks to determine the earliest origin and use of the material behind a present unit of literature. The origin may be oral or written. Much of the material in Joshua fits the pattern that Nadav Na’aman describes for the Saul and David stories: “In my opinion, the pre-Deuteronomistic story cycle of Saul, David and Solomon was inspired by a genuine antiquarian and literary interest of the scribes and their audience, and rested on a cycle of oral narratives that were passed down orally to their authors in the court of Jerusalem.”5 Na’aman would date the writing after 800, while the current writer places the Joshua materials in the Solomonic period. At any date, oral tradition is involved in preserving and interpreting the materials.6 Tradition study assumes that biblical materials were not created in the final form of the present text. This is not so evident in Joshua, where only one generation appears on the stage. It is much more apparent in Genesis and in Judges, where centuries intervene between the narratives. Narratives were told and preserved individually before gradually being collected together to create a new literary whole that we call the Pentateuch. Tradition study seeks to isolate the appearance of the literary unit within the life of Israel prior to its compilation into a larger literary unit. Thus individual tribal boundary and/or city lists apparently began as written individual tribal lists before being united with other tribal lists to serve political, military, or religious interests. These were then joined into the present form combining both city lists and boundary lists with relations to each other and with summary and final totals being added. On the other hand, stories such as that of Rahab sound like fireside entertainment delivered by early Israelite storytellers. That most likely means we have one rendition of the story among several that storytellers used to bring fun and instruction to their audiences. Tradition study uses the best possible literary and oral tools to isolate elements of the oral narrative from material inserted by a compiler or editor to incorporate the story into the larger narrative. This shows us the sources available to those who put the biblical material together in its present form. Tradition history gives more place to the Hebrew community and less place to an individual writer in the creation of biblical narrative.

IV. Source and Redaction Study Here is where I have written in ways that were easily misunderstood and opposed. To use the term source is to call to mind the critical source theories of JEDP. To hear 5 6

Nadav Na’aman, “Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of ‘Biblical Israel’ [Part 2],” ZAW 121 (2009) 345. For suggested criteria to differentiate texts that rest on oral literature from texts that were first composed in writing, see F. Polak, “The Oral and the Written: Syntax, Stylistics and the Development of Biblical Prose Narrative,” JANESCU 26 (1999) 59–105; idem, “The Style of the Dialogue in Biblical Prose Narrative,” JANESCU 28 (2002) 53– 95; idem, “Style Is More than One Person: Sociolinguistics, Literary Culture, and the Distinction between Written and Oral Narrative,” in Studies in Chronology and Typology, ed. I. Young, JSOTSup 369 (New York: T&T Clark, 2003) 38–103; idem, “Sociolinguistics: A Key to the Typology and the Social Background of Biblical Hebrew,” HS 47 (2006) 115– 62; idem, “Linguistic and Stylistic Aspects of Epic Formulae in Ancient Semitic Poetry and Biblical Narrative,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, ed. S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 285– 304.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 11

9/18/14 9:20 AM

12

Author’s Preface

the term priestly is to categorize something as belonging to a very late, exilic/postexilic source. Neither of these understandings is what I mean now, nor is it precisely what I intended to convey in the first edition of this commentary. For me, a source may be oral or written. It may utilize cultic language at home among the priests, story language of the fireside entertainers, legal language of the courts, military language of the soldiers, etc. At a more complex level, a source may represent a compilation of oral or written materials. For this I should use compilation or some kindred term other than source. The assumption is that all Israel knew most of the priestly language at a very early time in the nation’s history and did not have to put it to writing in the exile or later for the people to suddenly discover it. An author in any period after the development of the temple ritual could converse in and use most priestly terminology. The same goes for deuteronomistic language. This may well have originated in northern Israel, perhaps among Levites at local shrines. Solomon’s temple building or Jeroboam I’s rebellion may have driven many Levites south, where their theology now supported the Jerusalem temple and called for worship of Yahweh alone. These Levitical priests may well have compiled the conquest stories into a whole. Some of these northern Levites and their comrades may well have fled south even earlier to support David over against Saul and Mephibosheth. If so, they would have brought the northern traditions of Benjamin and Manasseh with them from Gilgal, Shechem, Shiloh, and Bethel. At this point they may well have combined the basic Judges narratives into a whole. Quite likely, the two sets of traditions— conquest and Judges— were joined into literary wholes during the Rehoboam/ Jeroboam confrontations in support of a unified people of God. The redaction part of the study seeks to determine the new emphasis of materials compiled together from the earliest written or oral souces into compilation and then into a complete “book.” How does placing the individual narratives such as that of Rahab into the present order with theological transitions and literary connections between narratives create a meaning greater than the meaning of the individual original sources? How does becoming part of the canon of Scripture extend or interpret the meaning of the original narratives and the redacted book? To see God working through generations, and at times centuries, to collect amazingly well- told stories into collections of stories and finally into canonical books sets us on the path to determine the meaning and the extension in meaning all along the path of storytelling, collection, and final redaction. That is source and redaction study.

V. Form Form criticism determines the type or genre of literature a particular literary unit represents. We begin with the present piece of literature and attempt to trace it back to its earliest source. Comparison with other biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature reveals common components that make up an oral or written genre. Applied to a specific writing, this analysis shows how the individual unit compares to and contrasts with the genre in general. Analysis determines the function of the genre within ancient society and the setting within which the genre functions and is preserved. Thus individual battle reports can be incorporated into a larger conquest annal preserved in national military records or on monuments to support or

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 12

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Author’s Preface

13

memorialize a military and political leader. Taken up into a larger literary unit, the one-time battle report becomes a component of a conquest narrative preserving a nation’s land claims against an opposing nation or tribe (cf. Judg 10).

VI. Structure or Narrative Criticism Narrative study seeks to discover how components of a narrative are combined to show the literary movement from crisis to resolution. A storyteller or narrative writer retains the audience’s attention and interest by utilizing (1) an introductory exposition, (2) leading to a crisis that introduces an unmistakable problem or tension that must be resolved, (3) introducing complications that deter the resolution, (4) building to a climax or turning point in the narrative, (5) that eases the tension and prepares for the (6) resolution that solves the crisis and provides the meaning of the narrative so that the storyteller or narrator can bring the story back to the (7) calm stage of the conclusion. Narrative criticism often works with the final form of the text, removing it from a historical setting for the events related or for the lifetime of the author. In addition, narrative criticism can limit itself to one element of the narrative.

VII. Setting The setting reasons out the historical or chronological and geographical/social setting in which a narrative unit was first created and preserved. This may be a cultic site like Gilgal, a social group such as Levites, a political unit such as David’s court, or a chronological period such as the exile. Placing the narrative within such a setting helps determine why a literary unit was preserved, how it functioned, and its meaning as it is incorporated into larger literary units. Thus the ceremonies of Josh 8:30–35 and 24:1–28 relate closely to the cultic site(s) at Shechem and reveal Israel’s control of that part of the land even without related conquest stories. Such cultic rites bring points of climax and resolution for a people called to obedience to God’s law.

VIII. Comment Comment sections dig into the text verse by verse to show the literary function and theological importance of each component of the narrative and to give deeper meanings and information about various items the text mentions. Here one finds information about archaeological discoveries, the nature of the Jordan River, the history and meaning of Passover, the meaning of the covenant relationship of God and Israel, and the various meanings and functions of important Hebrew words.

IX. Explanation The final unit in each section of the commentary seeks to bring all the information gained in the above methodological steps together to show the meaning of the literary unit in its historical and literary settings. The explanation of method presented above does not deal with history. The same method may be used to discuss and study a myth, a novel, an epic poem, a

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 13

9/18/14 9:20 AM

14

Author’s Preface

biography, and a historical annal. By arriving at a setting for the unit, the exegete determines whether the piece is intended strictly for entertainment and is thus fiction or whether it has roots in history and must be categorized with historical genres and understood as historical event. Here was the great weakness of my first edition in the eyes of many readers. I did not lay out my assumption of historicity for the materials. I assumed the larger portion of the readership shared and expected me to share in the belief in the historicity of the materials. But one must ask what historicity means. Is it simply a fit into the practices of a certain period in history based on ancient Near Eastern parallels as produced particularly by Hess, Younger, and Kitchen? How much literary hyperbole is allowed in a work we want to identify as historical? Is it a complete presentation of Israel’s conquest of the land? Is it simply a historian’s presentation of his own view of the historical era seeking to teach a certain perspective on Israel’s life? Is it the result of oral tradition that has gradually molded the materials into a canonical form with gradual changes along the way that are inherent in oral tradition? Is it merely an outline of historical “fact” shaped many centuries later into an apology, thereby creating an identity for a landless or powerless people? To claim for an appreciative audience that something is historical and true generalizes the issue to far too great a perspective. One must deal with an understanding of narrative formation, author’s intention, oral tradition transmission and preservation, textual accuracy, and narrative plot and function. No two human writers are going to tell the story the same way as seen in Chronicles and its work with Kings and Samuel or in the first three Gospels and their telling of the same stories with different vocabulary and literary and theological twists. Thus my first edition sought to methodologically trace, as clearly as possible, the routes various elements in the biblical text took as they developed in oral tradition, cultic liturgy, battle reports, administrative lists, etc. Such developments of individual stories led to compilations of stories; to a book giving more concrete form to the compilations; to a collection of books like Joshua and Judges and then Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; and then the ultimate history adding these books to the Pentateuch; until finally the thirty-nine Hebrew testament books were united into one. This preface must report that my beloved Mary fought cancer for four strong months before entering her eternal reward in April of 1996. Her loving strength will always form part of my identity. I can also report that God in grace and goodness brought another Mary into my life as on August 5, 1999, Mary Martin Spears became my wife and began showing an emotional strength and strong support as we blended our families. As of this writing together we have four adult sons, each with a lovely wife, a charming daughter, five granddaughters including two energetic twins, and two grandsons. This larger family, each person in an individual way, has accepted, loved, and encouraged me through the challenge of this second edition of Joshua. Again, the work has strengthened my faith and brought me closer to our Lord even as it has continued to leave intriguing questions that I suppose I will research until the Father calls me away from the books and into his place prepared just for me. Trent C. Butler Gallatin, Tennessee New Year’s Day 2011

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 14

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Preface to First Edition What type of person would devote years in Switzerland to a study of the conflicts and conquests of the book of Joshua? Why would one look down from the majesty of the Swiss mountains to the horror of Hebrew “holy war”— ḥērem? The answer lies, I suppose, in the “accidents” of human history under God. I drove out of the dusty heat of West Texas into the classrooms of Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, ready to put aside the pat answers of childhood because they no longer seemed to have meaning in the face of questions brought to the fore by the recent death of my adopted hemophiliac brother and a near-fatal accident that forced me to spend university graduation night unconscious in the hospital. I began looking for answers in the normal places. Strangely, exegesis of Genesis, Galatians, John, seemed to join systematic theology in raising new questions rather than solving the old ones. Finally, Professor Don Williams offered a seminar course in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History. I joined a team including my roommate Paul Redditt, who also later joined the ranks of Old Testament professors. We explored the Hebrew Passover in enough depth to develop wild new theories on the most varied aspects of Hebrew worship, faith, and the origin of the Hebrew Scriptures. Actually, I learned few real answers in the seminar, but I learned something much more important. I learned how to ask significant questions of the biblical materials. I lost my preoccupation with the standard “unanswerable questions” and devoted my life to the excitement of biblical exegesis. Then God introduced a new excitement into my life. Mary Burnett of Nashville, Tennessee, entered Southern Seminary. Soon she occupied more of my time than did the classroom excitement I had just discovered. The marvelous mystery of a trusting, loving personal relationship began to supply answers to many of the questions, whose answers I had sought in vain in my many books. After sixteen years of marriage and two exciting, loving sons, the excitement keeps increasing, and the answers continue to appear mysteriously when they are most needed. The academic quest continued at Vanderbilt University with a seminar on methods in biblical scholarship, demanding research on historical method as illustrated in the study of Josh 1–12. Exploring the history of research revealed the flood of questions I had never asked, questions to which I would devote the next ten years of my life. Archaeological results, literary studies, sociological theories, textual investigations, linguistic developments, and other information all had to be sorted out and fitted into theological presuppositions to form a new theological perspective. The more study I devoted to Joshua, the more I became convinced that a solution to its problems would yield a solid foundation for constructing a literary and theological history of the Old Testament, if not of the entire Bible. Joshua offered the keys to understanding the time-honored Pentateuch/Hexateuch debate, the origin and nature of Israel’s worship prior to the temple, the nature of premonarchical government, and the home and meaning of covenant theology. What was more, Joshua presented both the fulfillment of the promises to the ancestors and the establishment of the promises to the exiles.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 15

9/18/14 9:20 AM

16

Preface to First Edition

Sad to report, the present commentary, as all others, cannot provide keys to the locks to all these tantilizing subjects. We must suffice with a report along the scholarly way. We can report that the years devoted to the venture have raised not only new questions but have raised new levels of personal faith for the author. For this faith-provoking venture, I want to express personal thanks to the many compatriots who have helped and encouraged me along the way: church members at Hopewell Baptist Church, Springfield, Tennessee; Calvary Baptist Church, Lilburn, Georgia; Ruschlikon Baptist Church, Ruschlikon, Switzerland; and the several congregations of the European Baptist Convention, English Language. Further thanks are due the constantly questioning, yet supporting, students at Atlanta Baptist College (now Mercer University, Atlanta); Baptist Theological Seminary, Ruschlikon, Switzerland; Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky; and the many others at guest lectures throughout Israel, Yugoslavia, Germany, Poland, and Portugal. The greatest gratitude goes to Mary, Curt, and Kevin, who have endured the lonely days while Daddy wrote “the Book.” Their support and love have made the endeavor worthwhile. A final word must be directed to John Watts and his editorial staff for enduring with me to the end. Trent Butler Nashville, Tennessee September 21, 1982

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 16

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Abbreviations Periodicals, Reference Works, and Serials AASF AASOR

AB ABD

ABLAK

ABRL AbrN ACCS AcT ADPV AEHL

AER AfO ÄgAT AGJU

Aharoni, Land

AION AJA AJBA AJBI AJSL

Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992. Aufsätze zur biblischen Landesund Altertumskunde Acta orientalia. M. Noth. 2 vols. Leiden, 1971. Anchor Bible Reference Library Abr-Nahrain Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Acta theologica Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästina Vereins Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. Ed. A. Negev. New York, 1972. American Ecclesiastical Review Archiv für Orientforschung Ägypten und Altes Testament Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Revised and enlarged edition. Philadelphia, 1979. Annali dell’Istituto Orientali di Napoli American Journal of Archaeology Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 17

AmiCl Ami du Clergé AnBib Analecta biblica Andersen, Sentence Andersen, F. I. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. The Hage, 1974. ANEP The Ancient Near East in Pictures. Ed. J. B. Pritchard. 2nd ed. with supplement. Princeton, 1969. ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Ed. J. B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton, 1969. AnOr Analecta orientalia AntSur Antiquity and Survival AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament AoF Altorientalische Forschungen APF Archiv für Papyrusforschung ArOr Archiv orientální ARWAW Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfalischen Akademie der Wissenschaften ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research ASORDS American Schools of Oriental Research, Dissertation Series ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments ATAT Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch AThR Anglican Theological Review AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies AUU Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis AzTh Arbeiten zur Theologie

9/18/14 9:20 AM

18 BA BaghM BAIAS BAR BASOR BAT BBB BBET BBLAK BBR BBRSup BDB

BDS BEAT BEATAJ

BeO BETL

BEvT BFCTL

BHH

BHK BHS

Bib BibInt BibOr BibS(N)

Abbreviations Biblical Archaeologist Baghdader Mitteilungen Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archeological Society Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments Bonner biblische Beiträge Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Beiträge zur Biblischen Landesund Altertumskunde Bulletin for Biblical Research Bulletin for Biblical Research, Supplement Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907. Corrected ed., 1962. BIBAL Dissertation Series Beiträge zur Erklärung des alten Testamentes Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentum Bibbia e oriente Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Bibliothêque de la Faculté Catholique de Thêologie de Lyon Biblisch-historisches Handwörterbuch: Landeskunde, Geschichte, Religion, Kultur. Ed. B. Reicke and L. Rost. 4 vols. Göttingen, 1962–1966. Biblia Hebraica. Ed. R. Kittel. 16th ed. Stuttgart, 1973. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983. Biblica Biblical Interpretation Biblica et orientalia Biblische Studien (Neukirchen, 1951–)

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 18

BIES BIOSCS

BJPES BJRL

BJS BK BKAT

BMik BN BO BR BRev BRL2

BSac BT BTB BTS BTZ BurH BWANT

ByzZ BZ BZAW

CA CAH CahRB CAT CB CBC CBQ CBR CDOG CHALOT

Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society (= Yediot) Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Brown Judaic Studies Bibel und Kirche Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament. Ed. M. Noth and H. W. Wolff. Beit Mikra Biblische Notizen Bibliotheca orientalis Biblical Research Bible Review Biblisches Reallexikon. 2nd ed. Ed. K. Galling. HAT 1.1. Tübingen, 1977. Bibliotheca Sacra The Bible Translator Biblical Theology Bulletin Bible et terre sainte Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift Buried History Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Byzantinische Zeitschrift Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Convivium assisiense Cambridge Ancient History Cahiers de la Revue biblique Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament Cultura bíblica Cambridge Bible Commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly Currents in Biblical Research Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft W. L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

9/18/14 9:20 AM

ConBOT COS

Crux CTJ CTM CurBS CV DBAT

DCH

DD DE Diog DJD DOTHB DOTT

DTT EA

EAEHL

EB EBC EBib EdF EHS EncJud ErIsr

Abbreviations

19

EstBíb ETR ETS EvQ EvT Exp ExpTim FAT

Estudios bíblicos Etudes théologiques et religieuses Erfurter theologische Studien The Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie The Expositor The Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Bibel Forschungen und Fortschritte The Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Foi et Vie Grundrisse zum Alten Testament Guides to Biblical Scholarship Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Ed. E. Kautsch. Trans. A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1910. Repr. 1966. Gregorianum Göttinger theologischer Arbeiten Grace Theological Journal Geereformeerd theologisch tijdschrift Koehler, L. W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Trans. and ed. under supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden, 1994–1999. Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament Horizons in Biblical Theology Harvard Dissertations in Religion Henoch Hermanthena Heythrop Journal Brand, C., C. W. Draper, and A. England. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Rev. ed. Ed. T. C. Butler. Nashville: B&H, 2003.

Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series The Context of Scripture. Vol. 1, Canonical Compositions. Vol. 2, Monumental Inscriptions. Vol. 3, Archival Documents. Ed. W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger, Jr. Leiden, 1997, 1999, 2002. Crux Calvin Theological Journal Concordia Theological Monthly Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Communio viatorum Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament und seiner Rezeption in der Alten Kirche Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Ed. D. J. A. Clines. 7 vols. Sheffield, 1993–2007. Dor le Dor Discussions in Egyptology Diogenes Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dictionary of the Hebrew Bible Documents from Old Testament Times. Ed. D. W. Thomas. London, 1958. Dansk teologisk tidsskrift El-Amarna tablets. According to the edition of J. A. Knudtzon. Die el-AmarnaTafeln. Leipzig, 1908–1915. Reprint, Aalen, 1964. Continued in A. F. Rainey, El-Amarna Tables, 349–379. 2nd rev. ed. Kevelaer, 1978. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Ed. M. Avi-Yonah. 4 vols. Jerusalem, 1975–1978. Echter Bibel Expositor’s Bible Commentary Etudes bibliques Erträge der Forschung Europäischen Hochschulschriften Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem, 1972. Ereṣ Israel

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 19

FB FF FOTL FRLANT

FV GAT GBS GKC

Greg GTA GTJ GTT HALOT

HAR HAT HBT HDR Hen Herm HeyJ HIBD

9/18/14 9:20 AM

20 HKAT HS HSM HSS HTR HUCA HvTSt HW

IB

IBHS

IBS IDB

IDBSup

IEJ Int IOS IOSCS

IOSOT

Irén ITC ITQ JA JANESCU

JAOS JARCE JBL JBQ JBS

Abbreviations Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Hebrew Studies Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Hervormde teologiese studies Hebräische Wortforschung. FS W. Baumgartner, ed. B. Hartmann et al. VTSup 16. Leiden, 1967. Interpreter’s Bible. Ed. G. A. Buttrick et al. 12 vols. New York, 1951–1957. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN, 1990. Irish Biblical Studies Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. G. A. Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville, 1962. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Ed. K. Crim. Nashville, 1976. Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation Israel Oriental Studies International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament Irénikon International Theological Commentary Irish Theological Quarterly Journal asiatique Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Bible Quarterly Jerusalem Biblical Studies

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 20

JBT JCS JETS JHS JJS JNES JNSL JOTT Joüon

JPOS JQR JRefJ JSJ

JSJSup JSNT JSOR JSOT JSOTSup

JSS JSSEA JTS Jud KAT KB

KBL

Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics Joüon, P. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Trans. and rev. T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14/1–2. Rome, 1991. Also Grammaire de l’Hébreu biblique, 2nd ed. Rome: Institut biblique pontifical, 1947. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Reformed Judaism Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSJ Supplements Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal of the Society of Oriental Research Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities Journal of Theological Studies Judaica Kommentar zum Alten Testament Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. Ed. E. Schrader. 6 vols. Berlin, 1889–1915. Koehler, L., and W. Baumgartner. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros. 2nd ed. Leiden, 1958.

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Abbreviations KHC

Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Kleine Schriften Kirjath-Sepher

KlSchr KS Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Lambdin, T. O. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Scribner’s, 1971. Laur Laurentianum LBC Layman’s Bible Commentary LTQ Lexington Theological Quarterly Maarav Maarav MDAI Mitteilungen des Deutschen archäologischen Instituts MdB Le Monde de la Bible MNDPV Mitteilungen und nachrichten des Deutschen PalaestinaVereins MSP Monumenta sacra et profana MUSJ Mélanges de l’Université SaintJoseph NAC New American Commentary NBC New Bible Commentary NBD New Biblical Dictionary. Ed. J. D. Douglas. London, 1962. NCB New Century Bible [Commentary] (new ed.) NEA Near Eastern Archaeology (formerly Biblical Archaeologist) NEAEHL The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Ed. E. Stern. 4 vols. Jerusalem, 1993. NEASB Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin NEchtB Neue Echter Bibel NedTT Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift NGTT Nederduitse gereformeerde teologiese tydskrif NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible NIBCOT New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDB The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 21

NIDOTTE

NIVAC NRTh OBO ÖBS OBT OLA OLP OLZ OTA OTE OTL OTS OtSt PaVi PEFQS PEQ Per PerlesII

PIBA PIHANS

PJ PL

POTT

21 New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Ed. W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, 1997. NIV Application Commentary La nouvelle revue théologique Orbis biblicus et orientalis Österreichische biblische Studien Overtures to Biblical Theology Orientalia lovaniensia analecta Orientalia lovaniensia periodica Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Old Testament Abstracts Old Testament Essays Old Testament Library Old Testament Studies Oudtestamentische Studiën Parole di Vita Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly Perspectives Perles, F. Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments. NF. Leipzig: Engel, 1922. Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association Publications de l’Institut historique et archeologique neerlandais de Stamboul Palästina-Jahrbuch Patrologia latina Ed J. – P. Migne 217 vols. Paris, 1844 – 1864. Peoples of Old Testament Times. Ed. D. J. Wiseman. London, 1973.

Preliminary and Interim Report Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. Vol. 1, Pentateuch. Vol. 2, Historical Books. Ed. D. Barthélemy et al. 2nd rev. ed. New York, 1979. Protest Protestantesimo PrWCJewSt Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies

9/18/14 9:20 AM

22 PTR PUST Qad QD RadRel RAr RB RBL RBR RelS ResQ RevExp RevistB RevQ RGG

RHPR RHR RICP RivB RSO RST RTFL RTP RTR SA Salm SANT SAOC SBFLA SBJT SBL SBLABS SBLDS SBLMS SBLSCS SBLSP SBLSS SBLSymS

Abbreviations Princeton Theological Review Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas Qadmoniot Quaestiones disputatae Radical Religion Revue archéologique Revue biblique Review of Biblical Literature Ricerche Bibliche e Religiose Religious Studies Restoration Quarterly Review and Expositor Revista bíblica Revue de Qumran Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Ed. K. Galling. 7 vols. 3rd ed. Tübingen, 1957–1965. Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Revue de l’histoire des religions Revue de l’Institut Catholique de Paris Rivista biblical italiana Rivista degli studi orientali Regensburger Studien zur Theologie Recueil de travaux publiépar la Faculté des Lettres Revue de théologie et de philosophie Reformed Theological Review Studia anselmiana Salmaticensis Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization Studii biblici Franciscani liber annus Southern Baptist Journal of Theology Society of Biblical Literature SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBL Seminar Papers SBL Semeia Studies SBL Symposium Series

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 22

SBLTCS SBOT SBS SBT SBTS SC

SBL Text-Critical Studies Sacred Books of the Old Testament Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Sources for Biblical and Theological Study Sources chrétiennes. Paris, 1943–. Science et esprit

ScEs Schneider, Grammatik Schneider, W. Grammatik des biblischen Hebräisch: Ein Lehrbuch. Munich, 1974. Scr Scripture ScrHier Scripta hierosolymitana ScrVict Scriptorium victoriense SEÅ Svensk exegetisk årsbok Sef Sefarad Sem Semitica SemeiaSt Semeia Studies SFSHJ South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism SHANE Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East Shnaton Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament SÖAW Sitzungen der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien Sperber Sperber, A., ed. The Bible in Aramaic. 4 vols. Leiden, 1992. SR Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses SSN Studia semitica neerlandica ST Studia theologica StC Studia catholica STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah SThU Schweizerische theologische Umschau STT Suomalaisen tiedeakatemian toimituksia SWBA Social World of Biblical Antiquity SWBASup The Social World of Biblical Antiquity Supplement SwJT Southwestern Journal of Theology TA Tel Aviv

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Abbreviations Tarbiz TAVO

TB

TBei TBT TDOT

TEH TGl THAT

Them ThSt ThT ThTo ThV ThViat TJ T&K TLOT

TLZ TOTC TP TQ Transeu TRev TRu TSK TT TUAT

TvT TWAT

Tarbiz Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients. 7 vols. Wiesbaden, 1977–1993. Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert Theologische Beiträge The Bible Today Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Ed. E. Jenni and C. Westermann. Trans. J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974–. Theologische Existenze heute Theologie und Glaube Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Ed. E. Jenni and C. Westermann. 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1971–1976. Themelios Theologische Studiën Theologisch tijdschrift Theology Today Theologische Versuche Theologia viatorum Trinity Journal Texte & Kontexte Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ed. E. Jenni and C. Westermann. Tr. M. E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, MA, 1997. Theologische Literaturzeitung Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theologie und Philosophie Theologische Quartalschrift Transeuphratène Theologische Revue Theologische Rundschau Theologische Studien und Kritiken Teologisk Tidsskrift Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Ed. O. Kaiser. Gütersloh, 1984–. Tijdschrift voor theologie Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. 5 vols. (incomplete).

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 23

TWOT

TynBul TZ UF USQR VD VF VoxTh VT VTSup WBC Williams’ Hebrew Syntax

WMANT

WO WTJ WUNT

WVDOG

WW WZR ZABR ZÄS ZAW ZBK ZDMG ZDPV ZdZ

23 Stuttgart, 1970 = Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Trans. J. T. Willis et al. Grand Rapids, 1974–. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Ed. R. L. Harris and G. L. Archer, Jr. 2 vols. Chicago, 1980. Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Ugarit-Forschungen Union Seminary Quarterly Review Verbum domini Verkündigung und Forschung Vox theologica Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary

Williams, R. J. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. Rev. J. C. Beckman. 3rd ed. Toronto, 2007. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Die Welt des Orients Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orientgesellschaft Word and World Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtgeschichte Zeitschrift fur ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zürcher Bibelkommentare Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins Die Zeichen der Zeit

9/18/14 9:20 AM

24 ZIBBC ZKT

Abbreviations Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie

ZTK

Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Texts, Versions, and Ancient Works 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, etc.

B. Bat. CEV DSB DSS Dtn Dtr DtrN DtrP E G

GWT HCSB J JB JPS K

Numbered caves of Qumran, followed by abbreviation of biblical or apocryphal book Baba Batra Contemporary English Version Daily Study Bible Dead Sea Scrolls Deuteronomic Deuteronomistic, Deuteronomist Nomistic Deuteronomist Priestly Deuteronomist Elohist (supposed biblical literary source) Greek translation: as published in Septuaginta, LXX ed. A. Rahlfs, 1935. In Daniel, G includes both OG and Th, as published in J. Ziegler’s ed., 1954 God’s Word Translation Holman Christian Standard Bible Yahwist/Jahwist (supposed biblical literary source) Jerusalem Bible Jewish Publication Society translation Kethib (the written consonantal Hebrew text of OT)

KJV LXX LXX A LXX B LXXL m. Message MT NAB NASB NEB NET NETS NIV NJB NLT NRSV P Q REB RSV Tg(s). Theod. Vg.

King James Version Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT LXX Codex, Alexandrinus LXX Codex, Vaticanus LXX, Lucianic recension Mishnah Contemporary rendering by E. H. Peterson Masoretic Text (as published in BHS) New American Bible New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update New English Bible New English Translation (online NET Bible) A New English Translation of the Septuagint New International Version New Jerusalem Bible New Living Translation New Revised Standard Version Priestly Source Qere, Hebrew reading tradition Revised English Bible Revised Standard Version Targum(s) Theodotion Vulgate

Biblical and Apocryphal Books Old Testament Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Josh Judg Ruth

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 24

1–2 Sam 1–2 Kgs 1–2 Chr Ezra Neh Esth Job Ps(s)

1–2 Samuel 1–2 Kings 1–2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalm(s)

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Abbreviations Prov Eccl Song Isa Jer Lam Ezek Dan Hos Joel

Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel

25

Amos Obad Jonah Mic Nah Hab Zeph Hag Zech Mal

Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

Ep Jer Jdt 1–2 Macc 3–4 Macc Pr Man Ps 151 Sir Tob Wis

Epistle of Jeremiah Judith 1–2 Maccabees 3–4 Maccabees Prayer of Manasseh Psalm 151 Sirach/Ecclesiasticus Tobit Wisdom of Solomon

1–2 Thess 1–2 Tim Titus Phlm Heb Jas 1–2 Pet 1–2–3 John Jude Rev

1–2 Thessalonians 1–2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1–2 Peter 1–2–3 John Jude Revelation

Eg. EI Eng. esp. ET fem. frg. FS

Egyptian Early Iron English especially English Translation feminine fragment Festschrift, volume written in honor of German Greek Hebrew

Apocrypha Bar Add Dan PrAzar Bel SgThree Sus 1–2 Esd Add Esth

Baruch Additions to Daniel Prayer of Azariah Bel and the Dragon Song of the Three Young Men Susanna 1–2 Esdras Additions to Esther

New Testament Matt Mark Luke John Acts Rom 1–2 Cor Gal Eph Phil Col

Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1–2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians

Miscellaneous abs. Aram. BCE c. ca. CE chap(s). consec. const. diss. ed(s). e.g.

absolute Aramaic Before the Common Era common circa, about Common Era chapter(s) consecutive construct dissertation edition; edited by; editor(s) exempli gratia, for example

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 25

Ger. Gk. Heb.

9/18/14 9:20 AM

26 impf. impv. ind. inf. LB lit. M.R. masc. n(n). NF NS NT OG orig. OS OT p(p). part. pers. pf.

Abbreviations imperfect imperative indicative infinitive Late Bronze literally Map Reference masculine note(s) Neue Folge, new series new series New Testament Old Greek original, originally old series Old Testament page(s) participle person perfect

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 26

pl. repr. rev. seb. Sef. Sem. ser. sg. suff. Syr. TR trans. Ugar. var. lect. vb. v(v) §

plural reprint, reprinted revised, reviser, revision sebir, the usual form of the word noted in the margin Sefarad Semitic series singular suffix Syriac language Textus Receptus translated by; translator Ugaritic varia(e) lectio(nes), “variant reading(s)” verb verse(s) section/paragraph

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Commentary Bibliography In the text of the commentary, references to commentaries on Joshua are by author’s name only or by author’s name and year of publication if the author has produced more than one commentary. Abadie, P. Le livre de Josué critique historique. Cahiers Évangile 134. Paris: Cerf, 2005. Abel, F.-M. Le livre de Josué. Le Sainte Bible. Paris, 1950. Ahituv, S. Joshua: Introduction and Commentary (Heb.). Tel Aviv, 1995. Alonso Schökel, L. Josué y Jueces. Ed J. M. Valverde. Trans. M. Iglesias González and L. Alonso Schökel. Los Libros Sagrados 3. Madrid, 1973. Auld, G. Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. Daily Study Bible. Philadelphia: Westminister, 1984. Auzou, G. Le Don d’une Conquêt:. Étude du Livre de Josué. Paris, 1964. Baker, D. Joshua: The Power of God’s Promises. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988. Baldi, D. Giosuè. La Sacra Bibbia. Rome: Marietti, 1956. Beda Venerabilis (pseudo.). Quaestiones super Jesu Nave Librum. PL 93. 1862. Repr., Paris, 1950. 417–22. Beek, M. A. Jozua. De Prediking van het Oude Testament. Nijkerk, 1981. Bennett, W. H. The Book of Joshua: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text. The Sacred Books of the Old Testament 6. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1895. Blair, E. P. The Book of Deuteronomy, the Book of Joshua. LBC 5. Richmond: John Knox, 1964. Boer, P. A. H. de. Zoals er gezegd is over de intocht (Jozua). Bijbelcommentaren voor de moderne mens 7. Zeist: De Haan, 1963. Boling, R. Joshua. AB 6. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982. Bonfrerius, J. Josue, Judices et Ruth. Paris, 1631. Borrhaus, M. Josua. Basel, 1557. Bright, J. “The Book of Joshua.” In IB. Vol. 2. Nashville: Abingdon, 1953. 2:539–673. Burmannus, F. De Rigteren Israels, of te uitlegginge ende betrachtinge van de boeken Josua, der Rigteren ende Ruth. Utrecht, 1675. Calmet, A. Josua, Commentarius literalis in omnes libros Veteris Testamenti, Tomus tertius: Josue, Judicium, Ruth, I+II Regum. Würzburg, 1790. Calvin, J. Commentaires sur le livre de Josue: Avec une préface de Th. De Besze. (Genève, 1564) / Commentaries on the Book of Joshua. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948. Also published as Commentarius in Librum Iosue. Corpus Reformatorum. Brunsvigae: Schwetschke, 1882 (Calvina Opera 25) 421. Repr., New York: Johnson, 1964. Translated as Commentaries on the Book of Joshua, trans. H. Beveridge. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1854. Cetina, E. S. “Joshua.” In The International Bible Commentary. Ed. W. R. Farmer. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998. 525–47. Chyträus, D. Josua. Rostock, 1577. Claire, Abbé. Le Livre de Josué. Paris, 1877. Cohen, A. Joshua and Judges. Soncino Books of the Bible. London, 1976. Cohen, M. Joshua and Judges (Heb.). Ramat Gan, 1992. Colenso, J. W. The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined. Vols. 1–7. London, 1863–1879. Constable, T. L. Notes on Joshua. Sonic Light, 2010. Online: http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/joshua.pdf. Cooke, G. A. The Book of Joshua in the Revised Version with Introduction and Notes. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1918. Coornaert, V. J. Josuë, Rechters, Ruth, Koningen en Paaralipomenon volgens en met den latijnschen tekst der vulgata: In het vlaamsch vertaald en in doorlopende antekeningehn uitgeleid. Bruge, 1897. Coote, R. B. “The Book of Joshua.” In NIB. Vol. 2. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. 553–719. Creach, J. F. D. Joshua. Interpretation Commentary. Louisville: John Knox, 2003. Croceteti, G. Giosuè, Giudici, Rut. Leggere oggi la Bibbia 1.7. Brescia, 1981. Crosby, H. Expository Notes on the Book of Joshua. London, 1875. Davidson, R. M. Joshua: In the Footsteps of Joshua. Hagerstown, PA: Review and Herald Publishing, 1995. Davis, D. R. No Falling Words: Expositions of the Book of Joshua. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988. Deurloo, K. A. Jozua: Een praktische bijbelverklaring. Tekst en toelichting. Kok: Kampen, 1994. ———. Jozua: Verklaring van een bijbelgedeelte. Kok: Kampen, 1981. Dillmann, A. Die Bücher Numeri, Deuter-

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 27

9/18/14 9:20 AM

28

Commentary Bibliography

onomium und Josua. 2nd ed. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 13. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1886. Earl, D. S. Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture. Journal of Theological Interpretation Supplement 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Ehrlich, A. B. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches. Vol. 3, Josua, Richter, I und II Samuelis. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910. Fernández, P. A. Commentarius in librum Iosue. Cursus Scripturae Sacrae 5. Paris, 1938. Franke, J. R. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–2 Samuel. ACCS, OT 4. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005. Fritz, V. Das Buch Josua. HAT 1.7. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994. Garstang, J. Joshua-Judges. Foundations of Bible History. New York: Smith, 1931. Gelin, A. “Le Livre de Josué.” In La Sainte Bible. Paris: Alliance Biblique Française, 1949. Görg, M. Josua. NEchtB 26. Würzburg: Echter, 1991. Gray, J. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. NCB. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1967. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Gressmann, H. Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie Israels: Samuel bis Amos und Hosea. 2nd ed. Die Schriften des Alten Testaments 2, vol. 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921. ———. Die Anfänge Israels: Mosis bis Richter und Ruth. 2nd ed. Die Schriften des Alten Testaments 1, vol. 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922. Gutbrod, K. Das Buch vom Lande Gottes: Josua und Richter. BAT 10. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1951. Hamlin, E. J. Inheriting the Land: A Commentary on the Book of Joshua. ITC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Harris, J. G. “Joshua.” In Joshua, Judges, Ruth. NIBCOT. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000. 1–119. Harstad, A. L. Joshua. Concordia Commentary. St. Louis: Concordia, 2004. Hawk, L. D. Joshua. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000. ———. Joshua in 3-D: A Commentary on Biblical Conquest and Manifest Destiny. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2010. Hertzberg, H. W. Die Bücher Josua, Richter, Ruth. ATD 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953. Hess, R. S. Joshua. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996. Holzinger, H. Das Buch Josua. KHC 6. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1901. Hoppe, L. Joshua, Judges. Old Testament Message 5. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1982. Howard, D. M., Jr. Joshua. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998. Hubbard, R. L., Jr. Joshua. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. Hummelauer, E. V. Commentarius in librum Iosue. Cursus Scripturae Sacrae. Paris: Lethielleux, 1903. Keil, C. F. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Trans. J. Martin. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868. Originally published as Josua, Richter und Ruth, vol. 1 of Biblischer Commentar über die prophetischen Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments. Leipzig: Düorffling und Franke, 1863. Knauf, E. A. Josua. ZBK AT 6. Zürich: Theologische Verlag Zürich, 2008. Knobel, A. Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium, und Josua. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 13. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1861. Koorevaar, H. J. De opbouw van het Boek Jozua. Dissertation, Brussels/Heverlee, 1990. Kroeze, J. H. Het Boek Jozua. Commentaar op het Oude Testament. Kampen: Kok, 1968. Madvig, D. H. “Joshua.” In Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel. Ed. F. E. Gaebelein. EBC 3. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. 239–371. Masius, A. Iosuae imperatoris historia illustrata atq. explicata. Antwerp: Plantinus, 1574. McConville, J. G. “Joshua.” In Oxford Bible Commentary. Ed. J. Barton and J. Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. 158–76. McConville, J. G., and S. W. Williams. Joshua. Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Miller, J. M., and G. Tucker. The Book of Joshua. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1974. Nelson, R. D. Joshua: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Noth, M. Das Buch Josua. 2nd ed. HAT 1.7. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1953. Nötscher, F. Josua, das Buch der Richter. EB 3. Würzburg: Echter, 1950. Oenig, S. B., ed. The Book of Joshua: A New English Translation of the Text and Rashi with a Commentary Digest. New York: Judaica, 1969. Oettli, S. Das Deuteronomium und die Bücher Josua und Richter mit einer Karte Palästinas. Kurzgefaßter Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testamentes sowie den Apokryphen. Munich, 1893. Ottosson, M. Josuaboken: En programskrift för davidisk restauration. Studia Biblical Upsaliensia 1. Uppsala: Amqvist & Wiksell, 1991. Pitkänen, P. M. A. Joshua. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 6. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 28

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Commentary Bibliography

29

Press, 2010. Pressler, C. Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: John Knox, 2002. Robinson, H. W., ed. Deutronomy and Joshua. Century Bible. Edinburgh: Jack, 1907. Roussel, L. Le livre de Josué, premiére partie: L’invasion (chapitre 1–12): Texte, traduction, commentaire. Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’université de Montpellier 8. Nimes: Barnier, 1955. Schulz, A. Das Buch Josue. Bonn: Hanstein, 1924. Sicre, J. L. Josué: Historia. Nueva Biblia Española. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2002. Soggin, J. A. Le Livre de Josué. CAT 5a. Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1970. Translated as Joshua, trans. R. A. Wilson, OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972. Spronk, K. Jozua: Een praktische bijbelverklaring. Tekst en Toelichting. Kampen: Kok, 1994. Steuernagel, H. Das Deuteronomium: Das Buch Josua. HKAT 1.3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900. Wesley, J. John Wesley’s Commentary on the Bible. Ed. G. R. Schoenhals. Grand Rapids: Asbury, 1990. Woudstra, M. The Book of Joshua. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. Younger, K. L., Jr. “Joshua.” In Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Ed. J. W. Rogerson and J. D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. 174–89.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 29

9/18/14 9:20 AM

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 30

9/18/14 9:20 AM

II. God’s Geographical Guidance (13:1–19:51) Bibliography Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. ———. “The Province List of Judah.” VT 9 (1959) 225–46. ———. The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Upper Galilee (Heb.). Jerusalem, 1957. Ahituv, A. “Land and Justice.” In Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and Their Influence. Ed. H. G. Reventlow and Y. Hoffman. JSOTSup 137. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. 11–28. Alt, A. “Israels Gaue unter Salomo.” In Alttestamentliche Studien: Rudolf Kittel zum 60. Geburtstag. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913. 1–19. ———. “Judas Gaue unter Josia.” PJ 21 (1925) 100–116. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichten des Volkes Israel, vol. 2 (Munich: Beck, 1953) 276–88. ———. “Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Josua.” In Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte und Archaeologie Palästinas. Leipzig: Deichert, 1927. 13–24. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichten des Volkes Israel. Vol. 1. Munich: Beck, 1953. 193–202. “Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palätina.” Reformationsprogramm der Universität Leipzig (1935). Translated in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion by R. A. Wilson as “The Settlement of the Israelites in Palestine.” London: Blackwell, 1966. 135–69. Assis, E. “How Long Are You Slack to Go to Possess the Land (Jos 18:3): Ideal and Reality in the Distribution Descriptions in Joshua 13–19.” VT 53 (2003) 1–25. Bächli, O. “Von der Liste zur Beschreibung: Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zu Jos. 13–19.” ZDPV 89 (1973) 1–14. Baldi, D. “La Terra Promessa nel Programma di Giosue.” In SBFLA 1 (1950–1951) 87–106. Blenkinsopp, J. “The Structure of P.” CBQ 38 (1976) 275–92. Boer, R. Tracking the Tribes of Yahweh: On the Trail of a Classic. JSOTSup 351. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Buhl, F. “Textkritische Bemerkungen zu Jos 13:4–5.” MNDPV 1 (1895) 53–55. Coogan, M. D. “Archaeology and Biblical Studies: The Book of Joshua.” In The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters. Ed. W. H. Propp, B. Halpern, and D. N. Freedman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. 19–32. Cortese, E. “Giosuè 13–19 e l’antica geografia delle tribù.” RivB 33 (1985) 345–50. ———. Josua 13–21: Ein priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. OBO 94. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Cross, F. M., and G. E. Wright. “The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah.” JBL 75 (1956) 202–26. Curtis, A. H. W. “Joshua: Historical Mapping.” In Ancient and Modern Scriptural Historiography/L’historiographie biblique, ancienne et moderne. Ed. G. T. Brooke and T. Römer. BETL 207. Leuven: Leuven UP, 2007. 99–108. Eissfeldt, O. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. Elliger, K. “Die Grenze zwischen Ephraim und Manasse.” ZDPV 53 (1930) 265–309. ———. “Tribes, Territories of.” IDB, 4:701–10. Finkelstein, I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988. Gass, E. Die Moabiter—Geschichte und Kultur eines ostjordanischen Volkes im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ADPV 38. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. Geus, C. H. J. de. The Tribes of Israel: An Investigation into Some of the Presuppositions of Martin Noth’s Amphictyony Hypothesis. SSN 18. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976. 70–83. Gottwald, N. K. The Tribes of Yahweh. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979. Heidet, L. “Notes de géographie biblique: Les royaumes de Juda et des dix tribus: La ligne intermédiaire de démarcation.” Bib 7 (1926) 83–87. Hess, R. S. “Asking Historical Questions of Joshua 13–19: Recent Discussion concerning the Date of the Boundary Lists.” In Faith, Tradition, and History. Ed. A. Millard et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. 191–205. ———. “Late Bronze Age and Biblical Boundary Descriptions of the West Semitic World.” In

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 31

9/18/14 9:20 AM

32

II. God’s Geographical Guidance (13:1–19:51)

Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium of Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September 1992. Ed. G. J. Brooke. Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 1994. 123–38. ———. “A Typology of West-Semitic Place Name Lists with Special Reference to Joshua 13–21.” BA 59 (1996) 160–70. Hölscher, G. Geschichtsschreibung in Israel. Lund: Gleerup, 1952. 345– 49. Ibáñez Arana, A. “Los marcos redaccionales de Jos 13–19.” Salm 28 (1981) 71–95. Kallai, Z. “The Allotments of the Tribes of Israel and Their Boundaries.” Diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1962 (Heb.). ———. “The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible: Territorial Patterns in Biblical Historiography.” In Biblical Historiography and Historical Geography: Collection of Studies. BEATAJ 44. Frankfurt: Lang, 1988. 121– 35. ———. “Territorial Patterns, Biblical Historiography and Scribal Traditions—A Programmatic Survey.” ZAW 93 (1981) 427–32. Kallai-Kleinmann, Z. “Biblical Historiography and Literary History: a Programmatic Survey.” VT 49 (1999) 338–50. ———. “Note on the Town Lists of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan.” VT 11 (1961) 223–27. ———. “The Town Lists of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan.” VT 8 (1958) 134–60. ———. The Tribes of Israel: A Study in the Historical Geography of the Bible (Heb.). Jerusalem, 1967. ———. “Tribes, Territories of.” IDBSup, 920–23. Kellermann, D. “ʿAštārōt—ʿAštərōt Qarnayim—Qarnayim: Historisch-geographische Erwägungen zu Orten in nördlichen Ostjordanland.” ZDPV 97 (1981) 45–61. ———. “Überlieferungsprobleme: Alttestamentlicher Ortsnamen.” VT 28 (1978) 423–32. Kellermann, D., S. Mittmann et al. Palästina: Siedlungen der Eisenzeit. TAVO B.4.6. Wiesbaden, 1992. Kitz, A. M. “The Hebrew Terminology of Lot Casting and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context.” CBQ 62 (2000) 207–14. ———. “Undivided Inheritance and Lot Casting in the Book of Joshua.” JBL 119 (2000) 601–18. Koizumi, T. “On the List of the Former Inhabitants Whom the Israelites Did Not Drive out in the Books Judges and Joshua.” In Festschrift M. Sekine. Tokyo, 1972. 162–95. Kuschke, A. “Historisch-topographische Beiträge zum Buch Josua.” In Gottes Wort und Gottes Land. Ed. H. G. Reventlow. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. 90–109. ———. “Kleine Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte der Stämme Asser und Juda.” HTR 64 (1972) 291–313. Lissovsky, N., and N. Na’aman. “A New Outlook at the Boundary System of the Twelve Tribes.” UF 35 (2003) 291–332. Lohfink, N. “Die Priesterschrift und die Geshichte.” In Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977. VTSup 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978. 189–225. Mayes, A. D. H. Israel in the Period of the Judges. London: SCM Press, 1974. 67–73, 128–30. Mazar, B. (= Maisler, B.) “Geshur and Maacah.” JBL 80 (1961) 16–28. ———. Untersuchungen zur alten Geschichte und ethnographie Syriens und Palästinas. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1930. 59–67. Merling, D., Sr. The Book of Joshua: Its Theme and Role in Archaeological Discussions. Andrews University Doctoral Dissertation Series 23. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews UP, 1997. Mitchell, G. Together in the Land. JSOTSup 134. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Mittmann, S. Beiträge zur Siedlungs- und Territorialgeschichte des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970. 208–46. Mowinckel, S. Tetrateuch, Pentateuch, Hexateuch. BZAW 90. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964. 51–76. ———. Zur Frage nach dokumentarischen Quellen in Josua 13–19. Oslo: Dybwad, 1946. Na’aman, N. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. JBS 4. Jerusalem: Simor, 1986. ———. “The District System of Israel in the Time of the United Monarchy.” Zion 48 (1983) 1–20 (Heb.). ———. “The Inheritances of the Cis-Jordanian Tribes of Israel and the ‘Land That Yet Remaineth.’” ErIsr 16 (1982) 152–58, 257 (Heb.). ———. “Late Bronze Age Canaanite City States and the Israelite Tribes’ Allotment.” Tarbiz 55 (1985–1986) 463–88 (Heb.). Nagah, R. “Notes and Clarifications to the Lists in Joshua 13–19.” BMik 26 (1981) 282–85 (Heb.). Noort, E. Das Buch Josua: Forschungsgeschichte und Problemfelder. EdF 292. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998. North, R. “Israel’s Tribes and Today’s Frontier.” CBQ 16 (1954) 146– 53. Noth, M. “Beiträge zur Geschichte des Ostjordanlandes: 1. Das Land Gilead als Siedlungsgebiet israelitischer Sippen.” PJ 37 (1941) 50–101. Reprinted in Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde. Vol. 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 32

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Bibliography

33

1971. 347–90. ———. “Israelitische Stämme zwischen Ammon und Moab: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Ostjordanlandes. II.” ZAW 60 (1944) 11–57. Reprinted in Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde. Vol. 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. 391–453. ———. “Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches.” ZDPV 58 (1935) 185–255. Reprinted in Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde. Vol. 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. 229–80. ———. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1943. 45–47. ———. “Überlieferungsgeschichtliches zur zweiten Hälfte des Josuabuches.” In Alttestamentliche Studien Fr. Nötscher zum 60. Geburtstag. Ed. H. Junker and J. Botterweck. BBB 1. Bonn: Hanstein, 1950. 152–67. Ottosson, M. “Tradition and History with Emphasis on the Composition of the Book of Joshua.” In The Productions of Time: Tradition History in Old Testament Scholarship. Ed. K. Jeppesen and B. Otzen. Sheffield: Almond, 1984. 81–106, 141–43. Petersen, J. “Priestly Materials in Joshua 13–22: A Return to the Hexateuch?” HAR 4 (1980) 131– 45. Rogerson, J. W. “Frontiers and Borders in the Old Testament.” In In Search of True Wisdom. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. 116–26. Rösel, H. N. “Lässt sich eine nomistische Redaktion im Buch Josua feststellen?” ZAW 119 (2007) 184–89. Rudolph, W. Der ‘Elohist’ von Exodus bis Josua. BZAW 68. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1938. 237–38. Saebø, M. “Grenzbeschreibung und Landideal in Alten Testament: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der min-ʿad-Formel.” ZDPV 90 (1974) 14–37. Schmitt, G. Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes. BWANT 91. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970. 81–120. Schunck, K.-D. Benjamin. BZAW 86. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1963. 142–67. Seleznev, M. G. “The Origin of the Tribal Boundaries in Joshua: Administrative Documents or Sacral Geography?” In Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff. Ed. L. Kogan, N. V. Koslova, S. Loesov, and S. Tishchenko. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. 330–61. Simons, J. The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1959. 109–207. ———. “The Structure and Interpretation of Joshua XVI–XVII.” In Orientalia Neerlandica. Leiden: Sijthoff, 1948. 190–215. Smend, R. “Das uneroberte Land.” In Zur ältesten Geschichte Israels. Vol. 2 of Gesammelte Studien. BEvT 100. Munich: Kaiser, 1987. 217–28. Steuernagel, C. Deuteronomium und Josua: Und allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900. Stone, L. G. “From Real to Reel: Cultural Conflict in History and Tradition in the Formation of Joshua-Judges.” Paper read for the SBL Joshua-Judges Consultation, November 2010. Svensson, J. Towns and Toponyms in the Old Testament: With Special Emphasis on Joshua 14–21. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994. Täubler, E. Biblische Studien: Die Epoche der Richter. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1958. Tengström, S. Die Hexateucherzählung. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. 73–78. Vaux, R. de. Histoire ancienne d’Israel. Vol. 2. Paris: Gabalda, 1973. 46–48. Translated as The Early History of Israel, trans. D. Smith. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1978. 727–30. Vos, J. C. de. “‘Holy Land’ in Joshua 18, 1–10.” In The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort. Ed. J. van Ruiten and J. C. de Vos. VTSup 124. Leiden: Brill, 2009. 61–72. Wazana, N. All the Boundaries of the Land: The Promised Land in Biblical Thought in Light of the Ancient Near East (Heb.). Jerusalem: Balik Institute, 2007. Weinfeld, M. “The Extent of the Promised Land: The Status of Transjordan.” In Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. GTA 25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. 59–75. ———. “Historical Facts behind the Israelite Settlement Pattern.” VT 38 (1988) 324–32. ———. “The Pattern of the Israelite Settlement in Canaan.” In Congress Volume: Jerusalem, 1986. Ed. J. A. Emerton. VTSup 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988. 279–83. Weippert, H. “Das geographische System der Stämme Israels.” VT 23 (1973) 76–89. Wellhausen, J. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 2nd ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1889. 130–35. Wüst, M. Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Texten des Alten Testaments. Vol. 1, Ostjordanland. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1975. Yadin, Y. “The Fourfold Division of Judah.” BASOR 163 (1961) 6–12. Yeivin, S. The Israelite Conquest of Canaan. Istanbul: Nederlands

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 33

9/18/14 9:20 AM

34

II. God’s Geographical Guidance (13:1–19:51)

Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in her Nabije Oosten, 1971. 247–66. Younger, K. L., Jr. “The Configuring of Judicial Preliminaries: Judges 1:1–2:5 and Its Dependence on the Book of Joshua.” JSOT 68 (1995) 75–92.

Introduction These chapters seem to promise very little theologically, at least at first glance. Who has even bothered to read through the long lists of towns and borders, much less attempted to discover geographical grounds for Christian faith? This commentary seeks to show that such seeking and sorting is worth the effort, for as Pressler comments, “Chapters 13–19 are theology in the guise of geography.”7 Chap. 13 in particular shows striking differences from chaps. 1–12 by inserting notes of territory not possessed. These reports contribute to the complexity and depth of the teaching of the book of Joshua.8 Merling adds: “The location where the Israelites settled was not so important to the biblical writers of the Book of Joshua as the mechanism—by God’s power.”9 I would modify this by stating that occupation and control of land by each of the tribes was important as a major part of the promise-of-land theme so central to the Pentateuch and to the book of Joshua. The details of borders and possession of border villages might vary or be changed during the years, but the confidence that God had given land in fulfillment of his promises remained central to the theology and identity of Israel. The writer of Joshua has taken up the geographical traditions of the people and preserved them in a unique pattern to demonstrate precisely those points readers needed to hear. Merling thinks that Joshua’s camp remaining at Gilgal (Josh 14:6) indicates “that the biblical writers assumed that Israel had not permanently possessed any land before this time.”10 The compiler turns boundary lists into a part of the story of God’s actions for his people and of the promises of God for a people who still do not live on the land. The secret lies in the leadership of a faithful servant of God, who will allocate the land and wait for God to drive out the remaining enemies (see Josh 13:6–7). Mitchell sees changes between chaps. 1–12 and chaps. 13–19. The narrative moves from speaking of kings of city- states to simply the names of the cities, “demonstrating that the kings are there no longer.”11 The conclusion may be questioned, for surely the loss of a king would lead the city- state to elevate a successor. It may represent a change from interest in political power structures to places available for settlement. The same thematic change may be achieved through moving from speaking of all the nations or a list of nations or of Canaanites or Amorites controlling the land to individual city- states whose land can be taken for settlement. Mitchell concludes: “The nations are presented as a shattered remnant of the oncemighty owners of the land in the narrative of settlement in chs. 13–22. They cling to little parcels of land. Their loss of power and glory is illustrated by the fact that they are no longer mentioned in association with their kings.”12

7 8 9 10 11 12

Pressler, 87. See McConville and Williams, 61. Book of Joshua, 168. Ibid,. 170. Together in the Land, 100. Ibid., 141.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 34

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Introduction

35

Mitchell relies on M. Ottosson for interesting statistics: 746 city names in the Bible, of which 358 are in the book of Joshua; 199 in Joshua occur only in this book. Judah, with 144 cities, has the most by far, indicating its position of leadership. Ottosson finds the allocations of land as “almost unimaginably compressed.” They “cover a broad chronological spectrum.”13 Coote points to Joshua’s role as a king or warlord directly providing land for his soldiers and supporters.14 He seeks to show that such grants are not really permanent but may be reassigned at the king’s pleasure. In so doing, however, he misses the important point in the Joshua narratives that only the sovereign Lord can reassign territory. Joshua does not have that power apart from his obedience to orders from God. Here Coote looks through Josiah’s eyes rather than Joshua’s as he follows Nelson’s view that Joshua actually represents King Josiah. Early Israel’s village life, according to Coote, included periodic reapportioning of the land.15 The families did not own land but rights to the produce of the land that they were permitted to cultivate. Periodic reassignments made it possible to leave some land fallow each year and gave everyone some time on the most fertile part of the village land. Coote finds this dimension of land protection and distribution as part of Joshua’s role providing the villagers a voice with the leader and ensuring “security, stability, cooperation, solidarity, productivity, and equal opportunity.” Such an understanding may be the result of transferring modern democratic values to an ancient society. The biblical text gives little evidence to support such a model of land allotment and transference. Israel seeks to make sure land does not change hands. The book of Joshua’s tribal depiction, was, according to Coote, a way for King Josiah to keep tribal loyalties subordinate to state policies. Thus he gave the tribes a chance to further their values of “egalitarianism, opposition to the state, and a seamless solidarity.”16 This description again makes Josiah the focal point of interpretation and gives no space to the biblical context. As a tribal leader from Ephraim and successor to Moses, Joshua allocated lands to give the tribes identity, responsibility, and economic opportunity. He did so not for selfish advantage or power but as obedient servant of Yahweh. Na’aman contrasts scholars who push all of Israel’s major literary productions including these lists back into the postexilic period with those who consider the entire lists to be authentic historical administrative lists.17 He suggests a compromise, recognizing both actual and ideal elements in the lists, or the historical and the hypothetical.18 In this view, proving one element in a list or a series of elements in the list to be historically factual need not prove the entire list to be historical. Such a combination of factual elements and literary creations results in an allocation system that has an authentic kernel but is, as a whole, an artificial construct. Na’aman further questions whether the people who accumulated the data and created the lists did not themselves have a bias, particularly a southern Judean bias 13 14 15 16 17 18

Ottosson, “Tradition and History,” 106. Coote, 658. Ibid., 659. Ibid., 659– 60. Borders and Districts, 35– 36. Ibid., 36– 37.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 35

9/18/14 9:20 AM

36

II. God’s Geographical Guidance (13:1–19:51)

over against the north Israelites.19 He speaks of three concepts of the land:20 (1) the land of Canaan (Num 34; Ezek 47) adopted from Israel’s predecessors in the land; (2) the kingdom of David not including vassal states and reflected in the border lists, and (3) the kingdom promised by the editor based on ancestral promises and reaching from the Nile to the Euphrates. Pressler agrees with most critical scholars that “the complex history of the composition of these chapters [chaps. 13–19] has not yet been untangled in a way on which scholars can agree.”21 The following exposition will attempt to show that a final editor has used somewhat diverse sources to compile the geographical and topographical lists, which may well have served different purposes originally than they do for the biblical writer. Still, the inclusion of priestly writers, redactors, and more redactors is not necessarily called for in explaining the composition history of these texts. Noort concludes that no one has succeeded in providing convincing proof of the literary place where the basic Priestly document concludes— in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, or Judges.22 Noort would paint a gray zone between later priestly editors. One would expect the people of Israel’s God would have known the basic story of God’s victories for a people Israel long before the exile. The priests would have been one group who compiled and taught the people. Storytellers, scribes, educators would have created a basic form and vocabulary for this identity- giving narrative. Noort goes on to note that a time came when Deuteronom(ist)ic language and Priestly language could no longer be distinguished. Is it too much to expect scribal Deuteronomists and scribal priests to be able to communicate with one another and use language more at home in the other’s bailiwick? Surely the rather small country of Judah and Israel had not created such isolated institutions and narrative vocabulary that the northern form of the national story could be easily distinguished from the southern story. Howard notes, speaking of cities that Israel had yet to take and others they did not take, “This is a very realistic picture of the state of affairs in Joshua’s day, and it lays the foundation for understanding the many troubles the Israelites were to encounter in the period of the Judges and beyond.”23 For a while, Israel had to be willing to occupy that portion of the land available to them, keeping faith that God at the proper time would dispossess the present occupants of the land that remained. Israel, even Israel in exile, can occupy the land if the people follow the leadership examples of Joshua and Caleb by showing complete loyalty to Yahweh; dividing the land for the good of all the people, not one special office or class; and faithfully claiming and fulfilling the promises God has given. In all of this, Israel must accept God’s authority over all her political authorities. God had provided even the political boundaries and divisions for Israel. Could Israel see the priority of

19 20 21 22 23

Ibid., 37. Ibid., 39. Na’aman is followed by Svensson (Towns and Toponyms, 13). Pressler, 89. Das Buch Josua, 179. I doubt there is evidence for significant priestly language in Joshua. Howard, 319.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 36

9/18/14 9:20 AM

A Brief History of Research

37

Torah, of God’s teaching, as being more important for her life than the challenge of establishing political power? Josh 13–19 places that challenge squarely before an Israel seeking again to dispossess the enemy and possess the land.

A Brief History of Research The book of Joshua provides a description of the conquest of the land and a parallel description of the distribution of the land by lots among the various tribes. The territory of the tribes is given in long lists of cities and territories. Close examination of the lists has revealed that the treatment of the various tribes is quite unequal. This has provoked a number of scholarly theories concerning the origin and development of Josh 13–19. The traditional theory utilizes the literary- critical methods developed for the Pentateuch and finds parallel sources. Thus Wellhausen separates the basic Priestly materials from older JE ones and notes that originally Josh 18:1 must have stood prior to chap. 14.24 Steuernagel divides most of the material between P and a secondary Deuteronomic writer.25 Eissfeldt finds materials belonging to J, E, and P.26 Noort characterizes research on chaps. 13–19 as Priestly or not Priestly and concludes that up to now no one has succeeded in offering a convincing proof that the theorized Priestly source finds its conclusion somewhere in Joshua.27 On the other hand, he finds that the removal of all Priestly elements, as done by Noth, has not led to convincing results. Noort thus concludes that recent research shows that at a certain stage of the tradition Priestly and Deuteronomistic language became indistinguishable. The works of Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth changed the course of research. Alt separates three types of materials form- critically, namely: (1) isolated notes connected with Judg 1; (2) town lists; and (3) border descriptions.28 Alt introduced the method of territorial history to date the various materials since the town lists and border descriptions did not seem to cover the same territory. He dates the southern town lists to the time of Josiah, with the northern town lists reflecting Assyrian practice that was taken over by Josiah. The border descriptions, in which Simeon, Dan, and Issachar are apparently ignored, reflected the tribal territories immediately before the rise of the monarchy. Such lists were originally used to settle tribal border disputes. Noth compares Josh 15 and Num 34 to show that border points remained the same but the connecting descriptions did not.29 He thus theorizes that the original lists contained only border points without connecting descriptive text. The editor’s lack of familiarity with the north resulted in a task only partially and inconsistently completed. Noth doubts that town lists had ever existed for Galilee, but he did seek

24 25 26 27 28 29

See Die Composition. See Deuteronomium und Josua. See his Old Testament. Das Buch Josua, 173, 181. Cf. Hess, “Asking Historical Questions,” 191– 93. “Studien zu den historisch- geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches.” ZDPV 58 (1935) 185–255. Reprinted in Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde, vol. 1 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971) 229– 80.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 37

9/18/14 9:20 AM

38

II. God’s Geographical Guidance (13:1–19:51)

to show that both early border descriptions and Josianic town lists for territory east of the Jordan had been used. Noth also developed a revolutionary literary- critical theory, saying that the Priestly editor had no part in Josh 13–19, that it was the work of a redactor closely akin to the Deuteronomic school.30 Continuing research has disputed both the literary and territorial decisions of Noth. Sigmund Mowinckel argues that the lists could not arise prior to the monarchy since no political center existed to establish and maintain such boundaries.31 For him, the knowledge displayed in Josh 13–19 is that of an educated postexilic Jew familiar with the ethnic and political traditions and realities of his time. He would not have had written documents since these could not have survived the tragedy of 587. Gustav Hölscher also attributes the border descriptions to P, while reserving the town lists for an even later hand, at least those of Judah and Benjamin being genuine documents from the Persian period.32 Frank Cross and George Ernest Wright modified Noth’s theory to the extent that a Simeonite boundary list could be reconstructed;33 the Danite list in chap. 19 had to be considered separately from the other town lists; and that town list was to be dated in the reign of Jehoshaphat (873– 849 BCE). Z. Kallai-Kleinmann refuses to cut out later additions to the lists but sees each as prepared from the perspective of the tribe involved.34 The boundary system thus derives from David’s census as completed with Solomon’s acquisition of Gezer, not from the premonarchical period. The town lists must each be dated separately. The list of Judah, for example, comes from the period of Jehoshaphat, but only after being edited in the time of Hezekiah. The Dan list is Solomonic, while that of Benjamin is from the time of Abijah. The earliest is that of Simeon, which is connected with David’s census. The boundary lists form a complete territory with no gaps. Yohanan Aharoni also excludes Dan from the town list but seeks to explain the exclusion of Jerusalem from Judah.35 This leads him to seek a date for the combined Judah- Benjamin list. He excludes Josh 15:45– 47 on the basis of form and content and finally dates the resulting list in the time of Uzziah. Klaus- Dietrich Schunck accepts Kallai- Kleinmann’s methodology, separating the town lists, and then reconstructs a complicated growth of the material.36 He argues for a Davidic origin of Josh 15:2–12a, which was supplemented in the time of Rehoboam by 16:1– 3. This in turn was one source for 18:12–20, a late literary combination. Old tribal borders are found in 15:5b–11 and 16:5–7. Turning to the town list, Schunck follows Aharoni except in a few details. He sees 18:21–24 and 19:41– 46 as provinces added by Josiah. Siegfried Mittmann maintains that Josh 13 came from Solomon’s administration and described territories around regional centers rather than fixed border points.37 Shmuel Yeivin also sees the town lists as including administrative centers.38 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1943. See his Zur Frage. Geschichtsschreibung, 345– 49. JBL 75 (1956) 202–26. Tribes of Israel. Land of the Bible. Benjamin. Beiträge. Israelite Conquest.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 38

9/18/14 9:20 AM

A Brief History of Research

39

He agrees with Aharoni that the Judah- Benjamin list comes from the period of Jehoshaphat but sees the territory of Joseph being that of the period of the judges as are those of Zebulun, Naphtali, and probably Asher. The Danite list is Davidic as are those of the East Jordan tribes. The Simeonite list comes from the time of Hezekiah. A. D. H. Mayes shows that the distinction is between border descriptions and city lists, not fixed border points.39 He argues that the southern border descriptions can be understood only in the time of the united monarchy. The lists of East Jordan are secondary literary productions based on Num 32. This last point is taken to the ultimate extreme by Manfred Wüst,40 who works out a complex literary interaction to show the development of all the texts dealing with East Jordan. The only traditional sources, according to Wüst, are a brief town list in Josh 13:16, 26a and a traffic route in 13:17, 19, 20, 27a. Howard describes the liveliness of these lists and the variety of verbal formulations used in their descriptions.41 He works from the unpublished thesis of Parunak.42 Hubbard dates both lists at least as early as David and Solomon in the tenth century. He finds that the small differences in the lists “derive from diverse sources, even chronologically.”43 Coogan sees the entire division of the land as “an ideal picture.”44 De Vos sees all of chaps. 13–19 as late material added secondarily.45 Sven Tengström uses chaps. 19 and 21 to show that nothing forbids the assumption that the description of the tribal borders and the settlement of the tribes were formed from the beginning in light of the twelve-tribe system.46 Thus he maintains that the substance of Josh 13–21 is early. The fact that only the borders of the central tribes are exhaustively described and that Jerusalem, called by its ancient name Jebus, belongs to Benjamin, leads Tengström to locate the origin of the document in central Palestine prior to the monarchy. Using Aharoni’s observation that the basic descriptions give only the internal borders of Benjamin, Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali, thus differing little from the Israel of Ishbosheth in 2 Sam 2:9, C. H. J. de Geus dates the original boundary system in the period of the judges, allowing for the addition of Judah and the Josephites after the division of the monarchy.47 Norman Gottwald works sociologically to show that the boundary lists would have had no social setting prior to the census of David, in connection with which they would be used to assess the human and material resources available to the king.48 He describes a repeated use of the materials by each of the major pentateuchal sources, resulting in substantial losses in all of the lists. Na’aman finds no purpose for the lists before the monarchy and so dismisses 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Israel in the Period. Untersuchungen. Howard, 317–18. “Geographical Terminology in Joshua 15–19” (Jerusalem, Institute for Holy Land Studies, 1977). Hubbard, 30– 32. “Archaeology and Biblical Studies,” 26. “Holy Land,” 66. Die Hexateucherzählung. Tribes of Israel. Tribes of Yahweh.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 39

9/18/14 9:20 AM

40

II. God’s Geographical Guidance (13:1–19:51)

any premonarchic date.49 Tribes did not need such boundaries and could not enforce them should they have had them. Instead, David used the lists to lay claim to the territories. Na’aman follows Alt50 in looking at the Amarna letters and territory claimed in them by Canaanite city- state kings. The result is that the following Amarna city- state claims approximated closely David’s tribal boundaries: Shechem

Ephraim and Manasseh

Gezer

Dan

Hazor

Naphtali

Shimron

Zebulun

Hess states that “at no other time in the history of Old Testament Israel were regions demarcated in a way that so closely resembles the tribal allotments in Joshua.”51 He thus claims a reflection in the Joshua borders of Late Bronze Age city- states. Howard simply states: “These lists undoubtedly came directly from Joshua, Eleazar (see 14:1) or someone else in the nation’s leadership (or their scribes).”52 Such a strong statement rests on theological presuppositions more than on any kind of evidence. The only evidence he points to is the surveyors of chap. 18. Howard does hold out the possibility that the lists could have been incorporated into the book at a later time and that some of the land may not have been conquered by the tribes of Israel.53 Weinfeld points out parallels in other literatures of conquest followed by land distribution, concluding that the allotment of the land following conquest was a logical and necessary element of the narrative.54 Elsewhere Weinfeld draws out a long, complex history of different tribes forming different camps at the different shrines.55 For Weinfeld, the tradition, focusing on Joshua begins with the taking of Timnath-ḥeres, moves to association with the central shrine at Shiloh, and then develops as founder and lawgiver for the entire nation. Joshua’s defeat of the Jerusalem coalition then extended his fame and activity to Shechem. Finally, he was connected with the defeat of Hazor and during Saul’s reign was incorporated into the collection of narrative traditions at Gilgal. Finkelstein worked with the local surveys of Palestine to show the appearance of new settlements throughout Canaan, especially in the hill country, around 1200 BCE.56 Within two hundred years, these settlements spread into the Galilee. By the time of the monarchy, the greatest number of new sites were in Judah. Finkelstein thus dates Josh 13–19 to a time when tribes could not be identified with central city- states but only as a separate ethnic group amid the population of Canaan. At

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Borders and Districts. Alt’s “The Settlement of the Israelites in Palestine.” “Asking Historical Questions,” 197. Howard, 294. Ibid., 295. “Pattern of the Israelite Settlement in Canaan.” “Historical Facts behind the Israelite Settlement Pattern,” VT 38 (1988) 324– 32. Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 40

9/18/14 9:20 AM

A Brief History of Research

41

this ancient date, tribal identity was quite important and could be expressed only by topography, not by city- states. Kitz seeks to incorporate a range of ancient Near Eastern texts dealing with land inheritance and lot casting.57 She describes ancestral land ownership as Yahweh’s. Yahweh remained residual owner as he gave land to the ancestors. They claimed land through their journeys through Palestine. At death, the estate belonged to co- beneficiaries until legally divided among heirs. This makes Joshua’s “primary function” to be “estate administration.” The process has five steps:58 Settle any outstanding legal barriers or disputes (Josh 1—12). Co-heirs must complete an inventory of the land and write down a formal record (Josh 18:8). Co-heirs must divide property into portions according to the number of heirs (Num 33:54). Each heir should cast a lot to determine which portion of the property that heir inherits or a leader casts lots for each heir (Josh 18:8–19:48). Each heir takes possession of the designated lot of land and lives on it as legal owner and family unit (Josh 21:43). Such inheritance customs transferred responsibility from nation to tribe or clan and eliminated the basis for any arguments between tribes or with others who might claim the land or try to live on it. Noort finds the list material in most cases impossible to date.59 Hess looks at the growing need of farmers for labor and cooperation. Cooperation spread to local communitities working together to sow and harvest crops.60 Agriculture demanded agreement on boundaries between individual farms. Such list forms of boundary descriptions appear at Ugarit and Carchemish as elements of political treaties that are based on second-millennium patterns with historical prologue and blessings. Israel took over the treaty form, as seen in Josh 24, as the defining document of its relationship to God and to other tribes. Part of this document, as Weinfeld shows, follows ancient Near Eastern patterns in describing land allotments after conquest narratives. For Israel, the land allotment helped solidify tribal identity as well as relationships to other tribes and to God. Merling describes the lists as having “grandiose boundaries [that] speak of promises and possibilities.”61 He categorizes Josh 1–13 as “confirmation events,” confirming for Israel the power and will of God to do what he promises. Nili Wazana emphasizes the ideologies behind the texts.62 She looks at literary merisms that use geographic concepts to describe a region and quite possibly are not supposed to be boundary descriptions. Some may, instead, point to cosmic meanings centered in promises of world dominion. Points named may be chosen for religious significance, not for geographical description. Wazana relegates the land that remains

57 58 59 60 61 62

JBL 119 (2000) 601–18. Ibid., 617–18. Das Buch Josua, 197. “Asking Historical Questions.” Book of Joshua, 168– 69. All the Boundaries; comments based on a review by S. E. Holtz, RBL, September 2008.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 41

9/18/14 9:20 AM

42

II. God’s Geographical Guidance (13:1–19:51)

in chap. 13 to the postexilic period as a piece of encouragement and as a theological claim that the divine-land promise had not found ultimate fulfillment. The documents of chap. 13 are said to have originated as taxation documents. They have been combined by the biblical writer (editor) to underline the vassal/overlord relationship. Assis keys in on the four narratives embedded in the city and boundary lists. He sees a Judah-versus-the- seven-tribes emphasis: “Caleb requests territory that is rightly his (by divine promise) in order to conquer it, and the Josephites desire territory in Transjordan beyond what was allotted them, since they are incapable of conquering the Canaanites in their portion (xvii 6,18). Joshua agrees to the request by Caleb but rejects that of the Josephites.”63 At the same time Assis finds the four embedded narratives “included in order to accentuate the assertiveness of the three tribes in the conquest of their portions. This is the converse of the slackness of the seven remaining tribes, for whom no conquest narratives are included in the descriptions of their portions.”64 Without divine command, Assis insists, Joshua had to send out spies and conduct a second allotment of the land for the disobedient seven tribes, an allotment omitting the land that remained to the north. Cortese reverts to source theory to tie chaps. 13–21 to the Priestly source.65 In this theory the last redactor has translated the second part of Josh 13–21 from the end of the Tetrateuch and combined the Tetrateuch and the Deuteronomistic History. The literary problems of the section are thus complicated. Must one demand a historical period when Israel controlled all these territories? Or are they ideal boundaries based on earlier Canaanite city- states? Are they late projections from the monarchy or later? This commentary understands the boundaries as ideals, challenging premonarchical Israel to complete the conquering task, to grow, and to establish an identity within each tribe and as a loose confederation of tribes defined by their territorial expanse. This decision rests on basic historical and exegetical assumptions. Census lists would require greater clarity to serve governmental purposes. The detail is too great to reflect a much later literary creation. The relationship to secondmillennium treaty forms offers some evidence for an early date. Such a date would demand, however, some sort of tribal political/religious organization/institution as appears to stand behind Judg 5; 19–21; and Deut 33. These lists would function in a tribal judicial system and most likely as part of the agricultural economy.

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33) Bibliography Abel, M. “La prétendue caverne des Sidoniens et la localisation de la ville de ʿAra.” RB 58 (1951) 47–53. Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Anbar, M. “La ‘Reprise.’” VT 38 (1988) 385–98. Artus, Olivier. “Josué 13–14

63 64 65

VT 53 (2003) 19. Ibid., 21. See Josua 13–21.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 42

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Bibliography

43

et Livre des Nombres.” In The Book of Joshua. Ed. Ed Noort. Leuven: Peeters, (2012). 233–47. Auld, A. G. “Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts.” In Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Ed. J. A. Emerton. VTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979. 1–14. ———. “Judges 1 and History: A Reconsideration.” VT 25 (1975) 261–85. ———. “Textual and Literary Studies in the Book of Joshua.” ZAW 90 (1978) 412–17. Baldi, D. “La terra promessa nel programma di Giosué 13:2–5.” SBFLA 1 (1950) 87–106. Bartlett, J. R. “The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom: A Literary Reexamination.” JBL 97 (1978) 347–51. ———. “Sihon and Og, Kings of the Amorites.” VT 20 (1970) 257–77. Bartusch, M. W. Understanding Dan: An Exegetical Study of a Biblical City, Tribe, and Ancestor. JSOTSup 379. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Bekkum, Koert van. “Remembering and Claiming Ramesside Canaan: Historical and Geographical Problems and the Ideology of Geography in Joshua 13:1–7.” In The Book of Joshua. Ed. Ed Noort. Leuven: Peeters (1212). 347– 60. Ben-Shem, I. The Conquest of Trans-Jordan (Heb.). Tel Aviv, 1972. Bergman, A. “The Israelite Occupation of Eastern Palestine in the Light of Territorial History.” JAOS 54 (1934) 169–77. ———. “The Israelite Tribe of Half-Manasseh.” JPOS 16 (1936) 224–55. Brooke, A. E., and N. McLean, eds. The Old Testament in Greek, according to the text of Codex Vaticanus. Vol. 1, part 4, Joshua, Judges and Ruth. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1917. Buhl, F. “Textkritische Bemerkungen zu Jos 13:4–5.” MNDPV 1 (1895) 53–55. Dearman, J. A. “The Location of Jahaz.” ZDPV 100 (1984) 122–26. Donner, H. “Die Stadt mitten im Flußtale (Jos 13:16).” ZDPV 81 (1965) 39–43. Finkelstein, I. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988. Glueck, N. “Explorations in Eastern Palestine, 1–4.” AASOR 14 (1933–34) 1–114; 15 (1934–35); 18–19 (1937–39); 25–28 (1945–49). ———. The Other Side of the Jordan. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1970. Greenspoon, L. J. “The Book of Joshua—Part 1: Texts and Versions.” CurBS 3 (2005) 229–61. Hallo, W. H., and K. L. Younger, Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Brill: Leiden, 1997, 2000. Hertog, C. C. den. “The Geographical Shape of the Unconquered Land in Joshua 13:2–5 MT and LXX.” In The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort. Ed. J. van Ruiten and J. C. de Vos. VTSup 124. Leiden: Brill, 2009. 51–60. Hess, R. S. “Asking Historical Questions of Joshua 13–19: Recent Discussion concerning the Date of the Boundary Lists.” In Faith, Tradition, and History. Ed. A. Millard et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. 191–205. Hoftijzer, J. “Das sogenannte Feueropfer.” In Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner. VTSup 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967. 114–34. Holmes, S. Joshua, the Hebrew and Greek Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1914. Japhet, S. “Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles.” JBL 98 (1979) 205–18. Ji, C. H. C. “The Israelite Settlement in Transjordan: The Relation between the Biblical and Archaeological Evidence.” NEASB 41 (1996) 61–70. Kallai, Z. “Conquest and Settlement of Trans-Jordan: A Historiographical Study.” ZDPV 99 (1983) 110–18. Kaufmann, Y. The Religion of Israel from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Trans. M. Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. 200–202. Knauf, A. E. “Heshbon: Sihons Stadt.” ZDPV 106 (1990) 135–44. ———. Midian: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nord-arabiens am Ende des 2 Jahrtausends v. Chr. ADPV. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988. ———. “Zeret-Schahar (Jos 13,19).” BN 110 (2001) 37. Kuschke, A. “Historisch-topographische Beiträge zum Buche Josua.” In Gottes Wort und Gottes Land. Ed. H. G. Reventlow. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. 90–109. Lemaire, E. “Galaad et Makîr: Remarques sur la tribu de Manassé à l’est du Jourdain.” VT 31 (1981) 39–61. Levin, Yigal. “Conquered and Unconquered: Reality and Historiography in the Georgraphy of Joshua.” In The Book of Joshua. Ed. Ed Noort. Leuven: Peeters (2012) 361–70. Maisler, B. Untersuchungen zur alien Geschichte und Ethnographie Syriens und Palästinas. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1930. 59–63. Ma’oz, Z. U. “Les Sidoniens à Baniyas.” Transeu 28 (2004) 143–47. Margolis, M. L. The Book of Joshua in Greek: According to the Critically Restored Text with an Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Principal

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 43

9/18/14 9:20 AM

44

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

Recensions and of the Individual Witnesses. Part 5, Joshua 19:39–24:33. Publications of the Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1931–38. Repr., Monograph Series. Philadelphia: Annenberg Research Institute, 1992. Mayes, A. D. H. Israel in the Period of the Judges. London: SCM Press, 1974. 69–70. Meer, M. N. van der. Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses. VTSup 102. Leiden: Brill, 2004. _____. “Clustering Cluttered Areas: Textual and Literary Criticism in Joshua 18, 1–10.” In The Book of Joshua. Ed. Ed Noort. Leuven: Peeters (2012) 87–106. Miller, J. M. “Six Khirbet el-Medeinehs in the Region East of the Dead Sea.” BASOR 276 (1989) 25–28. Mitchell, G. Together in the Land. JSOTSup 134. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Mittmann, S. Beiträge zur Siedlungsund Territorialgeschichte des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970. 231–46. ———. “Die Gebietsbeschreibung des Stammes Ruben in Josua 13, 15–23.” ZDPV 111 (1995) 1–25. Na’aman, N. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. JBS 4. Jerusalem: Simor, 1986. Noort, E. Das Buch Josua: Forschungsgeschichte und Problemfelder. EdF 292. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998. ———. “Text und Archäologie: Die Küstenregion Palästinas in der Frühen Eisenzeit.” UF 27 (1995) 403– 38. ———. “Transjordan in Joshua 13: Some Aspects.” In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan III. Ed. A. Hadidi. London: Routledge & Paul, 1987. 125–30. Noth, M. “Gilead und Gad.” ZDPV 75 (1959) 14–73. Reprinted in Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde. Vol. 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. 489–543. ———. “Israelitische Stämme zwischen Ammon und Moab.” ZAW 60 (1944) 11–57. Reprinted in Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde. Vol. 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. 391–433. ———. “Die israelitischen Siedlungsgebiete im Ostjordanland.” ZDPV 58 (1935) 231–55. Reprinted in Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde. Vol. 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. 262–80. ———. “Jabesh-Gilead: Ein Beitrag zur Methode alttestamentlicher Topographie.” ZDPV 69 (1953) 28–41. Reprinted in Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde. Vol. 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. 476–88. ———. “Das Land Gilead als Siedlungsgebiet israelitischer Sippen.” PJ 37 (1941) 50–101. Reprinted in Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde. Vol. 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. 347–90. ———. “Die Nachbarn der israelitischen Stämme im Ostjordanlande.” ZDPV 68 (1946–1951) 1–50. Reprinted in Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde. Vol. 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. 434–75. Oded, B. “Note on Josh 13:25.” VT 21 (1971) 239–41. ———. “The Settlement of the Tribe of Reuben in Transjordan.” In Festschrift Z. Averni. Haifa, 1970. 11–36 (Heb.). Ottosson, M. Gilead, Tradition, and History. Lund: Gleerup, 1969. 118–35. Pienaar, D. N. “Die stad aan die rivier (Josh 13:16).” NGTT 30 (1989) 376–82. Provan, I. V., P. Long, and T. Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville: John Knox Westminster, 2003. Rainey, A. F., R. S. Notley, et al. The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World. Jerusalem: Carta, 2006. Rösel, H. N. “Lässt sich eine nomistische Redaktion im Buch Josua feststellen?” ZAW 119 (2007) 184–89. ———. “Zur Lokalisierung der Stadt Zaphon.” BN 100 (1999) 27–33. Rudolph, W. Der ‘Elohist’ von Exodus bis Josua. BZAW 68. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1938. 211– 14. Schmitt, H.-C. “Das Hesbonlied Num. 21:27aβb–30 und die Geschichte der Stadt Hesbon.” ZDPV 104 (1988) 26–43. Simons, J. “Two Connected Problems relating to the Israelite Settlement in Transjordan.” PEQ 79 (1947) 27–39, 87–101. Smend, R. “Das Gesetz und die Völker.” In Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag. Ed. H. W. Wolff. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. 497–500. Stone, L. G. “From Real to Reel: Cultural Conflict in History and Tradition in the Formation of Joshua-Judges.” Paper read for the SBL Joshua-Judges Consultation, November 2010. Tushingham, A. D. The Excavations at Dibon in Moab. AASOR 40. Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1972. Vaux, R. de. Histoire ancienne d’Israel. Vol. 1. Paris: Gabalda, 1971. 511–45. Trans-

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 44

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Translation

45

lated as The Early History of Israel, trans. D. Smith. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1978. 551–92. ———. “Notes d’histoire et de topographie transjordaniennes.” RB 50 (1941) 16–47. Reprinted in Bible et Orient. Paris: Cerf, 1967. 115–49. Vita, J.-P. “Der biblische Ortsname Zaphon und die Amarnabriefe EA 273–74.” UF 37 (2005) 673–77. Wimmer, S. “Ṣeret haš-Šaḥar be-har ha-ʿemeq (Jos 13, 19).” BN 103 (2000) 39–42. WintherNielsen, N. A Functional Discourse Grammar of Joshua: A Computer-Assisted Rhetorical Structure Analysis. ConBOT 40. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1995. Wüst, M. Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Texten des Alten Testaments. Vol. 1, Ostjordanland. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1975. Zwickel, W. “Der Durchzug der Israeliten durch das Ostjordanland.” UF 22 (1990) 475–95. ———. Eisenzeitliche Ortslagen im Ostjordanland. TAVO B81. Wiesbaden, 1990.

Translation 1aNow

when Joshua was old, advanced in years, Yahweh said to him, b “You have become you have advanced in years, but there remains a great amount of land to possess. 2This is the land which remains: all the regions a of the Philistines and all of the Geshurites, b 3from the river a which is opposite Egypt unto the border of Ekron northward b (it is reckoned to the Canaanites), the five chiefdoms c of the Philistines— those of Gaza, and Ashdod, Ashkelon, d Gath and Ekron— along with the Avvim. 4Southward a all the land of the Canaanites from Arah, b which belongs to the Sidonians unto Aphek unto the border of the Amorites; 5also the land of Byblos a and all Lebanon eastward from Baal Gad b under Mount Hermon unto Lebo Hamath. 6All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon unto Misrephoth Mayim, all the Sidonians— I will dispossess them before the sons a of Israel, only cause it to fall to Israel for an inheritance just as I commanded you. 7Now divide this land into an inheritance of the nine tribes. “As for the half tribe of Manasseh” a— 8with it a the Reubenites and the Gaddites took their inheritance which Moses had given to them beyond the Jordan eastward just as Moses the servant of Yahweh had given to them: 9from Aroer which is beside the river Arnon along with the city in the midst of the river valley and all the plain a of Medeba unto Dibon; b 10also a all the cities of Sihon, king of the Amorites who ruled in Heshbon, unto the border of the sons of Ammon; 11and Gilead and the territory of the Geshurites and the Maacathites, along with a all of Mount Hermon and all Bashan unto Salecah; 12all the kingdom of Og in Bashan which he ruled in Ashtaroth and in Edrei (he remained from the remnant of the Rephaim; Moses had smitten them a and dispossessed them). 13However, the sons of Israel did not dispossess the Geshurites and the Maacathites. a Geshur b and Maacath have lived in the midst of Israel until this day. 14Only to the tribe of Levi did he not give an inheritance; the gifts devoted to a Yahweh, the God of Israel, that is his b inheritance, just as he said to him. c 15Moses gave to the tribe of the sons a of Reuben for their clans. 16aThis is the territory that belonged to them: from Aroer which is beside the River Arnon along with the city in the midst of the river valley and all the plain by b Medeba; 17Heshbon and all its a cities which are in the plain; Dibon b and Bamoth-Baal and Beth- Baal- meon c and 18Jahaz and Qedemoth and Mephaath 19and Kiriathaim and Sibmah and Zereth Shahar in the hill of the valley 20and Beth- peor and the slopes of Pisgah a and Beth- jeshimoth; 21along with all the cities of the plain and all the kingdom of Sihon, king of the Amorites who a ruled in Heshbon, whom Moses smote along with the princes of Midian: Evi and Reqem and Zur and Hur and Reba, b the vassal princes under Sihon, dwelling in the land. 22Also Balaam, son of Beor— the one who practiced divination— the sons of Israel killed with the sword together with their battle casualties. a old; c

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 45

9/18/14 9:20 AM

46

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

23So

this was the border of the sons a of Reuben: the Jordan and its b territory. This is the inheritance of the sons of Reuben for their clans: the cities and their villages. c 24Moses gave to the tribe of Gad, a to the sons of Gad for their clans. 25This is the territory which belonged to them: Jazer and a all the cities of Gilead with half the land of the sons of Ammon unto Aroer, which is over against Rabbah; b 26also from Heshbon unto Ramathmizpeh and Betonim; also from Mahanaim unto the territory of Debir; a 27also in the valley of Beth-haram and Beth- nimrah a and Succoth and Zaphon, the remainder of the kingdom of Sihon, king of Heshbon; the Jordan and territory unto the end of the Sea of Chinnereth beyond the Jordan to the east. 28This is the inheritance of the sons of Gad for their clans, a the cities and their villages. 29Moses gave to half the tribe of Manasseh. This is a what belonged to half the tribe of the sons of Manasseh for their clans: 30their territory was from a Mahanaim, all Bashan, all the kingdom of Og, the king of Bashan, and all Havvoth-Jair, which are in Bashan, namely sixty cities, 31and half of Gilead, and Ashtaroth and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan. This belonged to the sons of Machir, the son a of Manasseh, for half of the sons of Machir for their clans. 32These are what a Moses caused to be inherited in the plains of Moab, beyond the Jordan east of Jericho. 33But a to the tribe of the Levites, Moses did not give an inheritance; Yahweh, the God of Israel, he is their inheritance, just as he spoke to them.

Notes 1.a. Van der Meer (Formation and Reformulation) and den Hertog (“Geographical Shape,” 52) agree that most of the variants can be traced to literary initiatives of the Gk. translator so that major changes to the Heb. text are unwarranted. Den Hertog (53) concludes that the Gk. translator lived in the territory of the Ptolemies, used “pseudogeographical designations,” and did not have a strong knowledge of Palestine geography. Greenspoon (CurBS 3 [2005] 242) thinks it not unlikely that the Gk. lists circulated independently for a time. 1.b. LXX makes the text more explicit, reading “Joshua” for the MT pronoun “him.” 1.c. LXX omits “you have become old,” which may represent a later filling of the text to achieve exact correspondence. 2.a. LXX does not witness “all,” which is likely a later amplification. ‫גלילות‬, traditionally translated “regions,” still remains a mystery, for the term cannot mean “regions” in Josh 22:10–11. Nor does this seem appropriate for Ezek 47:8. Connection to the Philistines is also made in Joel 4:4 (ET 3:4). 2.b. Again “all” may be later amplification, not appearing in LXX. ‫ הגשׁורי‬is read by LXX here and in 1 Sam 27:8 as Γεσιρι, a reading attested by the Masoretic Qere in the Samuel passage. LXX adds here “and the Canaanites,” a scholarly gloss on the basis of Josh 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12; Judg 1:19– 35, though den Hertog (“Geographical Shape,” 56) finds no reason for the Gk. translator to have added the term and so assumes he found it in his source text. 3.a. ‫ שׁיחור‬refers to the Nile or one of its branches in Isa 23:3; Jer 2:18. Here and in 1 Chr 13:5 it refers to a traditional boundary point between Israel and Egypt, more often called the ‫נחל‬, e.g., Num 34:5; Josh 15:4, 47. (For the more limited meaning in Egyptian sources, see Wüst, Untersuchungen, 33– 34.) The meaning was already a mystery to early translators, so that LXX used the vague “uninhabited land.” This is complicated by the description ‫על־פני מצרים‬, “opposite, in the vicinity of Egypt” (cf. J. Drinkard, “‘Al Pene as ‘East of,’” JBL 98 [1979] 285– 86; Nelson, 163). This appears to locate Shihor outside of Egypt and may show dependence on 1 Sam 15:7 (cf. M. Wüst, Untersuchungen, 37). 3.b. Den Hertog (“Geographical Shape,” 56) sees Gk. ἐξ εὐωνύμων, “to the left of,” reflecting Heb. ‫צפונה‬, “northwards,” providing a formal parallel with v 4 that may have been in the Heb. source text. 3.c. ‫ סרן‬is a technical term borrowed from the Philistines and applied exclusively to the twenty- one Old Testament occurrences of the five city- state rulers of the Philistines.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 46

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

47

3.d. LXX unifies the grammatical structure, adding the conjunction before Ashkelon and Gath. 4.a. Definition and grammatical construction become quite unclear beginning with v 4. ‫ מתימן‬may be either a geographical location “Teman” preceded by the preposition “from” (LXX, BDB, Ezek 25:13) or a direction “southward” (KBL; cf. Isa 43:6). If the latter meaning is adopted, then the phrase is usually connected to the preceding verse (Soggin, Noth, Fritz, Hubbard, and most modern translations and commentators). The text may be read with “southward” referring to the following description of the land of the Canaanites going southward from Sidon to Aphek. 4.b. ‫ ומערה‬has puzzled translators since the LXX, which read ἐναντίον Γάζης, καὶ οἱ Σιδώνιοι, “facing Gaza, and the Sidonians . . .” The Heb. term as it stands can be a proper name “Mearah” or refer to a cave. Buhl (MNDPV 1 [1895] 53– 55), followed by Steuernagel and Hertzberg, inserts a prepositional mem to read “from Meara.” Noth, Soggin (provisionally), and the Preliminary and Interim Report (2:32; cf. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 1:27–28) repoint the text to read “from Arah.” Den Hertog (“Geographical Shape,” 57) finds ἐναντίον Γάζης “has to be explained either as an attempt to make sense of an embarrassing Vorlage [source text], or else as a free translation of the Hebrew consonantal text according to an interpretation differing from MT.” For καὶ οἱ Σιδώνιοι, “and the Sidonians,” den Hertog can only look to “a different Hebrew text” whose shape is “useless to guess.” Our geographical uncertainty makes restoration or explanation of the text impossible. The reference is apparently to an unknown Sidonian town. Fritz (140) follows Simons (PEQ 79 [1947] 27– 39, 87–101) in pointing to a town listed by Tutmoses and Shoschenk. Den Hertog (“Geographical Shape,” 51) says we are not able to identify either the cave or Aphekah with any certainty. That may be the best conclusion. 5.a. LXX reads the opening of v 5: τὴν γῆν Γαβλι Φυλιστιιμ, “and all the land of Galilath of the Philistines,” which appears to be a transliteration of the Heb. expression in v 2. The MT refers to the land of the Giblites, a term used in 1 Kgs 5:32 (ET 5:18), Ps 83:8, and Ezek 27:9 for Byblos, as rightly interpreted by the LXX in Ezekiel. LXX here appears to be based on a defective Heb. text. Den Hertog (“Geographical Shape,” 60) finds a textual tradition seeking to read a corrupt text, resulting in a text enlarging the territory of the Philistines and reducing that of the Phoenicians. 5.b. The Gk. tradition has corrupted Baalgad, perhaps reflecting the tendency of the tradition to excise names containing Baal. 6.a. LXX omits “sons of,” a common phenomenon in the transmission of the text (cf. Auld, “Joshua,” 10–11). Nelson (163) sees a Heb. expansion, which is quite possible. 7.a. The transition between v 7 and v 8 in MT is syntactically difficult. See the long discussion of Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:28– 30). LXX adds at the end of v 7: ἀπὸ τοῦ Ιορδάνου ἕως τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς μεγάλης κατὰ δυσμὰς ἡλίου δώσεις αὐτήν, ἡ θάλασσα ἡ μεγάλη ὁριεῖ, “from the Jordan unto the Mediterranean Sea toward the setting of the sun, you shall give it. The Mediterranean Sea will serve as boundary.” (See v 8 for the continuation.) Abel, Soggin, Nelson, the Preliminary and Interim Report (2, 28), and Auld argue correctly that some form of the LXX text is original here. LXX’s verb translates a Heb. nominal construction in Josh 13:27; 15:12; and Num 34:6 (cf. Josh 15:47; 23:4) and a verbal construction in Josh 18:20. LXX’s verbal interpretation is probably correct in all instances. Thus Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 2, 28–29) and the committee (in Preliminary and Interim Report) accept a MT homoioteleuton but only give cautious consent to a Heb. reconstruction: ‫וחצי השׁבט המנשׁה מן הירדן עד הים הגדול מבוא השׁמשׁ תתננה הים הגדול‬ ‫וגבול שׁני שׁבטים וחצי שׁבט המנשׁה‬, “and half the tribe of Manasseh from the Jordan unto the Great Sea from the setting of the sun you shall give it, the great sea and its territory. The two tribes and half the tribe of Mannesseh . . .” Winther- Nielsen (Functional Discourse Grammar, 253) offers a syntactical/structural solution to the problem, seeing ‫וחצי שׁבט‬ ‫ המנשׁה‬as a “separate noun phrase” that functions as a unit introductory “‘as for’ construction” followed in v 8 by “a fronted resumptive pronoun” meaning “along with it.” The translation above follows this suggestion. 8.a. As at the end of v 7, so the beginning of v 8 represents a difficult Heb. text. The pronominal suffix has no apparent antecedent. From the context, it appears to refer to the half of the tribe of Manasseh not included in v 7 (Hubbard). The LXX text reads ταῖς δὲ δύο φυλαῖς καὶ τῷ ἡμίσει φυλῆς Μανασση, τῷ Ρουβην καὶ τῷ Γαδ, ἔδωκεν Μωυσῆς ἑν τῷ

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 47

9/18/14 9:20 AM

48

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33) πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου κατ᾽ ἀνατολὰς ἡλίου· δέδωκεν αὐτὴν Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς κυρίου, “to the (two) tribes and to the half tribe of Manasseh, to Reuben and to Gad, Moses gave what was beyond the Jordan eastward. Moses, the servant of the Lord, gave to him [!] 9from . . .” LXX B does not even contain the number two. The text has apparently been disturbed by haplography quite early, so that various textual traditions have tried to restore its meaning. Holmes (Joshua), Auld, Soggin, Gray, and the Preliminary and Interim Report (2, 31) all adopt some modified form of LXX reading. The latter translates: “and now divide this land as an inheritance for the nine tribes and half the tribe of Manasseh from the Jordan as far as the great sea in the west, you shall give it—the great sea and its ‘neighbouring’ territory. ‘As regards’ the two remaining tribes and half the tribe of Manasseh; with it (i.e. this half tribe of Manasseh) the Reubenites and the Gadites have ‘already’ received their inheritance which Moses had given them beyond the Jordan eastward, as Moses the servant of the Lord had given them.” Fritz (140) simply inserts “the half tribe of Manasseh.” Nelson (169) opts for a shortened form of OG, noting that the reconstruction is uncertain and that the Greek is expansive. The text thus has a long history of corruptions so that hopes of restoring a “pristine” text are faint, but a clumsy redactor cannot be blamed for all the problems either (as Wüst, Untersuchungen, 85– 87, does). See Note 7.a above. 9.a. Throughout this passage LXX consistently transliterates Heb. ‫מישׁר‬, (mîšor,) “plain,” as Greek Μισωρ (Misor) rather than translating it even though the resulting Greek term has no meaning in Greek. 9.b. The Gk. omits “unto Dibon” and reads the first term “from Maedaban,” which is probably a corruption of both place names. See explanation in Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:30). A prepositional mem has probably dropped out of the Heb. text, which reads “all the plain Medeba to Dibon.” Compare Fritz (150). Preliminary and Interim Report (2:31) translates: “‘i.e. the territory, beginning’ with Aroer . . . and the city which . . . and all the tableland of Madebah as far as Dibon, and all the cities of Sihon . . . as far as the territory of the Ammonites.” Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:30) sees an expression “the mishor (tableland, plain) of Medebah as far as Dibon” without adding the mem. 10.a. LXX omits the introductory conjunction, probably correctly. The preceding may be summarized as the cities formerly ruled by Sihon. Similarly in v 11, LXX omits the conjunction prior to “all Mount Hermon,” summarizing the territory of the Geshurites and Maacathites as comprising Mount Hermon and Bashan. 11.a. See Note 10.a. 12.a. The LXX sg. suffix refers explicitly to the “kingdom” of Og, while the Heb. pl. suffix is ambiguous, the nearest antecedent being the “Rephaim.” LXX may represent early exegesis since the earlier traditions (Deut 2:11, 20; 3:11, 13; Josh 12:4; cf. Num 21:33– 35) nowhere refer to an Israelite victory over the Rephaim. 13.a. LXX adds “and the Canaanites,” just as was done in v 2. This, too, represents early exegesis for which the Canaanites are the archenemy. 13.b. Continuing its exegetical glosses, LXX adds “the king of” before Geshur, implying that a captive king dwelled among the Israelites. Geshur here is in Transjordan as opposed to the Geshur in the southwestern Negev in v 2. 14.a. LXX does not render ‫אשׁי‬, “offerings made by fire.” Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:31) shows why LXX cannot be used here to correct MT while suggesting that literary study may show ‫ אשׁי‬to be secondary, even though textual evidence does not do so. The term is dependent on Deut 18:1 and may represent a later exegetical gloss (see Auld). Its meaning is usually related to ‫אשׁ‬, “fire,” but J. Hoftijzer (“Das sogenannte Feueropfer,” 127– 34; cf. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 1:31) may be correct in defining it as gifts given to deity on the basis of a vow. Fritz (150) deletes the term on the basis of v 33. Nelson (169) thinks MT expanded and changed the pl. pronouns to harmonize with Deuteronomy. Preliminary and Interim Report (2:32) renders “the fire = offerings for the Lord.” 14.b. Having omitted ‫אשׁי‬, the LXX referred the pronoun “that (or) he” to Yahweh and interpreted “tribe” as collective, thus using pl. pronouns, as does MT in v 33. The sg. of MT conforms to Deut 18:2; 10:9 and may represent glosses from there. A LXX gloss makes Yahweh the explicit subject of “he spoke.” 14.c. At the end of the verse, LXX adds καὶ οὗτος ὁ καταμερισμός, ὃν κατεμέρισεν Μωυσῆς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ἐν Αραβωθ Μωαβ ἐν τῷ πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου κατὰ Ιεριχω, “and this is the allotment which Moses allotted to the sons of Israel in the plains of Moab beyond the Jordan

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 48

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

49

over against Jericho.” This is apparently a summary statement closing the section, parallel to that of v 32. As such, it reinterprets the function of vv 8–14, reading it as parallel to the other tribal allotments. Instead, the verses seek to summarize the territory occupied by Israel beyond the Jordan. Despite Margolis (Book of Joshua in Greek) and Holmes (Joshua), Auld agrees that the LXX addition is secondary, but on grounds of a complicated literary theory. Nelson (169) prefers MT because he finds no mechanism to explain the loss of the Gk. addition. 15.a. As often, LXX does not witness “sons.” For the combination ‫מטה בני‬, “tribe of the sons of . . . ,” see Auld, “Joshua,” 10–11. 16.a. The MT duplicates v 9, but here LXX reads ἥ ἐστιν κατὰ πρόσωπον φάραγγος Αρνων, καὶ ἡ πόλις ἡ ἐν τῇ φάραγγι Αρνων, “which is beside the face of the Valley of the Arnon, and the city in the Valley of the Arnon” rather than ἥ ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοῦ χείλους χειμάρρου Αρνων καὶ τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἐν μέσῳ τῆς φαραγγος, “which is on the lip of the river Arnon and the city which is in the middle of the valley.” LXX thus does not make it clear that the edge or shore of the river is specified, but then adds a second “Arnon” while not specifying “the midst of.” Either LXX is inconsistent here in its translation techniques or had a slightly different text before it. Nelson notes that ‫ גּבול‬here must indicate territory rather than boundary or border. 16.b. MT reads ‫על‬, “upon, over,” while a large number of Heb. MSS and the Tg. witness ‫עד‬, “unto.” LXX also apparently read ‫ עד‬but did not read “Medeba.” Fritz (150) calls MT meaningless. V 16 is closely related to v 9, where similar textual problems occur. Nelson (169) omits “Medeba” as a “slightly misplaced gloss on ‫משׁר‬,” “plain” or “plateau” and then finds restoring the text behind LXX to be difficult. Textual evidence would tend to support the reading ‫עד חשׁבון‬, “unto Heshbon,” but textual emendation here is not based so much on textual evidence as on geographical, structural, and literary presuppositions. 17.a. LXX does not translate the pronominal suffix. The antecedent for the suffix is apparently Heshbon. The Heb. syntax would be more easily understood if the suffix were not present. Again, the text may be emended only after the literary problems have been analyzed (see Wüst, Untersuchungen, 126–28). 17.b. Gk. adds the conjunction before Dibon, separating it clearly from the preceding construction. 17.c. LXX transmission of the city names is quite inconsistent in vv 17–19 (cf. Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek; Brooke and McLean, Old Testament in Greek). 20.a. Nelson (169) transliterates “Ashdoth- pisgah” as a town name, even though it is elsewhere translated “slopes of Pisgah.” 21.a. LXX lacks “who ruled in Heshbon,” a traditional phrase that may have entered the text here from v 10. Fritz (150) deletes it as a gloss. Nelson (169) sees Heb. haplography behind the LXX tradition. 21.b. LXX, Vg., and Tg. transliterate ‫רבע‬, “Reba,” as a fifth vassal king and are followed by most modern translations. Soggin (150) suggests translating the term as “four,” which would involve repointing the text at least. The term is related to that of Num 31:8 and most likely is to be considered as a proper name. The Gk. tradition shows confusion in the final words of the verse. LXX B reads: τὸν Ροβε ἀρχοντα ἔναρα Σειων καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Σειων, “Robe, the chief, the war spoils of Seion, and the inhabitants of Seion.” Margolis (Book of Joshua in Greek restores: ἄρχοντας παρὰ Σηων καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας τὴν γήν, “the rulers on behalf of Seon. And the inhabitants of the land,” but Margolis admits that the orthography of the royal name is difficult and appears to interpret Seion as a geographical entity. MT is to be preferred, but the Gk. tradition reminds us of the exegetical difficulties faced by the first translators of the text. 22.a. LXX does not witness “the sons of Israel” or “with the sword” and translates the difficult Heb. phrase ‫אל חלליהם‬, “to their pierced ones,” as ἐν τῇ ῥοπῇ, “in the decisive moment” (LXX B), or ἐν τῇ τροπῇ, “in the battle route” (Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek, based on Coptic). Neither reading is preferable to the MT, but both show the difficulty the early tradition had in understanding the text. Nelson (169) decides that Gk. read Heb. ‫חיל‬/‫חול‬. As is often the case, there appears to be confusion between the Heb. prepositions ‫אל‬, “to,” and ‫על‬, “upon, on account of” (cf. BHS). Fritz (150) calls ‫ אל חלליהם‬a gloss from Num 31:8. 23.a. LXX, as often, omits “sons.”

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 49

9/18/14 9:20 AM

50

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33) 23.b. The Heb. text reads, literally, “the Jordan and territory (or border).” The meaning is clearer than the syntax. 23.c. The Heb. pronominal suffix is fem. and refers to cities. LXX apparently duplicated the pronoun and referred it back to the Reubenites, “their cities and their villages.” MT is the most difficult reading and should be retained. Nelson (169) translates ‫ חצר‬as “their precincts,” trying “to encompass both ‘enclosed space’ and ‘suburban settlement,’” thinking “stone sheep enclosures may be intended here.” Nelson (169) follows OG as the less expected reading. 24.a. MT preserves a double reading of which the LXX uses “to the sons of Gad,” while Syr. witnesses “to the tribe of Gad.” The original text, parallel to vv 15 and 29b, may have read “to the tribe of the sons of Gad.” See Fritz (150). 25.a. LXX omits the conjunction before “all,” which could be interpreted as defining Jazer as including all the cities of Gilead. 25.b. The important Vaticanus Gk. witness (LXX B) is apparently corrupt here (cf. Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek) but gives an interesting interpretation, reading “unto Araba, which is over against Arad,” extending the territory quite far south. 26.a. Again Gk., though probably corrupt (Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek), preserves variant geographical readings: “and from Heshbon unto Araboth over against Massepha, and Botanei and Baan unto the territory of Daibon.” The final city is read by MT as Lidebir. LXX understood the initial lamed as a preposition. What is probably the same city is variously pointed in the MT (‫לוֹ ְד ָבר‬, 2 Sam 9:4– 5; ‫ל ֹא ְד ָבר‬, 2 Sam 17:27; ‫ל ֹא ְד ָבר‬, Amos 6:13; and ‫ ִל ְד ִבר‬here). Preliminary and Interim Report (2:32) repoints MT to read ‫ ִל ְדבֹר‬, “Lidebor,” equating it with the cities named above. 27.a. LXX again has distinct readings for the opening two geographical locations. Margolis (Book of Joshua in Greek) may be correct in restoring the term to Beth Haran, as in Num 32:36. 28.a. Using the language of Josh 7:12, LXX B inserts αὐχένα ἐπιστρέψουσιν ἐναντίον τῶν ἐχθρῶν αὐτῶν· ὅτι ἐγενήθη κατὰ δήμους αὐτῶν, “the necks they turned in face of their enemies because it was according to their clans.” Why or how this was introduced into the text at this point is not clear. 29.a. LXX does not witness “this is what belonged to half the tribe of the sons of Manasseh.” The form used here is distinct from that of vv 15–16 and 24–25. This may be explained either on literary grounds or as a textual corruption, in which case the beginning of v. 30 would have been falsely copied in the middle of v 29, with v 30 then being modified. The original text may have read: Moses gave to half the tribe of Manasseh for their clans. This is the territory that belonged to half the tribe of the sons of Manasseh: from Mahanaim and all Bashan and all the kingdom of Og (adding conjunctions with LXX). Fritz (150; cf. Nelson, 169) deletes the reference to the half tribe of Manasseh as a gloss. 29.a– 31.a. LXX interprets the text reading, “sons of Machir, the sons of Manasseh, and to half of the sons of Machir, the sons of Manasseh.” 30.a. Fritz (150) deletes the preposition mem, “from,” before “Mahanaim” as a gloss. 32.a. Without textual evidence, Fritz (150) inserts ‫ הנחלת‬in conformity with Josh 19:51. 33.a. LXX omits v 33, which repeats with slight changes v 14 (cf. Auld, “Textual and Literary Studies in the Book of Joshua,” ZAW 90 [1978] 412). Nelson sees a MT expansion repeating the original form of v 14.

Form/Structure/Setting The transitional nature of Josh 13:1 is clear from the nominal beginning and from its relationship to similar transitions in Josh 23:1 and 1:1.66 The imperative of v 7 concludes the section prior to the transition to historical review in v 8. This transition is shown by the change from first- to third-person reference to God, thus concluding the divine quotation after v 7. V 8, with its difficult Hebrew syntax, starts with a disjunctive clause introducing the tribal allotments Moses assigned the 66

Cf. Smend, “Das Gesetz.”

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 50

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

51

two and a half tribes. This interrupts the previous dialogue concerning the tribes west of the Jordan. Syntactically and thematically, v 8 begins a new section, a historical review ensuring all tribes are included. Practically, v 8 serves as a flashback preparing the way for chaps. 14–21. Thus the following discussion will address the entire chapter.

Tradition Two distinct types of tradition appear in Josh 1–12 and 13–19. The first half of the book is built on ancient oral traditions that gained literary form quite early. The current MT of 1–12 represents the ultimate editor’s reinterpretation of those early traditions. He has framed the early tradition with the compositions in chaps. 1 and 12, as well as with brief statements in chaps. 8, 10, and 11. In chaps. 13–19, literary activity dominates. Oral narrative form is conspicuous only by its absence. Such literary activity presupposes the literary plan of the Pentateuch, with much of chap. 13 repeating pentateuchal materials. Chap. 13 itself is based on a complex of traditions, each apparently in written form. The traditions include: 1. The settlement of the territory east of the Jordan by the tribes of Gad, Reuben, and half of Manasseh (cf. Num 32; Deut 3:12–22) 2. The promised borders of the land (Num 34; Josh 1; cf. 1 Kgs 8:65) 3. The land that remained for later conquest (Judg 1) 4. The Sihon and Og battles (Num 21:21– 34; 32:33; Deut 1:4; 2:24–32; 3:1–13; 4:46– 47; 31:4; Josh 2:10; 9:10; 12:2– 5; cf. Judg 11:19–21; 1 Kgs 4:19; Neh 9:22; Pss 135:11; 136:19–20; Jer 48:45) 5. Levitical lack of allotments The traditions listed above come not in identifiable oral formulations but in carefully (and at points not so syntactically carefully) combined formulations. Central to the traditions are the territories of the eastern tribes, but this is delivered in a format looking back at the military seizure of land from two kings— Sihon and Og. Much of the land later became involved in disputes with Moab.

Source and Redaction How did the various written sources listed above become joined into the mixture represented in our MT? The ultimate editor must have known the Pentateuch’s salvation history outline, quite possibly in its present form. He knew the central narrative for Israel focused on victories over Sihon and Og and on conflicts with Moab.67 The editor combined several themes at once— the retirement of Joshua from battle, the land that remained from the chaps. 1–12 narratives, the division of Manasseh, the leadership of Moses, the land claimed by Israel over against possible counterclaims, the cities belonging to Israel, and the plight and destiny of the Levites. Such a combination assured that the text would be acknowledged by eastern as well as western tribes. 67

Cf. Judg 11 where the center of contention is with the Ammonites, who claimed rights to land between the Arnon and Jabbok rivers, roughly parallel to the kingdom of Sihon.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 51

9/18/14 9:20 AM

52

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

The source for this information has been a matter of intense scholarly debate. The standard explanation is that of Martin Noth.68 Noth isolates at least fragments of an eastern list of towns and of fixed border points in vv 15– 33. The town list (vv 17b–19, 27aα) he connects to Alt’s western town list, dated to the time of Josiah. Likewise, he views the border points (vv 16, 17a, 20, 25b, 26, 27aβb) as being connected to the western document compiled by one of the judges of Israel to settle or prevent border disputes. Rudolph agrees that town lists lie behind Josh 13 but is not sure these can be understood as towns conquered by Josiah.69 He denies the presence of border lists, seeing instead geographical reference points to describe certain regions. The Priestly writer divided the territory into the two parts of Reuben and Gad, thus creating pure fiction, according to Rudolph. Similarly Glueck argues that Noth’s boundary lines fit neither the kingdom of Sihon nor the territory of the Israelite tribes.70 What is more, they follow no natural boundaries and accord with no archaeological findings. They are no more the eastern boundary of the tribes than “Dan to Beersheba” is the eastern border of western Palestine. Mittmann accepts the division between a town list and boundary description but notes the literary differences between chaps. 13 and 15, thus denying a common source for the two.71 Moreover, the border points lie too far apart and do not form a meaningful boundary line. According to Mittmann, a redactor transformed an original list into a border description parallel to that of Josh 15. The original list was an administrative document from the time of Solomon outlining the areas of authority of each of the regional centers. Wüst also works with the assumption of originally distinct territorial descriptions and town lists, but for him the original territorial description was limited to “from Aroer unto Medeba” (v 16) and “from Heshbon unto Ramath- mispeh (and Betonim?)” (v 26a).72 “And all the plain” was added to v 16 from v 17, where it headed the city list, thus uniting the two lists. Descriptions of Aroer and the city in the middle of the valley were added to equate precisely the Israelite boundary with that of Sihon (Num 21:13, 26). The addition of the material concerning halfManasseh in vv 29–30 brought the expansion of the Gaddite territory “from Mahanaim unto the territory of Lodebar” (v 26b) in order to claim all the territory east of the Jordan for Israel. Such a border separation represents, for Wüst, the border between Israel and Moab described in the Moabite Stele and Jer 48:2; 49:3 rather than actual tribal history. Wüst separates the city list in Josh 13:17–20, 27 from that in Num 32:34–38. The list in Numbers he finds originally limited to Dibon, Ataroth, Aroer, and Atrothshophan in Gad. The original Reubenite list included Heshbon, Elealeh, Kiriathaim, Baal-meon, and Sibma. The two lists were built around the regional centers 68

69 70 71 72

“Studien zu den historisch- geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches,” ZDPV 58 (1935) 185–255; reprinted in ABLAK 1 (1971) 229– 80. He worked on the analogy of the discoveries of Albrecht Alt (“Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Joshua,” in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichten des Volkes Israel. Vol. 1 [Munich: Beck, 1953] 193–202). Der ‘Elohist,’ 214–16. AASOR 18–19 (1937– 39) 249– 51. Beiträge zur Siedlungs- und Territorialgeschichte des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970) 231– 46. See Untersuchungen, esp. the summary on 144.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 52

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

53

of Dibon and Heshbon and must have come from a time prior to ninth- century Moabite expansion, and thus from the time of Solomon at the latest.73 The Joshua city list, unlike that of Numbers, was not originally separated by tribes but rather represented ancient, undatable highway routes in Transjordan, since it is hard to imagine the route as a border line. One of the routes ran from Dibon to Bamoth-Baal and then diverted from the major northern route to Medeba to follow the northwestern route to Beth-Baal-meon, Kiriathaim, and Beth-jeshimoth, joining a road to Beth-haram, Beth-nimrah, Succoth, and Zaphon. A second route ran from Sibma over Zerethsharar to Beth-peor. This was inserted by an editor into the original route to extend the territory northward. A later editor added the slopes of Pisgah to join the road to the Jordan Valley again. Later editorial work divided the route into three parts: the plain (v 17), the hill of the valley (v 19b), and in the valley (v 27). Only at this stage was the material taken up by the editor of Josh 13 and split into two parts for Reuben and Gad. The editor then extended the towns of Gad through the use of information gathered from Num 32:1 and Judg 11:33, creating Josh 13:25. Wüst thus reduces the boundary list to such an extent that it loses function and meaning while creating a system of roads running in all directions but without a Sitz im Leben for preservation. The prehistory of the lists remains in darkness, with only the literary intentions being capable of illumination. Knauf pushes the basic strata of the chapter back to the final redaction, either the prophetic or the Joshua-Judges redaction in his terminology.74 Hess relies on the work of Alt to affirm that “the integrity of the material in these chapters was antecedent to any editorial activity,” leaving dating of the tradition open and independent of source attribution.75 Hess finds no time outside the days of Joshua when regions were “demarcated in a way that so closely resembles the tribal allotments in Joshua.”76 Hess also points to Weinfeld’s studies to demonstrate that other traditions have allotment narratives following occupation narratives.77 Excavators have found lists of towns at Ugarit, Mari, and Alalakh created for administrative and census purposes in this time period. Based on Finkelstein’s survey results of many new villages, especially in the central hill country, Hess asks if Josh 13–19 describes a time when tribal identity was “preeminently important,” when no one town dominated to give people a topographic identity, and when topography was described by natural landmarks and villages.78 Thus, according to Hess, boundary lists reflected needs of an agricultural community for cooperative efforts and identification of land claims to prevent strife.79 Hess places the lists of chaps. 13–19 in a covenant-with- God context.80 He theorizes that Israel needed more land for agriculture and that they took over 73 74 75 76 77

78 79 80

Cf. ibid., 152– 53, 182. Knauf, 127. “Asking Historical Questions,” 191. Ibid., 197. Ibid., 198. See Weinfeld, “The Extent of the Promised Land: The Status of Transjordan,” in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit, GTA 25 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 59– 75; “Historical Facts behind the Israelite Settlement Pattern,” VT 38 (1988) 324– 32; “The Pattern of the Israelite Settlement in Canaan” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem, 1986, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1988) 279– 83. Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. “Asking Historical Questions,” 200. Ibid., 203.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 53

9/18/14 9:20 AM

54

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

a broad “map” of Late Bronze Age Canaan (from Canaanites or Egyptians) so that the border lists reflect ideal desires of Israel more than political reality (cf. Judg 1).81 Rösel separates vv 2– 6 from v 1, and understands it as a later addition to the basic Deuteronomistic narrative.82 In a similar vein, Josh 13:1 is seen as later than its duplicate in Josh 23:1. “Land” in v 1 for Rösel means all the Transjordan territory but is reduced in vv 2– 6 by the subtraction of the northern and the southwestern border lands. The complex Deuteronomistic editorial work eliminates vv 2– 6 from Smend’s DtrN.83 From these and other theories, we may draw the following tentative conclusion. A literary editor attempted to incorporate all the information at his disposal into an allocation of the territory east of the Jordan parallel to that west of the Jordan. The starting point was the specific understanding of the geographic tradition, which says: (1) Aroer is the southern boundary of the land occupied by Israel (Deut 2:36; 3:12; 4:48; Josh 12:2; 13:9, 16; 2 Kgs 10:33; cf. 2 Sam 24:5). The Mesha stele (1.26)84 and Jer 48:19 presuppose Moabite occupation of Aroer, whereas Num 32:34 and Judg 11:26 witness Israelite occupation. (2) The border could be more precisely defined as the city in the midst of the river valley (Josh 13:9, 16; cf. Deut 2:36; 3:16; Josh 12:2; 2 Sam 24:5). This makes clear that the border is precisely that of the kingdom of Sihon over against Moab.85 (3) All the high plain north of the Arnon reaching up to Medeba and Heshbon belonged to Israel (Deut 3:10; Josh 13:9, 16, 17, 21; cf. the city of refuge in the plain, Deut 4:43; Josh 20:8). By the time of Jeremiah, the cities of the plain are Moabite (Jer 48:8, 21).86 (4) The expression “who ruled in Heshbon” (vv 10, 21) is confined to this chapter. The related expression “king of Heshbon” (v 27) appears in material attributed to the Deuteronomistic History (Deut 2:24, 26, 30; 3:6; 29:6 (ET 7); Josh 9:10; 12:5; Judg 11:19; cf. Neh 9:22). Outside Deuteronomistic literature the regular expression is “who lived in Heshbon” (Num 21:34; taken up in Deut 1:4; 3:2; 4:46; Josh 12:2) or “city of Sihon” (Num 21:26–27). Later, Heshbon belonged to Moab (Isa 15:4; 16:8– 9; Jer 48:2, 34, 45). (5) Salecah (v 11) is introduced as the extreme limit of Bashan, territory of Og (Deut 3:10; Josh 12:5; cf. 1 Chr 5:11). (6) That Ashtaroth is (a) the residence of Og by itself (Josh 9:10) or (b) along with Edrei a city of Og (13:31) or the residence of Og (Deut 1:4; Josh 12:4)— or the city where Og ruled (13:12) appears only in Deuteronomistic literature. Num 21:33 knows only of a battle at Edrei (cf. Deut 3:1), whereas in Deut 3:10 the cities of Og are Edrei and Salecah.

81 82 83 84 85 86

Ibid., 204. ZAW 119 (2007) 184– 89. “Das Gesetz und die Völker,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. W. Wolff (Munich: Kaiser, 1971) 497– 500. See ANET, 320. Cf. Num 21:24; 22:36; Wüst, Untersuchungen, 133– 43. Cf. ANET, 320.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 54

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

55

(7) The identification of Og as part of the ancient giant Rephaim appears only in Deuteronomistic literature (Deut 3:11; Josh 12:4; 13:12). In fact, connection of the ancient Rephaim with the conquest of East Jordan occurs only in Deuteronomistic materials (Deut 2:11, 20; 3:13; cf. Josh 17:15). Otherwise, the Rephaim appear only in Gen 14:5; 15:20; cf. 1 Chr 20:4. (8) Kedemoth is known only here, as a wilderness station from which messengers were sent to Sihon (Deut 2:26) and as a Levitical city (Josh 21:37; cf. 1 Chr 6:79 [6:64]). (9) Mephaath is mentioned only here and as a Levitical city in Josh 21:37 (cf. 1 Chr 6:79 [6:64]). Jeremiah pronounced judgment upon the city as Moabite (Jer 48:21). (10) Beth-peor (v 20) is a geographical site where Israel stopped in the wilderness and received Mosaic commands (Deut 3:29; 4:46) and near which Moses was buried (Deut 34:6). In Numbers the place name is Peor (Num 23:28) and represents the great place of sinning with the Baal of Peor (Num 25:3, 5, 18; 31:16; cf. Josh 22:17; Ps 106:28; Hos 9:10). (11) The “slopes” of Pisgah (v 20) appears only in Deuteronomistic literature (Deut 3:17; 4:49; Josh 12:3). Otherwise, the reference is to the top of Pisgah (Num 21:20; 23:14; Deut 3:27; 34:1). ‫אשׁד‬, “slope,” appears in the singular only in the poetry of Num 21:15. The plural “slopes” appears only in Josh 10:40; 12:8. (12) Beth-jeshimoth is part of Og’s kingdom only in Josh 12:3 and here (v 20). Otherwise, it appears in the itinerary of Num 33:49 and as a Moabite city (Ezek 25:9). (13) Aroer, which is over against Rabbah (v 25), is mentioned explicitly only here and is perhaps to be seen as a misinterpretation of Judg 11:33.87 (14) Rabbah, the Ammonite capital, appears in Deut 3:11; 2 Sam 11:1; 12:26–29; 17:27; cf. Amos 1:14; Jer 49:2– 3; Ezek 21:25; 25:5. Rabbah’s location west of the Jabbok has led the editor to speak of half of Gilead (Josh 12:2, 5; 13:31) and half of the land of the Ammonites (Josh 13:25; cf. Num 21:24; Deut 2:19, 37; 3:16). A hint at the wider claims of the Ammonites is given in Judg 11:13, a claim somewhat supported by their ability to attack across the Jordan in the period of the Judges (Judg 3:10–11). Only with Saul (1 Sam 11:11; 14:47) and David (2 Sam 8:12; 10–12) were they finally defeated. (15) Aside from the etiology in Gen 32:2 (3), Mahanaim (vv 26, 30) appears only in narrative traditions (Josh 21:38; 2 Sam 2:8, 12, 29; 17:24, 27; 19:33; 1 Kgs 2:8; 4:14). (16) Amos 6:13 is the only non-narrative tradition concerning ‫( לדבר‬Lo- debar; cf. Josh 13:26— see Notes; cf. 2 Sam 9:4– 5; 17:27). (17) Succoth appears first in the etiology of Gen 33:17 and then only in the tradition of Judg 8, except for the psalmic allusion (Ps 60:8 = 108:8). (18) Only Deuteronomistic literature knows of the sixty cities of Jair (v 30; cf. Deut 3:4; 1 Kgs 4:13). Despite the abundance of traditions and expressions that belong solely to the Deuteronomistic literature, Josh 13 is not a new creation by the Deuteronomist, since it also builds upon traditions witnessed in Numbers: 87

See Mittmann, “Aroer, Minnith und Abel Keramim,” ZDPV 85 (1969) 63–75; Wüst, Untersuchungen, 169–75.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 55

9/18/14 9:20 AM

56

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

(1) Num 21:21– 35 speaks of the capture of cities of Sihon and Og, specifically Heshbon, Jahaz, Edrei, Dibon, and Medeba. (2) Num 21:26–28 establishes the Arnon as the border between Sihon and Moab, after Sihon had defeated Moab. (3) Num 32 establishes the claim of Reuben and Gad to the land of Jazer and of Gilead (Num 32:1). Num 32:33– 41 adds “half of Manasseh” to the story. The tradition shares with Josh 13 the cities of Dibon (Num 32:3, 34; cf. Num 21:30); Beth-Baal-meon (Num 32:3, 38); Kiriathaim (Num 32:37); Sibmah (Num 32:38; cf. Sebam in v 3); Jazer (Num 32:3, 35; cf. 21:32); Beth-haram (Num 32:36 = Beth-haran); Beth-nimrah (Num 32:3, 36); and the villages of Jair (Num 32:41). (4) Num 31:8 witnesses a close literary relationship with Josh 13:21–22. (5) Bamoth- Baal is anchored in the Balaam tradition (Num 22:41) and the wilderness itinerary (Num 21:19–20). Several of the cities are also rooted in the tradition of Levitical cities (Josh 21; 1 Chr 6): Heshbon, Ashtaroth, Jahaz, Kedemoth, Mephaath, Jazer, and Mahanaim. The author uses language found in Deuteronomistic literature and incorporates parts of the Numbers traditions and the Levitical- city traditions. In his own distinctive linguistic tradition, he incorporates them into a description of the tribal allotments in the territory east of the Jordan. The result is not a map or a description of the goodness of the land,88 but rather a description of the work of Moses based on available traditions, a description which lays Israel’s claim to the land east of the Jordan. Na’aman concludes that a second Deuteronomistic revision took up old documents dating from the monarchy to create these lists.89 Na’aman writes: “Numerous biblical passages relating to the tribal inheritances present a uniform concept of borders reflecting an actual situation: the maximum boundaries of the Israelite kingdom during the latter years of David’s reign. . . . A major composition including all these separate descriptions was written down during the United Monarchy.”90 Na’aman denies that the tribal period had any strong degree of unity or centralized authority needed to construct such tribal lists.91 A premonarchical document would have been unrealistic, claiming territory not yet conquered, according to Na’aman, and would have served no purpose. So such a premonarchical document is “inconceivable.” He maintains that the boundary lists have been influenced by the monarchy’s district lists in 1 Kgs 4, since tribal life in reality was too “scattered and fragmented” to utilize such lists.92 Even the monarchy had no need for such an administrative system.93 It was a purely literary work based on David’s census information and composed for historiographical purposes in order to support a newly created twelve-tribe concept. From his survey of the literature, Noort concludes that for the boundary lists, the territorial lists, and the city lists, all possible positions have been represented,

88 89 90 91 92 93

Bächli, ZDPV 89 (1973) 1–14. See Smend, “Das Gesetz und die Völker,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. W. Wolff (Munich: Kaiser, 1971) 497– 500. Borders and Districts, 72. Ibid., 82– 83. Ibid., 85. Ibid., 91.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 56

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

57

ranging from the early origins of the monarchy to Josiah and the last hopes of the monarchy, or even to the new beginnings after the exile.94 Noort decides the material itself cannot be directly dated, since dating systems depend on other presuppositions. Hess finds in the boundary documents direct parallels with Hittite treaty documents dealing with peoples on both sides of a boundary.95 Town lists from Alalakh and Ugarit are in the form of census lists. This may be applicable to the western lists in the book of Joshua, but the eastern ones more than likely are based on written sources reworked by the editor. The presuppositions and results of Na’aman’s study seem to interpret the evidence as well as possible. Thus I posit that traditions reaching back into tribal life have been preserved and updated until their compilation in the time of David and Solomon. The lists are not idealistic. I see their use in a rural agricultural community that uses such lists to mark off clan properties for agricultural use, to indicate uncultivated lands, and to set out military responsibilities.

Form The literary form of chap. 13 is complex and significant. It is based on the tradition witnessed by Gen 27, 49, and Deut 33, that of the elder spokesman giving his final blessing to his family/nation, a blessing that is determinative for the future of the hearers. Hawk points to Mesopotamian texts in which the heir of an estate supervises the distribution of each portion of the estate to its other heirs.96 With a narrative statement (v 1a) and divine address (v 1bα), the way is prepared for Joshua’s final address. Ten chapters intervene before that address appears (chap. 23). Why? The common answer is literary redaction, a claim that can be neither proved nor disproved. A more important explanation is theological. Joshua’s task is no longer to point forward to future blessing but to teach proper lifestyle for those who possess the blessing (chap. 23). Before that can be done, the land itself must be not only conquered but settled. Joshua’s final act is thus divided into two parts. He gives his farewell advice and he distributes the land (chaps. 14– 21). The speaking and the action are joined into one complex event by the parallel introductory formulas (Josh 13:1; 23:1b). The action is placed first because it is the presupposition on which the speaking is based. Chap. 13 delays the action segment to provide two pieces of background information through two literary forms: divine speech and narration. The divine speech (vv 2–7) contains four major parts: A description of the present situation (v 1) A description of the land that remains (vv 2– 5) A promise to complete the conquest eventually (vv 6a) A description of Joshua’s present task and a command to begin immediately (vv 6b–7)

94 95 96

Das Buch Josua, 197. Hess (2009) 58. Hawk (2010) 143.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 57

9/18/14 9:20 AM

58

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

Narration stalls the called-for action in an abrupt manner, explaining why the distribution of land falls to only nine and a half tribes. The narrator reviews the history of Moses’ land distribution as follows: Summary introduction of land taken from Sihon and Og (vv 8–12) Land not taken (v 13) Land not given to Levites (v 14) Land allotments for Reubenites (vv 15–23) Land allotments for Gadites (vv 24–28) Land allotments for eastern Manasseh (vv 29– 31) Summary (v 32) Land not given to Levites (v 33) Attempting to find city lists, boundary points, or boundary lists in these verses requires extending a theory based on western lists and applying it to quite different eastern lists. It appears most likely that the editor used available written material to create a list parallel to the one he had for the western territory, thereby seeking to legitimate eastern land claims parallel to the legitimated western claims of chaps. 1–12.

Structure “The lists in Joshua are part of the narrative structure and serve as a constant reminder of the presence of the enemy.”97 Determining the precise structure of chap. 13 is problematic, as Hollenberg noted in the nineteenth century.98 This led Noth to speak of a piling up of secondary additions of the first, second, and third order.99 Bright separates vv 2– 6 as belonging originally to chaps. 1–12. Wüst describes an even more detailed literary growth of the section than does Noth.100 Nelson insists that the repetition of Josh 23:1b in Josh 13:1a proves that the section on dividing or apportioning the land is a late insertion into the Deuteronomistic History, since two mentions of old age is implausible.101 Nelson further finds discontinuity between Josh 13:1, 7 and 2– 6, understanding the latter to be an interpolation. Pitkänen follows Koorevaar part way, finding a chiastic structure only in Josh 15:6 to 19:51.102 This is clearer than most of the scholarly discovery of chiastic structures. Whether the writer intended a chiasm or not, the emphasis on the tent at Shiloh is significant. It announces Shiloh as a center of importance and power in preexilic Israel. That this reflects priestly and political power struggles in early Israel remains a strong possibility— the parties including Gilgal, Shiloh, Bethel, Dan, Shechem, and eventually Jerusalem. Other places such as Mount Tabor and Mahanaim may well have joined the competition. Three points in chap. 13 cause confusion: (1) the relationship of Josh 13:1–7 to

Mitchell, Together in the Land, 126. “Die deuteronomischen Bestandtheile des Buches Josua, Theologische Studien und Kritiken 1 (1874) 478– 81. 99 Noth, 76; cf. Knauf, 127— a conglomeration of secondary fillers. 100 Wüst, Untersuchungen, 30– 40, 221– 39; see Noth, 73–75. 101 Nelson, 164. 102 Pitkänen, 248; see discussion of commentaries in Introduction.

97 98

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 58

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

59

10:40– 43 and 11:16–23; (2) the precise description of the land that remains; and (3) the double imperative in vv 6–7 and its connection with chap. 18, on the one hand, and with 13:8–33, on the other. The structure of vv 8–33 is distinctly different in the Masoretic and Greek traditions. The Hebrew text does not have a formulaic beginning. Rather, it is tied very loosely to the preceding by a sentence (v 8) whose syntax is difficult to decipher (see Notes). Vv 8–12 describe in a long list the territory that the tribes east of the Jordan took after Moses gave it to them. The territory is listed from south to north and covers all the land between the river Arnon and Mount Hermon. It is divided into several sections: (1) The city of Aroer along with the city in the midst of the Arnon Valley (v 9a) (2) The northern Moabite tableland described in a north- south direction of Medeba to Dibon (v 9b) (3) The territory captured from Sihon, the Amorite king in Heshbon, described in a west- east direction, ending at the border of the Ammonites (v 10) (4) Gilead, apparently assumed to be the territory between Heshbon and the Yarmuk River (v 11) (5) The land of the Geshurites and the Maacathites, assumed to be north of the Yarmuk below Mount Hermon (v 11) (6) Mount Hermon, the northern border in the Anti-Lebanon range (v 11) (7) Bashan, apparently understood as the land east of the territory of the Geshurites and Maacathites, reaching in a west- east direction to Salecah. Bashan is further identified as the kingdom of Og, centering around two cities, Ashtaroth in the north and Edrei in the south (vv 11–12a). Nelson doubts the validity of the tidy split of territory between Gad and Reuben because of territory assigned to Reuben but occupied by Gad.103 One might ask when official boundaries and real- life situations have ever coincided. Earl writes that an “updating process” is perhaps the most likely explanation for the differences between the lists, suggesting that this text is ‘mythical’ in the sense that it was ‘living,’ shaping and reflecting the society that used it. It was continually updated to meet these needs, but by setting the boundaries in antiquity they are vested with authority.104 Artus focuses on the latest form of the lists and finds them to be later than the post- Priestly book of Numbers, coming from the Persian period.105 After listing the territory included in Israel’s inheritance east of the Jordan, the writer then notes two exceptional cases (vv 13–14). Israel failed to capture the extreme northern territory of Geshur and Maacath, resulting in a situation in the editor’s day in which the two enemy kingdoms existed within Israel. Geshur has ancient traditions in the land (1 Sam 27:8) and is most closely associated with Absalom, David’s rebellious son (2 Sam 3:3; 13:37– 38; 14:23, 32; 15:8). Maacah is also involved in opposition to David (2 Sam 10:6). The other exception is unexpected in the context. It notes that the priestly Levites did not receive territory from Moses. The summarizing notice ensures 103 Nelson, 173. 104 Earl, 172. 105 See “Josué 13–14.”

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 59

9/18/14 9:20 AM

60

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

reference to all tribes of Israel within vv 1–14. Hess explains that as representatives of the firstborn of every family, clan, and tribe, the Levites “are the tribe that links all the inheritances together.”106 Vv 15–33 of the Masoretic Text contain three subsections, denoting the territory of Reuben (vv 15–23), Gad (vv 24–28), and the half tribe of Manasseh (vv 29– 31). V 32 forms a concluding summary. Almost chorus-like, the MT then repeats the denotation of Levi (v 33). The notice that Moses gave the territory to the tribe for its clans introduces each territorial description. Then the territory is described, and a final notice indicates that this is the inheritance of the tribe for its clans, their cities and their villages. This formal structure is disturbed in the final section on Manasseh. Within each section, the territory is divided into units. Reuben’s territory begins at the southern limit of Aroer and the Arnon Valley and includes all the plain to (cf. Notes) Medeba (v 16). This is more closely defined as Heshbon and all its cities in the plain (v 17a). The cities are then listed, though the order followed is difficult to determine (vv 17b–20). The cities are again characterized as the cities of the plain and as the kingdom of Og (v 21), to which a historical note is attached (vv 21b–22). Gad’s territory is described in a variety of ways. First, it is defined generally as Jazer and all the cities of Gilead (v 25aα). This is more closely defined in each direction. To the east it includes half of the territory of the Ammonites reaching to Aroer by the Ammonite capital of Rabbah (v 25aβb). The southern territory begins at Heshbon, reaching unto Ramath-mizpeh and Betonim (v 26a). The northern territory begins at Mahanaim, extending to Debir (or Lo- Dabar, cf. Notes) (v 26b). The western section represents the remainder of the kingdom of Sihon not allotted to Reuben. This is more closely identified as the Jordan Valley reaching northward to the Sea of Chinnereth (v 27). The territory of eastern Manasseh is outlined in two sections. The general description extends from Mahanaim northward, a territory that can be designated as all Bashan, as all the kingdom of Og, with the notation that this included all Havvoth- Jair (v 30). V 31 appears to be a very brief historical note, somewhat parallel to vv 21b–22, attributing the eastern territory to Machir, a territory including half of Gilead and the capital cities of Og in Edrei and Ashtaroth. One would expect here a note similar to Num 32:40 that Moses gave these to Machir. One would also expect the closing formula ‫נחלה לחצי בני מנשׁה למשׁפּתותם זאת‬, “this is the inheritance of half of the sons of Manasseh for their clans.” LXX may point to early textual corruption at this point (cf. Notes).

Setting Chap. 13 is a major dividing point in the book of Joshua. Here the major shift in Israel’s identity is made, in which they move from being a people fighting for the land to a people living in the land. The shift is accomplished literarily in total awareness of the promises of Josh 1, the conquest of Josh 2–12, and the later conquests in Judg 1 and in the reign of David (e.g., 1 Sam 30; 2 Sam 5; 8; 10). The notice

106 Hess (1996) 237.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 60

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

61

of cities that remained may well form the basis of administrative documents for various internal and external legal and military purposes.107 Stone describes the historical conditions behind the lists as a “worldwide” decimation of cultures and empires, specifically the fall of the Egyptian Empire. In helping facilitate the fall by conquering various cities, the Israelites established an identity distinct from the Egyptian Empire and the Canaanite city- states. “If a major social crisis of Late Bronze Canaan centered on unjust imperial land use practices, then the distribution of the land, with its scrupulous care to allocate property to the tribes and families of Israel, constitutes a dramatic agrarian reform, even an economic revolution.” Stone argues that Joshua “articulates a vision of Israelite identity that directly opposes that represented, either historically or literarily, by New Kingdom Egypt and its harsh policies toward Canaan.”108 Hess continues to argue for a premonarchical setting for the allotments since the sequence of the lists follows the sequence of the battles and since demographic patterns called uniquely for such a list.109 Some form of the lists could possibly have roots before the monarchy, but the present list represents a scribal/editorial compilation. Israel’s claims to “Moabite territory” and to Bashan in the north represent early disputes with Moab (Exod 15:15; Num 21–25; Judg 3:12–30; 11:15–17; 1 Sam 12:9; 14:47; 22:3– 4; 2 Sam 8:11; cf. Deut 2:9). Later King Mesha of Moab caused problems for Israel (2 Kgs 3). During the united monarchy, such an official list highlighting how Israel gained rights to Moabite territory would support David’s policy with Moab. Bartusch surveys anthropological studies of tribes and declares that the biblical description of tribes “poorly reflects the social character of tribal society as recognized by cultural anthropologists.”110 Tribes do not develop into states but result from a secondary formation by a new state. Josh 13–19 thus “is perhaps better understood as the administrative means of the Davidic- Solomonic state for managing the loosely arranged pre-monarchic population settled throughout Canaan. . . . [T]he notion that pre-monarchic Israel was a unified tribal society is likely to be an artificial socio-political construct intended to ground in earlier history the territorial claim and political reality of the United Monarchy.”111 Such an understanding forces Israel into an anthropological rule book that admits no exceptions. It leaves premonarchic Israel without definition or integration of any kind. It virtually eliminates the judges from any moorings in history. Admittedly, defining or describing the exact political structure of Israel before David and Solomon remains a difficult task. Joshua shows Israel as a band of newcomers crossing from the east and winning battles. Seebass notes that the book of Joshua does not picture a single hero as a landholder in the “großen Stil.”112 The book of Joshua does not contain narratives in which Joshua’s warring activities lead to occupation of land. Instead the book narrates examples of his battle actions and 107 108 109 110 111 112

Hess (2009) 57. Stone, “From Real to Reel,” 11. Hess (2009) 58. Understanding Dan, 83– 90. Ibid. “Das Buch Josua als Nicht- Fortsetzung des Buches Numeri” in The Book of Joshua, ed. Ed Noort (Leuven: Peeters, 2012) 253– 54.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 61

9/18/14 9:20 AM

62

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

notes lists in the manner that at best they could appear as, the results of possessing land by tribes on the basis of Joshua’s actions, but even this never appears in the lists. Thus, we may posit that ancient boundary texts that limited or served to settle tribal or clan disputes were constantly adjusted to meet historical reality, and yet they retained the ancient authority that discouraged tribal conflicts and disputes. In the context of the united monarchy, these premonarchical texts served to establish claims over territory also claimed by Moab and others.

Comments 1 The verse introduces the theological tension central to the book of Judges, namely, life in the land of promise shared with the inhabitants of the land. At this point no reason is given for why the inhabitants remain. It is simply stated as a fact. The emphasis here is on the role of Joshua, as was the case in chaps. 1–12. Joshua cannot complete the task of conquering the land. He is old: he has fought a long time (Josh 11:18); he has been entirely faithful (11:15). Now he must trust others to complete the conquest.113 All that remains is to detail the achievement of what is summarized in 11:23 (cf. 12:7), the partitioning of the land. The description is interrupted, though, by a description of the work that remains after Joshua, a work already hinted at in 11:13. 2 The land that remains consists of three sections: The land of the Philistines and their southern “allies” (vv 2–3) The Phoenician coast (v 4) The northern mountain country of Lebanon (v 5) Mitchell describes the transition from chap. 12 to chap. 13 as “a carefully constructed feature” moving from “all the nations to single nations.” He states, “There is no longer any thought of a united opposition to the new owners of the land.”114 Knauf looks to a period late in Israelite history and decides the description must issue from the period when the Jews controlled Phoenicia near 200 BCE.115 For Knauf, the lists were devised by scribes and biblical scholars based on a relatively small amount of source material and geographical knowledge of the land east of the Jordan from the early time. Knauf maintains that all of the areas included in v 2 were under Israelite control at the same time, although some only briefly. Knauf further denies that all the tribes existed at the same time, Manasseh and Gad coming into being late and Reuben disappearing quite early. Such a division reflects the task facing David and the kingdom attributed to Solomon. The Philistines are understood to have been conquered by David (1 Sam 27; 2 Sam 8:1; 21:15–22; 23:8– 17), while the only reference to control of Phoenicia comes in 1 Sam 24:6–7. Solomon apparently exercised domination of Lebanon (1 Kgs 9:19; 8:65), based on the Syrian wars of David (2 Sam 8:3–12; 10:1–19). Scholars generally locate the Geshurites in Syria north of the territory con-

113 Harris, 76. 114 Together in the Land, 134, 137. 115 Knauf, 129.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 62

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

63

quered by the Transjordan tribes (Deut 3:14; Josh 12:5; 13:11–13). David eventually gained influence in the area through a marriage alliance (2 Sam 3:3 = 1 Chr 3:2), but this resulted in the rebellion of Absalom, who retreated to his maternal home (2 Sam 13:37–38). Interestingly, the area is not explicitly listed in David’s fights with the Syrians (2 Sam 8, 10). The northern Geshurites cannot be intended here. A more plausible group is mentioned in 1 Sam 27:8, where David apparently attacks a group south of the Philistine cities. Textual problems in both texts, along with the lack of further information, make identification difficult. 3 The territory of the Philistines and Geshurites is described in geographical detail. It reaches from Shihor to Ekron, the northernmost Philistine city, ascribing to the Geshurites the wilderness between Gaza, the southernmost Philistine city, and the Egyptian border. The editor’s inclusion of Shihor indicates that this may be a tradition distinct from others within the ultimate history and related only to that of 1 Chr 13:5. Shihor is the name for the Waters of Horus usually located inside Egypt (cf. Note 4.a), but the writer here understands it as an eastern border point of Egypt. Either he extends the Israelite claim to within the normal boundaries of Egypt,116 or he uses the grammatical construction of 1 Sam 15:7 to distinguish Shihor as the eastern boundary of Egypt.117 Hess maintains that this reference is the normal boundary marker, the Wadi-Arish, but gives no evidence.118 Fritz states it must be the WadiArish; otherwise the border stretches too far east and encompasses Sinai, which never belonged to the Promised Land.119 Shihor may be a part of the Nile that flows into the Mediterranean Sea, perhaps dumping its waters into a reservoir also called Waters of Horus.120 In any case, the writer points to the time of its conquest under Saul and David (cf. 1 Sam 27:9).121 The reference to the Canaanites is not clear in this context. Mitchell maintains that Canaanites can refer to the “doomed inhabitants of the land (7:6),” “groups remaining in the land after the conquest (13:3– 4; 16:10; 17:12, 13),” people “distinguished from the Amorites and limited to the plains (6:1; 11:3; 13:3, 4),” inhabitants of plains and hill country (17:16, 18).122 Interestingly, Mitchell finds that Canaanites are not listed as religious threats in Joshua, but may refer, rather, to a special tradition in which the coastland belonged to the Canaanites as opposed to the other members of the lists of the inhabitants of the land (Num 13:29; Deut 1:7; Josh 5:1; 11:3).123 Otherwise, in the relatively few references in Deuteronomy- Joshua, Canaanite applies to the entire land west of the Jordan (cf. Josh 22:9–11, 32), which would include the Philistine and Geshurite territories under the more comprehen-

Cf. Japhet, JBL 98 (1979) 209; Nelson, 166– 67. Cf. M. Wüst, Untersuchungen, 37– 38. Hess (2009) 59– 60. Fritz, 146. See A. Betz, ABD, 5:1212; cf. Isa 23:3; Jer 2:18. For the location of the borders of Canaan and Egypt, see Na’aman, “The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt,” TA 6 (1979) 68– 90; Na’aman, “The Shihor of Egypt and Shur That Is before Egypt,” TA 7 (1980) 95–109. 122 Together in the Land, 126–27. 123 Cf. B. Maisler, Untersuchungen, 54–74. 116 117 118 119 120 121

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 63

9/18/14 9:20 AM

64

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

sive term used in Deut 11:30; 32:49; and Josh 5:12; 14:1 (cf. Gen 10:19) and would separate the land into two categories, that belonging to Israel and that belonging to the Canaanites, preparing for the future conflicts between the religion of Israel and that of Canaan. Having listed the five Philistine cities, the text then adds “and the Avvim.” The Avvim are mentioned in Deut 2:23, which reports that they were conquered by the Caphtorim, probably Sea Peoples related to the Philistines. Hess sees the Avvim as inhabitants of the region prior to the Philistines.124 4 The structure and meaning of this verse are not clear (see Notes). Apparently the more narrow meaning of “Canaan” is used here (cf. Comments to v 3), identified as the northern coastal region of the Phoenicians reaching down to Aphek. This is distinguished from the land of the Amorites, who are elsewhere said to inhabit the hill country of Palestine (Num 13:29; Josh 5:1), but the reference to the “Amorites” here in v 4 seems to reflect the kingdom of Amurru known only in the Late Bronze Age.125 Mitchell understands the Amorites in Joshua as more aggressive in war than are the Canaanites but dwelling in the distant past as “symbols of primordial evil.”126 Thus for Mitchell, “Amorites” represents “one of the most significant titles for the nations in the narrative of Joshua, referring as it does to the ideological enemy on both sides of the Jordan.”127 Mitchell concludes that these three— Canaanites, Amorites, and Hittites— and other nations mentioned in Joshua can be set aside historically as literary creations.128 But his reasoning is a bit wide of the mark. While he demonstrates some ideological significance for them and a literary function within Joshua’s narratives, he appears to equate literary and ideological function as instruments only of fictitious writing. Literary function does not mean literary creation. We have no good reason to deny historical existence and involvement with Israel to the villains of biblical literature. The site of Arah, or whatever the original name of the textually obscure Sidonian city may be, is obscure. The tribe of Asher was unable to conquer Sidon (Judg 1:31). Only 2 Sam 24:6–7 implies that David controlled Phoenicia. Otherwise, Tyre and Sidon are free kingdoms allied with David and Solomon (2 Sam 5:11; 1 Kgs 5:15–24 [5:1–10]; 9:11–14). The Bible records several sites named Aphek:129 1. A city given to Asher but not conquered (19:30; Judg 1:31), possibly near Acco (= Tell Kurdaneh = M.R. 160250) 2. A city east of the Jordan in Syria on the road to Damascus (1 Kgs 20:26– 30; 2 Kgs 13:14–19, 25), perhaps Tel Soreq (= M.R. 215242) 3. A site often identified with the present text is the modern Afqa (= M.R. 231382), fifteen miles east of ancient Byblos in Lebanon on the sources of Nahr Ibrahim.130 This Aphek marked the northern border of Canaan.

124 125 126 127 128 129 130

Hess (2009) 61. Hess (1996) 231. Together in the Land, 128. Ibid., 130. Ibid., 131. See R. Frankel, ABD, 1:275–76. Hess (1996) 232; R. Frankel, ABD, 1:276; Fritz, 253, with double question marks.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 64

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

65

4. The most famous, a city- state in the plain of Sharon located at modern Tel Rosh haʾAyin (= M.R. 143168) close to the source of the Yarkon River, just east of modern Tel Aviv. See Comments on 12:18. 5 V 5 describes a third region that remained unconquered, that of the far north. This begins above Sidon at Gebal (that is, Byblos = Jabeil = M.R. 210391) and stretches eastward. Lebanon refers to the western mountain range rising from the Phoenician coast to a height of 8300 feet and the country dominated by the mountain range. It is a component part of the land promised to Moses and Joshua (Deut 1:7; 3:25; Josh 1:4), but Joshua did not conquer it (Josh 11:17; 12:7). In Josh 13:5 it appears to represent the western border of the section of territory whose eastern border is represented by the line from Baal Gad to Lebo Hamath, often translated as “entrance to Hamath,” the Syrian city- state. Rainey suggests that its location is Lebo, a city on the border of Hamath, modern Lebweh (= M.R. 277397).131 Lebo is north of Baalbek on a source of the Orontes River. Howard decides that Baal Gad formed the southern point and Lebo Hamath the northern of the Valley of Lebanon. Na’aman contends that both Tyre and Sidon lay outside the territory allotted to Israel.132 Lebanon appears to be under Solomonic domination in 1 Kgs 9:19, while the Solomonic borders reached to Lebo Hamath (1 Kgs 8:65). 6 V 6 serves as a summary statement of all that precedes it, but it actually includes at best only vv 4 and 5. “Sidonians” is used as a term for all the inhabitants of the Phoenician coast and of the mountains of Lebanon. Misrephoth Mayim (= M.R. 187298 = Serifah), two kilometers south of the river and seventeen kilometers west of Tyre, near Khirbet Musheirefeh,133 represented the northern border of Joshua’s conquests (cf. Josh 11:8) and the southern limit of the land that remains. Fritz equates Misrephoth Mayim with the Litani River of southern Lebanon.134 The theological point of the whole section comes in v 6aβ, the divine promise. God will do that which Joshua is too old to do. The people of Israel may lose their perfectly obedient leader, but they will not lose the leadership of God. He has given his promise (Exod 34:24; Num 32:21; 33:52– 53; Deut 9:3– 5; 11:23; 18:12; Josh 3:10). The term ‫( ירשׁ‬hipʿil), “dispossess,” becomes something of a refrain in the following chapters of Joshua, most often to describe Israel’s inability to dispossess the inhabitants (Josh 13:13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12, 13; contrast 13:12; 14:12; 15:14; 17:18). This all points forward to the repeated promise in Josh 23:5 with the associated warning in 23:13 that reach their climax in Judg 2:20–23. 6b–7 After what Howard calls a “parenthetical aside” in vv 2– 6a, Josh 13:6b returns to Joshua’s task. The emphasis in chap. 13 is on God’s promise to act and on the task that Joshua must fulfill despite his age.135 Hess insists “the division of the land was idealistic at the time of the allotment.”136 Howard maintains that the central theme of the book is Joshua taking possession of the land.137 This involved 131 132 133 134 135 136 137

Sacred Bridge, 35; cf. Hess (1996) 232; Fritz, 256. Borders and Districts, 55. Cf. Rainey, Sacred Bridge, 129; Hess (1996) 232; Na’aman, Borders and Districts, 49. Fritz, 147. Cf. Howard, 299– 300. Hess (1996) 232. Cf. Knauf from a far different critical perspective.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 65

9/18/14 9:20 AM

66

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

dispossessing the land’s current inhabitants in an act of divine punishment and claiming the land grant “title of ownership” that only God could issue. Howard emphasizes that the Hebrew yrš (‫“ )ירשׁ‬reinforce(s) the idea that Israel’s inheritance was a legal transaction, a transfer of property that was a gift from God.”138 For Howard, the Hebrew term for inheritance ‫( נחל‬nḥl) is identical in meaning to possession (yrš). Nḥl focuses on the land, while yrš looks more to the action of possessing and dispossessing. Hawk studies the feminine noun naḥălāh (‫ )נַ ֲח ָלה‬that appears forty-five times in chaps. 13–21 and unites the material and determines that the noun “signifies rightful and legitimate claim to property.”139 Bartusch follows N. Habel in defining ‫( נחלה‬the feminine noun) when used outside a family setting as “a rightful share or allotment, an approved entitlement to land, property, or people.”140 In a real sense, however, Joshua describes a family setting. ‫ נחלה‬represents what God has given to a particular family or clan for their use and care via a process of lot casting, which results in the right to work and control the land as long as God allows. A third term ‫( גרשׁ‬grš) calls attention to driving out and punishing the enemy, an undertaking that could only be accomplished with God’s control through the casting of lots.141 Joshua, though, is called to obey another command of Yahweh. He must distribute the land to those tribes who will live west of the Jordan. The tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh have already received their portion east of the Jordan from Moses (Num 32). Joshua must now finish the task first given Moses in Num 26:52– 56. Assis concludes that at this point in the narrative no mention is made of a second apportioning as occurs in chaps. 18–19.142 That apportioning is required by the seven tribes’ refusal to fulfill their responsibility to finish the conquest. The importance of the task of dividing the land among the tribes is demonstrated by the repetition of the command from Yahweh to Joshua. It is first given as Joshua’s sign of obedience, which insures that Yahweh will dispossess the nations (cf. Deut 11:22–23). It is repeated as something to be done at this precise moment. Joshua is not given a general command for the future, but a specific task to carry out immediately. Completion of the task is interrupted by vv 10– 33, a historical résumé of what Moses did. This gives a complete picture of the tribal possessions in one section. 8 The function of the entire narrative is shown in the opening verse. The eastern tribes have taken (‫ )לקח‬their inheritance and thus have followed explicitly the command of Moses. This is the pattern set out for the tribes west of the Jordan who have not taken their land, that is, have not yet settled down on it. Much more, it is the pattern for all the life of the people of God. They are to take the inheritance given them by God and follow the commandments given by Moses. This can be

138 Howard, 302. 139 Hawk (2010) 144. 140 Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 90; Habel, The Land Is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies, OBT (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 35. 141 Howard, 304, 306. 142 VT 53 (2003) 3.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 66

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

67

done because the land is minutely apportioned to each tribe. Accomplishing the task obediently will show the rightness of God’s claims to ownership and of Joshua’s claim to leadership. Living in the land will include responsibility for the one tribe, Levi, without an inheritance, but not accomplishing the task will bring temptation and conflict with those inhabitants who remain. 9 For Aroer (ʿAraʿir = M.R. 228097) cf. Josh 12:2.143 Nelson notes the significance of the Aroer/Arnon boundary as Israel’s disputed boundary with Moab.144 The town in the middle of the valley never could have existed because of the Arnon River according to Knauf.145 Hess suggests it might have been a small outpost (Khirbet el-Medeineh = M.R. 240092) that disappeared without leaving anything behind.146 Nelson describes the town as either a location “halfway along the valley toward the Dead Sea” or perhaps “an otherwise unknown suburb of Aroer in the canyon itself.”147 Medeba is about nineteen miles (30 kilometers) south of Amman and fifteen miles southeast of the point where the Jordan enters the Dead Sea, at the presentday town of Madeba (= M.R. 225124). Excavations have produced only a pair of tombs from pre- Roman times that date to ca. 1200 BCE.148 According to Num 21:30, Moses conquered this Moabite city. Somewhere near 850 BCE, Mesha of Moab claims to have taken the city back.149 Dibon became the capital of Moab (cf. Isa 15:2; Jer 48:18, 22) and was the home of King Mesha.150 It is two and a half miles (four kilometers) north of the Arnon river, across the valley from modern Dhiban (= M.R. 224101). Num 32:34 attributes its Israelite fortification to Gad, but Josh 13:17 assigns it to Reuben. Occupation goes back to the Early Bronze Age, but this is followed only by Iron Age occupation.151 Texts from Late Bronze Age Egypt mention Dibon. 10 For Heshbon, cf. Josh 12:2 and Wüst.152 11 For Salecah, see Josh 12:5. 12 For Ashtaroth and Edrei, see Josh 12:4. Nelson refers to a return to the main story line but sees this “preoccupation” with the eastern tribes as “more ideological than practical.”153 This “preoccupation” is the very thread the narrator uses to tie past and present, east and west, Israel and Judah together. It maintains the line of identity for all Israel and the line of obedient leadership for Joshua (cf. chap. 22). 13 This verse introduces a series of statements in Joshua and in Judg 1:19– 36 describing territories not conquered by Israel, thus reflecting a task still before the people (cf. v 6) and providing a basis for the theological judgments of Judg 2– 3. Theological judgment is only implied in the present context. Historically, the terSee also Wüst, Untersuchungen, 133. Nelson, 172. Knauf, 130. Fritz (130) calls the note a literary fiction. Hess (1996) 234 and n. 1. Nelson, 172. M. Avi Yonah, NEAEHL, 3:1992–1993. Hallo and Younger, Context of Scripture, 2:137– 38; cf. Isa 15:2. ANET, 320; Hallo and Younger, Context of Scripture, 2:137. J. A. Dearman, NEAEHL, 2:121–22; cf. R. S. Hess, “Fallacies in the Study of Early Israel,” TynBul 45 (1994) 32– 44. 152 Untersuchungen, 149, n. 493. 153 Nelson, 170.

143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 67

9/18/14 9:20 AM

68

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

ritories in the extreme north were controlled by Israel only under David (2 Sam 3:3; 10:6–14). Knauf sets the date of the beginning of Judean settlement in Transjordan in the fifth century BCE.154 Nelson maintains that the regions of Geshur and of the Maacathites were excluded to harmonize the text with Deut 3:14 and Josh 12:5.155 14 The reference to the Levites ensures that all the tribes of Israel are mentioned in the present context and shows that the instructions of Num 18:20–24; Deut 10:6– 9; 18:1– 5 (cf. Lev 25:29–34; Num 18:6; 26:62; Deut 12:12; 14:27, 29) were faithfully carried out. It also prepares for the establishment of Levitical cities in chap. 21. The specific formulation of the text (see Notes) refers to Deut 18:1. The Levites are God’s priests and receive their livelihood from his altar, not from the land.156 Thus the Levites do not need the land, nor do they have time to work the land. They are dedicated to God’s work.157 Howard concludes: “Originally, the tribe of Levi had been sentenced to a landless existence for its violent behavior in the matter of the Shechemites (Gen 49:5–7; cf. 34:25–31), but later the Levites redeemed themselves (Exod 32:25–28) and were promised a blessing for it (Deut 33:8–11).”158 15 Rainey understands the allotment to Reuben as a “theoretical inheritance,” while Nelson sticks to a purely Deuteronomistic origin for these “utopian and idealistic” notices, resulting from “editorial schematization” rather than genuine tradition.159 Reuben is only a historical memory for the original audience. For Nelson, Reuben’s and Gad’s city lists are connected to the Solomonic districts. Similarly, Coote argues that these “uneven” allotments “have been incorporated as available from haphazard sources.”160 Thus, here the question arises, at what time would Israel’s sources have been more haphazard than in the time of the early settlement years without court administrative personnel to take censuses, administer political districts, and preserve court records? The very unevenness of the lists points to an early origin, using the natural terrain as the best territorial markers and helping tribes maintain approximate boundary lines without forbidding one tribe from having families settle across their borders. The text consciously describes land conquered and land that remained in the hands of other nations. One unifying factor for the tribes was the push to control all the land God had promised. To do so they required a godly leader like Joshua. Joshua’s work centered more on defeating enemies in their homeland than it did taking possession and occupying the land. The problem here lies in the nature and transmission of such tradition and documents. To dismiss any reality in the days of settlement is to leave too huge a gap between Israelite tribal origins and whatever starting point such a view gives for the beginning of genuine traditions. Clans are mentioned repeatedly because of their importance in preserving land tenure so that land does not leave the extended family (Lev 25:23–28, 41, 49; Num 36:6–12).161 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161

Knauf, 131. Nelson, 172. Cf. J. Hoftijzer, “Das sogenannte Feueropfer,” 114– 34, esp. 124–25. Cf. G. Minette de Tillesse, “Sections ‘tu’ et sections ‘vous’ dans le Deuteronome,” VT 12 (1962) 70–72; J. A. Emerton, “Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy,” VT 12 (1962) 134– 35. Howard, 310. Sacred Bridge, 177; Nelson, 170; cf. Coote, 657, 666; also Pressler, 90. Coote, 657. Cf. Nelson, 173.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 68

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

69

17 For Heshbon, see Comments on Josh 12:2. Bamoth- Baal means “high places of Baal” and is identified with Mesha’s Bethbamoth.162 This passage joins Num 22:41 in locating it near the Arnon.163 It may be gebel Atarus, situated at Khirbet el-Quweiqiyeh (= M.R. 220126) three miles northwest of Medeba164 or Khirbet Libb (= M.R. 222113).165 Beth- Baal-meon is identified with Maʿin (= M.R. 219120), four miles (seven kilometers) southwest of Medeba, despite the lack of archaeological remains predating the Roman period.166 18 Jahaz is variously located: H. Libb (= M.R. 222113), ten kilometers north of Dibon ; ʿAleiyan (= M.R. 233104); Khirbet el- Medeiyineh; and Khirbet Iskander (= M.R. 223107), to name only a few suggestions.167 Rainey calls el- Mudeiyineh “the largest predominately Iron Age settlement along the eastern periphery of the settled plateau.”168 Kedemoth is notoriously difficult to locate,169 being variously placed at Qasr ez-Zaʿferan, es-Saliyeh (= M.R. 237095), Khirbet er Remeil, or ʿAleiyan (= M.R. 233104). Mephaath was located by Alt at Khirbet nefaʿ, eight to nine kilometers south of Amman, but Aharoni suggests Tel Jawah (= M.R. 238141), about ten kilometers south of Amman. Hess points to Umer-Remeil (= M.R. 237101.170 19 Kiriathaim is generally located, following Kuschke, at Khirbet el- qureiyeh (= M.R. 216124), ten Roman miles west of Medeba, but Aharoni maintains a location at Quaryat el-Makhaiyet (= M.R. 220128). Hess cannot decide between the two.171 King Mesha of Moab claims the city, while Jeremiah (48:1, 23) and Ezekiel (25:9) denounce it as Moabite.

162 163 164 165

166 167

168 169 170

171

ANET, 320. Its location, however, is uncertain. Fritz, 253, leaves it unidentified. Cf. Wüst, Untersuchungen, 153– 54, n. 505. M. Ottosson, Gilead, 123. Cf. Hess (1996) 234; G. L. Mattingly, “Bamoth Baal,” ABD, 1:574–75; J. A. Dearman, “Historical Reconstruction and the Mesha Inscription,” in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, ed. J. A. Dearman, Archaeology and Biblical Studies 21 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 185– 86; J. M. Miller, “The Israelite Journey through [around] Moab and Moabite Toponymy,” JBL 108 (1989) 589– 90; Rainey, Sacred Bridge, 124, 204. Cf. R. de Vaux, “Notes d’histoire,” in Bible et Orient, 123; E. D. Grohman, “Baal- Peor,” IDB, 1:332; M. Ottosson, Gilead, 87; Fritz, 254. For H. Libb, see de Vaux, “Notes d’histoire,” in Bible et Orient, 119–20;for ʿAleiyan, see J. Liver, “The Wars of Mesha, King of Moab,” PEQ 99 (1967) 15–16, n. 5; for Khirbet el-Medeiyineh, see Y. Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 379; Rainey, Sacred Bridge, 204; Hess (1996) 234; Fritz, 254; for Khirbet Iskander, see A. Kuschke, “Historisch-topographische Beiträge,” 92. Sacred Bridge, 204. Ibid., 123; for the other suggestions, see Fritz, 256; M. Ottosson, Gilead, 123; S. Cohen, “Kedemoth,” IDB, 3:4; Y. Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 380; Hess (1996) 234. See Alt, “Das Institut im Jahre 1932,” PJ 29 (1933) 28–29; Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 381; cf. Fritz, 256; A. H. van Zyl, The Moabites (Leiden: Brill, 1960) 94, n. 7; Hess (1996) 235; cf. A. Niccacci, “Scoperto l’antico nome di Um Er- Rasas: Mefaaʾ,” RivB 35 (1987) 83– 84; Y. Elitzur, “The Identification of Mefaʿat in View of the Discoveries from Kh. Umm er-Rasas,” IEJ 39 (1989) 267–77; R. W. Younker and P. M. Daviau, “Is Mefaat to be Found at Tell Jawa [South]?” IEJ 43 (1993) 249– 51. Kuschke, “Historisch- topographische Beiträge,” 93; cf. idem, “Zweimal k∙rjtn,” ZDPV 77 (1961) 24– 31; Fritz, 256; Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 380; Hess (1996) 235.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 69

9/18/14 9:20 AM

70

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

Sibmah is situated by Kuschke “possibly” at Khirbet Qarn el-Qibsh five kilometers southwest of Heshbon. Fritz gives no location.172 Zereth- shahar is placed at Khirbet el-libb (= M.R. 222112) by Kuschke, at ezZarat (= M.R. 203111) by Aharoni, but at Khirbet Qarn el-Qibsh by Wüst. Knauf locates it along with Beth Jeshimoth as stations on the highway about 400 BCE.173 20 Beth-peor seems to be located at Khirbet Uʿyun Musa (= M.R. 220131), but Soggin continues to identify it with Khirbet eš- šaikh jayil. Hess and Nelson do not locate it.174 Pisgah is a mountain in the Abarim range across from Jericho and is usually identified with Ras Siyagha. Ottosson identifies it as Rugm el-heri. At any rate, Wüst is correct in emphatically denying that it is a town name, while Howard notes that the mention here is “somewhat strange,” being the only region listed among cities.175 Beth-jeshimoth is “certainly located” at Tell el-ašazeme (= M.R. 208132).176 21–23 Chapter 13 includes the tradition of the defeat of the Midianite kings with Num 31. Our author identifies the “princes of Midian” as vassal princes of Sihon, thus joining the Sihon tradition and the Balaam tradition, which appear alone in Num 31. Howard finds here “a small way of celebrating the earlier victories that made this territorial acquisition possible. It also may be a subtle reminder that the Israelites did not follow through on their obligations and kill all the inhabitants of the land,” hearkening back to the beginning of the chapter.177 24–25 Jazer, a Levitical city (Josh 21:39) on the Ammonite border (Num 21:34) remains a point of discussion. The German school appears to be settling, with some discomfort, on Tell el- areme (= M.R. 225146), while the Israelis lean more toward Khirbet es- Sar, about eight miles west of Amman, four miles south of es- Salt. Apparently, Jazer referred both to a town and to a political district (Num 32:1).178 The tension between v 25 and v 10 in the description of the Ammonite- Israelite border cannot be resolved by the radical text critical work of B. Obed.179 Knauf sees no possibility that a city of Aroer near Rabbah ever existed.180 Rather, v 25 seeks to explain the fact that Ammon controlled the city of Rabbah, west of the

172 See Kuschke, “Historisch- topographische Beiträge,” 92; cf. Ottosson, Gilead, 87– 88; Hess, (1996) 235, calls it “doubtful”; Wüst, Untersuchungen, 160– 61 and n. 539; Fritz, 257. 173 Kuschke, “Historisch-topographische Beiträge,” 92; cf. Fritz, 258; Aharoni, Land of The Bible, 385; cf. Ottosson, Gilead, 124; Hess with question mark (1996) 235; Wüst, (Untersuchungen, 160– 61; Knauf, 132. 174 Cf. O. Henke, “Zur Lage von Beth Peor,” ZDPV 75 (1959) 155– 63; Kuschke, “Historischtopographische Beiträge,” 93– 94; Wüst, Untersuchungen, 154, n. 508; Fritz, 254; Soggin, 157. 175 See Kuschke, “Historisch- topographische Beiträge,” 93– 94; AEHL, 747; Ottosson, Gilead, 124; Wüst, Untersuchungen, 163, n. 541. 176 Cf. Kuschke, “Historisch- topographische Beiträge,” 92; Wüst, Untersuchungen, 154, n. 510; Ottosson, Gilead, 124; Hess (1996) 235; Rainey, Sacred Bridge, 124; Fritz, 254. 177 Howard, 312. 178 Cf. Kuschke, “Historisch- topographische Beiträge,” 99–102; R. Rendtorff, “Zur Lage yon Jaser,” ZDPV 76 (1960) 124– 35; W. Schmidt, “Zwei Untersuchungen im wadi nāʿr,” ZDPV 77 (1961) 46– 55; Wüst, Untersuchungen, 117, n. 386, and 147, n. 489; Fritz, 255; AEHL, 161; Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 379; Hess (1996) 235; J. A. Peterson, ABD, 3:650– 51; R. de Vaux, “Notes d’Histoire et de Topographie Transjordaniennes,” Vivre et Penser [= RB 50] 1 (1941) 16– 47; Rainey, Sacred Bridge, 124. 179 “A Note on Josh. XIII 25,” VT 21 (1971) 239– 41; cf. Wüst, Untersuchungen, 167, n. 555. 180 Knauf. 133.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 70

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

71

Jabbok, when the latter was actually the boundary line between Ammon and Israel (cf. Josh 12:2) and that Israel fought for this territory under Jephthah (Judg 11) and finally captured Rabbah (= Amman = M.R. 238151) only under David (2 Sam 12:26).181 Thus, at the time of Joshua, Israel controlled only that territory reaching to an Aroer that lay west of the Ammonite capital Rabbah, modern Amman. The Jabbok River lies about fifty miles north of the Arnon.182 26 Ramath-mispeh has been variously located. Knauf maintains it is a theoretical construct. The German school tends to accept Khirbet el- Qarʾa, although Wüst notes that all locations are finally based on literary and form- critical hypothesis; Aharoni suggests Khirbet Jelʿad with a question mark.183 Betonim is located without doubt at Khirbet el- Batne (= M.R. 217154), six kilometers southwest of es Salt by Kuschke and most modem scholars. Wüst, however, is not totally convinced.184 Mahanaim is also located securely by Kuschke at Tell Heggag, three kilometers south of Penuel, but this, too, has to be set over against Aharoni’s identification of it with Tell edh- Dhahab el Gharbi (= M.R. 214177) on the Zerkah river.185 Insofar as ‫ לדבר‬can be identified as Lodebar (see Notes), it is located in comparison with Amos 6:13, but all locations are based on questionable literary and historical hypotheses. Hess agrees with D. V. Edelman in equating Debir with Lodebar and locating it at Tel Dober (= M.R. 209232), southeast of the Sea of Galilee.186 27 Beth Haram appears to be Tell er- Rameh (= M.R. 211137) or a nearby tell. Hess locates it at Tel Iktanu (= M.R. 214136).187 Beth-nimrah is either Tell Nimrin (= M.R. 209145) or Tell el- Bleibil (= M.R. 210146).188 Succoth is generally identified with Tell Deir ʿAlla (= M.R. 208178), though H. J. Franken, who excavated the site, denies the identification and seeks to locate Succoth at Tell el-Ekhas.189 Zaphon is usually located at Tell es- Saʿidiye (= M.R. 204186), though other suggestions have been made. Hess takes his lead from P. N. Franklin and suggests Tel el- Qos (= M.R. 208182), five kilometers north of Tell Deir ʿAlla.190

181 Cf. Wüst, Untersuchungen, 164–75; Hess (1996) 235. 182 Hubbard, 400, n.17. 183 Cf. the summary of Ottosson, Gilead, 127; Knauf, 134; R. Hentschke, “Ammonitische Grenzfestungen südwestlich von Amman,” ZDPV 76 (1960) 115–19; Kuschke, “Historischtopographische Beiträge,” 97 with nn. 38– 41; Wüst Untersuchungen, 143, n. 475; cf. the uncertainty of Ottosson, Gilead, 127; Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 383, followed by Hess (1996) 235. 184 See Kuschke, “Historisch- topographische Beiträge,” 96; Mittmann, Beiträge, 236, n. 84; Ottosson, Gilead, 127; Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 375; Fritz, 254; Hess (1996) 235; Wüst Untersuchungen, 120. 185 Kuschke, “Historisch- topographische Beiträge,” 96; cf. Mittmann, Beiträge, 222, n. 34; Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 381; cf. AEHL, 191– 92; Hess (1996) 235; Fritz, 256. 186 Cf. Wüst, Untersuchungen, 127–29; Hess (1996) 236; D. V. Edelman, ABD, 4:345– 46. 187 See the discussion by Wüst, Untersuchungen, 148– 49, n. 492; Fritz, 254; Hess (1996) 236. 188 Cf. Wüst, Untersuchungen, 148, n. 491; Fritz, 254; Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 374; Ottosson, Gilead, 128; Hess (1996) 236. 189 Cf. Wüst, Untersuchungen, 131, n. 435; Fritz, 257; Hess (1996) 236; H. J. Franken, EAEHL, 1:321. 190 Cf. Wüst, Untersuchungen, 131– 32, n. 436; Fritz, 257; Ottosson, Gilead, 128, n. 60; Mittmann, Beiträge, 219–20, n. 31; Hess (1996) 236; Franklin, ABD, 6:1040.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 71

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Excursus: The Philistines Bibliography Albright, W. F. “Syria, the Philistines, and Phoenicia.” In History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1380–1000 B.C. Ed. I. E. S. Edwards et al. 3rd ed. CAH 2, part 2. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1975. 507–16. Anon. “Yavneh Yields over a Hundred Philistine Cult Stands.” BAR 37 (2011). Barako, T. J. “The Philistine Settlement as Mercantile Phenomenon?” AJA 104 (2000) 513–30. Barnett, R. D. “The Sea Peoples.” In History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1380–1000 B.C. Ed. I. E. S. Edwards et al. 3rd ed. CAH 2, part 2. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1975. 371–78. Bauer, A. A. “Cities of the Sea: Maritime Trade and the Origin of Philistine Settlement in the Early Iron Age Southern Levant.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 17 (1998) 149–68. Ben-Shlomo, D., I. Shai, and A. M. Maeir. “Late Philistine Decorated Ware (‘Ashdod Ware’): Typology, Chronology, and Production Centers.” BASOR 335 (2004) 1–35. Benton, R. W. “The Philistines and the Early Kingdom of Israel.” Grace Journal 8 (1967) 21–31. Bierling, N. Giving Goliath His Due: New Archaeological Light on the Philistines. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. Bietak, M. “The Sea Peoples and the End of the Egyptian Administration in Canaan.” In Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology. Ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993. 292–306. Bimson, J. J. “The Philistines: Their Origins and Chronology Reassessed.” Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum 4 (1990) 58–76. Blakely, J. A. “The Location of Medieval/Pre-Modern and Biblical Ziklag.” PEQ 139 (2007) 21–26. Brug, J. F. A. A Literary and Archaeological Study of the Philistines. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 265. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1985. Bunimovitz, S. “Problems in the ‘Ethnic’ Identification of the Philistine Culture.” TA 17 (1990) 210–22. _____. “Canaanite Resistance: the Philistines and BethShemesh—a Case Study from Iron Age I.” BASOR 364 (2011) 37–51. Bunimovitz, S., and A. Yasur-Landau. “Philistine and Israelite Pottery: A Comparative Approach to the Question of Pots and People.” TA 23 (1996) 88–101. Dothan, M. “Archaeological Evidence for Movements of the Early ‘Sea Peoples’ in Canaan.” In Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology. Ed. S. Gitin and W. G. Dever. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989. 59–70. ———. “The Relation between Cyprus and the Philistine Coast in the Late Bronze Age (Tel Mor, Ashdod).” Praktika 1 (1972) 51–56. ———. “Why Was Ashdod Not Mentioned in New Kingdom Sources?” Avraham Biran Volume. ErIsr 23 (1992) 51–54 (Heb.), 147*–48* (Eng. summary). Dothan, M. et al. Ashdod 2–3: ʿAtiqot 9–10. Jerusalem, 1971. Dothan, M., and D. N. Freedman. Ashdod 1: ʿAtiqot. Jerusalem, 1967. Dothan, M., and Y. Porath. Ashdod 4: ʿAtiqot 15. Jerusalem, 1982. Dothan, T. “The Arrival of the Sea Peoples: Cultural Diversity in Early Iron Age Canaan.” In Recent Excavations in Israel. Ed. S. Gitin and W. G. Dever. AASOR 49. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989. 1–14. ———. “Ekron of the Philistines, Part I: Where They Came From, How They Settled Down and the Place They Worshiped In.” BAR 16.1 (1990) 26–36. ———. “Initial Philistine Settlement: From Migration to Coexistence.” In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries B.C.E. FS T. Dothan, ed. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1998. 148–61. ———. “Philistine Material Culture and Its Mycenaean Affinities.” In Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium: The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean. Nicosia, 1973. 187–88, 376. ———. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1982. ———. “Philistines, Archaeology.” ABD, 5:328–33. ———. “Reflections on the Initial Phase of Philistine Settlement.” In The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. Ed. E. D. Oren. University Monograph 108. Philadelphia:

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 72

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Excursus: The Philistines

73

University Museum, 2000. 145–58. ———. “Some Aspects of the Appearance of the Sea Peoples and Philistines in Canaan.” In Griechenland, die Ägäis, und die Levante während der ‘Dark Ages.’ Ed. S. Deger-Jalkotzy. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1983. 99–120. ———. “Tel Miqne-Ekron: An Iron Age I Philistine Settlement in Canaan.” In The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present. Ed. N. A. Silberman and D. Small. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. 96–106. ———. “What We Know about the Philistines.” BAR 8.4 (1982) 20–44. Dothan, T., and M. Dothan. People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines. New York: Macmillan, 1992. Dothan, T., and S. Gitin. “Ekron of the Philistines: How They Lived, Worked, and Worshipped for Five Hundred Years.” BAR 16.1 (1990) 20–25. Dothan, T., and Zukerman, A. “A Preliminary Study of the Mycenean IIIC:1 Pottery Assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashdod.” BASOR 333 (2004) 1–54. Drews, R. “Canaanites and Philistines.” JSOT 81 (1998) 39–61. Ehrlich, C. S. The Philistines in Transition: A History from ca. 1000–730 B.C.E. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 10. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Finkelstein, I. “The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan.” TA 22 (1995) 213–39. ———. “Philistine Chronology: High, Middle, or Low?” In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries B.C.E. FS T. Dothan, ed. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1998. 140–47. ———. “The Philistine Countryside.” IEJ 46 (1996) 225–42. ———. “The Philistine Settlements: When, Where, and How Many? In The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. Ed. E. Oren. University Museum Monograph 108. Philadelphia: University Museum, 2000. 160–80. ———. “The Philistines in the Bible: A Late-Monarchic Perspective.” JSOT 27 (2002) 131–67. ———. “Pots and People Revisited: Ethnic Boundaries in the Iron Age I.” In The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present. Ed. N. A. Silberman and D. Small. JSOTSup 237. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. 216–37. Garfinkel, Y. “The Dynamic Settlement History of Philistine Ekron: A Case Study of Central Place Theory.” In ‘Up to the Gates of Ekron’: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin. Ed. S. W. Crawford et al. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2007. 17–24. Gitin, S. “Ekron of the Philistines, Part II: Olive-Oil Suppliers to the World.” BAR 16.2 (1990) 33–42, 59. ———. “Philistia in Transition: the Tenth Century B.C.E. and Beyond.” In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries B.C.E. FS T. Dothan, ed. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1998. 162–83. Gordon, R. P. “The Ideological Foe: The Philistines in the Old Testament.” In Biblical and Near Eastern Essays: Studies in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart. Ed. C. McCarthy and J. E. Healey. London: T&T Clark, 2004. 22–36. Görg, M. “Kasluhiter und Philister.” BN 99 (1999) 8– 13. Grabbe, L. L. Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? London: T&T Clark, 2007. 88–93. Gunneweg, J., I. Perlman, T. Dothan, and S. Gitin. “On the Origin of Pottery from Tel Miqne-Ekron.” BASOR 264 (1986) 17–27. Harrison, R. K. “Philistine Origins: A Reappraisal.” In Ascribe to the Lord. Ed. L. Esllinger and G. Taylor. JSOTSup 67. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. 11–19. Helck, W. “Ein sprachliches Indiz für die Herkunft der Philister.” BN 21 (1983) 31. Hesse, B., and P. Wapnish. “Can Pig Bones Be Used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East?” In Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Doulas L. Esse. Ed. N. A. Silberman and D. Small. JSOTSup 237. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. 238–70. Hindson, E. E. The Philistines and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971. Howard, D. M., Jr. “Philistines.” In Peoples of the Old Testament World. Ed. A. J. Hoerth, G. L. Manningly, and E. M. Yamauchi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. 231–50. Karageorghis, V. “Exploring Philistine Origins on the Island of Cyprus: Recent Excavations Provide Background to the Bible.” BAR 10.2 (1984) 16–28. Katzenstein, H. J. “Philistines, History.” ABD, 5:326–28. Killebrew, A. E. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel 1300– 1100 B.C.E. SBLABS 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2005. ———. “Ceramic Typology and Technology of Late Bronze II and Iron I Assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron: The Transition from

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 73

9/18/14 9:20 AM

74

Excursus: The Philistines

Canaanite to Philistine Culture.” In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries B.C.E. FS T. Dothan, ed. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1998. 379–405. Kitchen, K. A. “The Philistines.” In POTT. 53–78. Kletter, R., I. Ziffer, and W. Zwickel. “Cult Stands of the Philistines: A Genizah from Yavneh, Israel.” NEA 69 (2006) 146–59. Lemche, N. P. “Using the Concept of ethnicity in defining Philistine identity in the Iron Age.” SJOT 26 (2012) 12–29. Lipin´ski, E. “‘Sea Peoples’ and Canaan in Transition ca. 1200–950 B.C.” OLP 30 (1999) 1–35. Lovik, G. H. “The Philistines.” Central Bible Quarterly 12 (1969) 2–16. Macalister, R. A. S. Philistines, Their History and Civilization. 1914. Reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Machinist, P. “Biblical Traditions: The Philistines and Israelite History.” In The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. Ed. E. Oren. Philadelphia: University Museum, 2000. 53– 83. Maeir, A. M. “Prize Find: Horned Altar from Tell-Safi Hints at Philistine Origins.” BAR 38 (2012) 35. Margalith, O. “The Emergence of the Philistine Material Culture.” IEJ 35 (1985) 95–107. ———. The Sea Peoples in the Bible. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994. Mazar, A. Excavations at Tell Qasile. 2 vols. Qedem 12, 20. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 1980–1985. Mitchell, T. C. “Philistia.” In Archaeology and Old Testament Study. Ed. D. W. Thomas. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1967. 404–27. Na’aman, N. “The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt,” TA 6 (1979) 68–90. ———. “The Contribution of the Trojan Grey Ware from Lachish and Tel Miqne-Ekron to the Chronology of the Philistine Monochrome Pottery.” BASOR 317 (2000) 1–7. ———. “The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Age Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod.” UF 29 (1997) 509–626. Nibbi, A. The Sea Peoples and Egypt. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes, 1975. Niemeier, W. D. “The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the Problem of the Origins of the Sea Peoples.” In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries B.C.E. FS T. Dothan, ed. S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1998. 17–65. Noort, E. Die Seevölker in Palästina. Palaestina Antiqua 8. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994. Oren, E., ed. The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. Philadelphia: University Museum, 2000. Ortiz, S. M. “Rewriting Philistine History: Recent Trends in Philistine Archaeology and Biblical Studies.” In Critical Issues in Early Israelite History. Ed. R. S. Hess, G. A. Klingbeil, and P. J. Ray, Jr. BBRSup 3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. 191– 204. Parunek, H. V. “Geographical Terminology in Joshua 15–19.” M.A. thesis, Institute of Holy Land Studies, 1977. Press, M. “(Pytho)Gaia in myth and legend: the goddess of the Ekron inscription revisited.” BASOR 365 (2012) 1–25. Rendsburg, G. A. “Gen 10:13– 14: An Authentic Hebrew Tradition concerning the Origin of the Philistines.” JNSL 13 (1987) 89–96. Sandars, N. K. The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean, 1250– 1150 B.C. Rev. ed. London: Thames & Hudson, 1985. Shai, I. “The Political Organization of the Philistines.” In ‘I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times’: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amibai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Ed. A. M. Meier and P. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. ———. “Understanding Philistine Migration: City Names and Their Implications.” BASOR 354 (2009) 15–27. Sharon, I. “Philistine Bichrome Painted Pottery: Scholarly Ideology and Ceramic Typology.” In Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Ed. S. R. Wolff. SAOC 59. ASOR Books 5. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2001. 555–609. Sherratt, S. “The Chronology of the Philistine Monochrome Pottery: An Outsider’s View.” In ‘I Will Speak the Riddle of Ancient Times’: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. 361–74. ———. “‘Sea Peoples’ and the Economic Structure of the Late Second Millennium in the Eastern Mediterranean.” In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Twelfth Centuries B.C.E. FS T. Dothan, ed. S. Gitin, E. Stern, and A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1998. 292–313. Singer, I. “Egyptians, Canaanites, and Philistines in the Period of the Emergence of Israel.” In From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 74

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Excursus: The Philistines

75

Israel. Ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1994. 282–338. ———. “The Origin of the Sea Peoples and Their Settlement on the Coast of Canaan 1500–1000 B.C.” In Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean. Ed. M. Heltzer and E. Lipin´ski. Leuven: Peeters, 1988. 239–50. ———. “The Political Organization of Philistia in Iron Age I.” In Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology. Ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993. 132–41. Stager, L. E. “Biblical Philistines: A Hellenistic Literary Creation.” In ‘I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times’: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. 375–84. ———. “The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185–1050 B.C.E.). In The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Ed. T. E. Levy. New York: Facts on File, 1995. 322–48. Stern, E. “The Sea Peoples Cult in Philistia and Northern Israel.” In ‘I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times’: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. 375–84. Stone, B. J. “The Philistines and Acculturation: Culture Change and Ethnic Continuity in the Iron Age.” BASOR 298 (1995) 7–32. Strange, J. Caphtor/Keftiu. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Sweeney, D., and A. YasurLandau. “Following the Path of the Sea Persons: The Women in the Medinet Habu Reliefs.” TA 26 (1999) 116–45. Tadmor, H. “Philistia under Assyrian Rule.” BA 29 (1966) 86–102. Ussishkin, D. “Was the Earliest Philistine City of Ekron Fortified?” BAR 32.5 (2006) 68–71, 76. Uziel, J. “The Development Process of Philistine Material Culture: Assimilation, Acculturation, and Everything in Between.” Levant 39 (2007) 165–73. Wainwright, G. A. “Some Early Philistine History.” VT 9 (1959) 73–84. Yasur-Landau, A. “A Message in a Jug: Canaanite, Philistine, and Cypriot Iconography and the ‘Orpheus Jug.’” In Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein. Ed. A. Fantalkin and A. Yasur-Landau. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 31. Brill Academic, 2008. 213–30. Zaleman, I. “Philistines on the Threshold at Amos 9:1?” RB 110 (2003) 481–86.

The territory of the Philistines heads the list of land that remains in chap. 13. This is appropriate in view of the role ascribed to the Philistines in the period of the judges and the early monarchy (Judg 3:31; 10:6–7; 13–16; 1 Sam 4–7; 13–14; 17–19; 23:1– 6, 27–28; 27–29; 31; 2 Sam 5:17–25). A hint that the Philistines were not conquered appeared in Josh 11:22. The Philistines most likely entered Palestine with a group most commonly known as the Sea Peoples, a group who came from eastern Asia Minor and Crete. Rameses III of Egypt claims to have defeated them in a major conflict in 1179 BCE. In 1176 Rameses claims he defeated a group of Sea Peoples on land and sea. Historians debate the origin and fate of the Sea Peoples and the group called Philistines. Did they invade victoriously from the Aegean to Egypt, or were they simply Egyptian or Canaanite mercenaries who revolted against Egypt? During the twelfth century BCE the Philistines established settlements in five major cities: Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Ekron, and Gath (v 3), but they claimed a wide range of territory outside the five cities. This territory reached Wadi el-Arish or the Brook of Egypt to the south, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, the Yarkon River in Tel-Aviv in the north, and the western edge of the Shephalah or foothills to the east.191

191

See C. S. Ehrlich, DOTHB, 788.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 75

9/18/14 9:20 AM

76

Excursus: The Philistines

Leaders of the five cities were called seranim. They led the Philistines in repeated efforts to take over Israelite territory during the times of Samson, Saul, and David. Egyptian art depicts them in distinctive boats with bird- shaped bows and sterns and feathered headdresses. From 796 BCE onward, Mesopotamian sources refer to campaigns against enemies, including Philistia, from whom Assyrian and Babylonian kings collected tribute. Philistine existence continued in Palestine until the deportation by Nebuchadrezzar II in 604 BCE.192 R. Drews argues that “‘Philistines’ is one of the Iron Age names for people who in the Late Bronze Age would most often have been called ‘Canaanites.’ No Canaanite nation vanished, and no Philistine nation suddenly appeared.”193 Noort emphasizes the propaganda function of the Egyptian reliefs and inscriptions at Medinet Habu. Grabbe reflects the problems scholars face in identifying the Philistines but gives four probable points:194 1. They come from Crete and the Aegean archipelago. 2. The five or more tribes had good leadership and organization. 3. They apparently migrated southward with families, household goods, and livestock. 4. The battle with Egypt was mainly on the sea. The site of the land battle is debatable, perhaps in northern Palestine. Grabbe notes Finkelstein’s population estimates to argue for the possibility that new Philistine settlers were few, meaning “the Philistines settled among the indigenous Canaanite population, perhaps as an elite” so that one must “question a major invasion force or even a large- scale migration.”195 Any clashes with Israel may have been initiated by Israel. Finkelstein states that the biblical references to the Philistines “do not contain any memory of early Iron I events or cultural behavior,”196 but reflect late monarchic times. To reach this conclusion, Finkelstein uses his own low chronology, selects which elements may reflect memory through the centuries and which may not, goes against his own evidence in relationship to the Philistine pentapolis, and attributes much creative impetus to Greek soldiers in Egypt and Palestine in the seventh century. Ortiz sees deconstructionist hermeneutics at work in redating Philistine pottery, revising Philistine origins, and redating Philistine references in the Bible.197 Responding to Finkelstein and others, Ortiz argues that the low chronology is based on debatable assumptions that do not allow for ceramic variation among nearby states and that assign Egypt too much control over Palestine as late as 1050 BCE. Many other archaeologists do not accept Finkelstein’s dating. Drews’s description of Philistine origins presents a naïve picture of the relationship of pots and people, since the Philistines shared the majority of their pottery designs with the

192 193 194 195 196 197

K. A. Kitchen, POTT, 53–78; contrast A. Nibbi, Sea Peoples and Egypt. JSOT 81 (1998) 39– 61. See Ancient Israel. Ibid., 92. JSOT 27 (2002) 131. “Rewriting Philistine History,” 192.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 76

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Excursus: The Philistines

77

Canaanites living among them. The Canaanites were thus absorbed into the migrating peoples with new cultures who brought strong population increases.198 As far as redating biblical texts, Ortiz shows that texts may have resulted from long histories of transmission and may contain anachronisms, but Finkelstein’s desire to date the texts late cannot be sustained since the texts do not pass Finkelstein’s tests in any century, showing cultural realties not being the purpose of the biblical text. For Ortiz, “the demographics, boundary tensions, and social interaction between the Philistine coast and the western highlands fit comfortably during the early Iron Age.”199 Ortiz reminds readers that most of the pottery designated as Philistine is limited to tableware. Other pottery items reflect acculturation with typical Palestinian Iron Age I ceramics. He finds a consensus on five basic points: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Retreat of the Egyptian Twentieth- Dynasty, leaving a power vacuum. An extensive socioethnic transformation takes place about 1150 BCE. The transformation leading to a complex secondary state formation in Iron II. The coastal plain representing an amalgamation of Philistine military elite and families with Canaanite population. 5. The Philistines assimilating Canaanite and Egyptian culture.200

Killebrew introduces a number of elements that suggest a non- Canaanite origin for the Philistines.201 She maintains that they represent colonizing and colonial activities. “The non-local origin of the Philistines is reflected in all of their Aegeaninspired material culture, including ceramic typology and technology, foodways, architecture, cultic practices, and city planning. . . . [E]arlier Canaanite inhabitants were overwhelmed by a new population bringing traditions completely unrelated to any cultural tradition in the immediate or surrounding area.”202 Killibrew concludes that a “new ethnic group settled on the southern coastal plain of Canaan during the twelfth century,” and connects the Philistines to Cyprus and Anatolia. The Philistines settled in five city- state complexes. The biblical record mentions them in connection with Abraham (Gen 21:32; 26:1). While most commentators see the references as a later scribe’s anachronistic updating, Howard takes them at face value on theological grounds— although he allows the anachronistisms as a possibility.203 The only people in Abraham’s day who may have had connections with the Philistines would be a Canaanite enclave that later became part of the Philistines. Gaza (Tel Ḥarube = M.R. 099101), the southernmost of the five city- states, was apparently the home of the temple of Dagon destroyed by Samson (Judg 16:23–30). In the Amarna period the city was the major Egyptian administrative center for Palestine.204 The summary statement in Josh 10:41 includes Gaza in the area defeated by Joshua, but 11:22 states that Anakim remained there, a condition not found in the land of Israel. Gaza was the site of some of Samson’s exploits (Judg 16:1– 3, 21–30). Judg 1:18 (note negative added by LXX) assigns its conquest to Judah, to 198 199 200 201 202 203 204

Ibid., 200–201. Ibid., 203. Ibid., 195. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 15–19. Ibid., 14–15. Howard, 298. ANET, 235, 258, 489.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 77

9/18/14 9:20 AM

78

Excursus: The Philistines

which it was allotted in Josh 15:47. Finally, 1 Kgs 5:4 (ET 4:24) mentions Gaza as the western border of Solomon’s empire, but the reference is missing in LXX and stands in some tension with 1 Kgs 5:1 (ET 4:21).205 Traditionally, Gaza formed the southern border of Canaan.206 Ashdod (= M.R. 117129) is identified with the modern village of Isdud, located nine miles (14.5 kilometers) northeast of ancient Ashkelon and three and a half miles (6 kilometers) southeast of modern Ashdod. Ugaritic texts refer to the textile industry at Ashdod. Its temple of Dagon was disturbed by the Ark (1 Sam 5:1– 9). Archaeology has uncovered defense walls dating to the last half of the seventeenth century BCE. Late Bronze Age finds indicate settlement from 1450–1230 BCE, with an extensive, but not total, destruction layer marking the end. M. Dothan, the site’s excavator, attributes the destruction to a first wave of Sea Peoples, preceding the settlement by the Philistines in the twelfth century.207 The earliest Philistine stratum contained an image of an enthroned mother goddess. The early Philistine city of Ashdod was one of the largest cities of its time in Palestine, covering at least eighty acres. A destruction layer from just before 1200 BCE shows Philistine occupation of the city.208 Wells and fertile soil gave Ashdod’s economy a strong agricultural base. Ashkelon (Tell ʿAsqalon (= M.R. 107118) covers 150 acres between Gaza and Ashdod, thirty-nine miles (63 kilometers) south of Tel Aviv and ten miles (16 kilometers) north of Gaza. It is the only Philistine city that was situated on the seacoast. Archaeological remains date to before 3000 BCE,209 and it is included among the cities cursed by the Egyptians in the nineteenth- century execration texts. It was later the object of the wrath of Ramses II (1304–1234 BCE) and of Merneptah (about 1230 BCE). In addition, a cult of the Egyptian god Ptah may have been established there. During the Amarna period, the king of Ashkelon claimed total obedience to the pharaoh, but the king of Jerusalem apparently charged the Ashkelon king with treason.210 Samson carried out the consequences of one of his tricks there (Judg 14:19), and Ashkelon played a role in the ark’s travels in Philistia (1 Sam 6:4, 17). At some point in the tenth century, the city was abandoned, regaining power only in the eighth century.211 Gath has been a topic of debate for biblical geographers and archaeologists.212 Ortiz lists five possible sites.213 G. E. Wright repeatedly argued for the identification with Tell esh- Sheriʿah, fifteen kilometers south of Tell el-Hesi.214 Israeli archaeologists contend that this is too far south and have suggested identifying Gath with Tell es- Safi (= M.R. 135123), halfway between Gezer and Lachish.215

Cf. J. Gray, I & II Kings, 2nd ed., OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970) 140– 41. Cf. Na’aman, TA 6 (1979) 75–76. EAEHL, 1:108. A. Killebrew, NIDB, 1:294. Ibid., 1:200. For the sources mentioned here, see (in order) ANET, 329, 256, 378a, 263b, 490, 488a. See D. M. Master, DOTHB, 96. H. Weippert, BRL 2, 86. L. Stager (“Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan,” 332– 48) argues for Tel Haror; DOTHB, 305. 214 “Fresh Evidence for the Philistine Story,” BA 29 (1966) 78– 86; idem, “A Problem of Ancient Topography: Lachish and Eglon,” HTR 64 (1971) 446 = BA 34 (1971) 840. 215 Hess (1996) 230; A. Rainey, “Gath,” IDBSup, 353; Ortiz prefers Tell es- Safi as does Fritz (255);

205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 78

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Excursus: The Philistines

79

Tell es- Safi, the most widely accepted location, is five miles (8 kilometers) from Ekron at the entrance to the Elah Valley halfway between Ashkelon and Jerusalem. It was excavated in 1899 with results less than satisfying by today’s standards. The city was apparently settled in the Early Bronze Age. Little Middle Bronze Age evidence is available. Amarna correspondence depicts Gath in disagreements with several cities including Jerusalem. Fire destroyed the city about 1200 BCE. Philistine pottery was found, as were Hebrew stamps.216 Gath and Israel constantly faced border problems. Tell es- Safi seems to indicate periods of Philistine and Israelite settlement, which corroborates the statement in 2 Chr 11:8 that Rehoboam controlled Gath. The Ark of the Covenant caused problems for Gath (1 Sam 5:8– 9). According to 1 Sam 7:14, Samuel restored Gath and Ekron to Israel. Victory over Goliath of Gath allowed Israel to chase the Philistines back to their homes in Ekron and Gath (1 Sam 17, esp. v 52). David lived with the king of Gath until he secured Ziklag as a present from the Philistines (1 Sam 27:1–7). David finally defeated Gath (2 Sam 21:20–22), but there remained a Philistine king in Gath under Solomon (1 Kgs 2:39). Archaeological reports find Gath at its strongest point in the ninth century BCE.217 The site of Ekron was disputed by archaeologists. W. F. Albright identified it with Aqir.218 Israeli archaeologists follow J. Naveh219 in locating Ekron at Khirbet el-Muqannaʿ (Tel Miqne = M.R. 136131).220 The discovery in 1996 of a royal dedicatory inscription naming Ekron confirmed Tel Miqne as the site of Ekron. Ekron represents the northeastern border of the Philistines. Excavations revealed occupation from 1500 to 586 BCE.221 Judah was allotted Ekron (Josh 15:45– 46; cf. 15:11), but so was Dan (Josh 19:43). Judah captured it, according to Judg 1:18 MT, but LXX has the negative here. Her god later tempted Israel (1 Kgs 1:2–16). The Philistines present more questions and mysteries than answers and certainties. They were apparently foreign immigrants from the Aegean area who brought some distinct practices to their new homeland such as refusal to circumcise, a preference for eating pork, and a distinct type of some pottery, much of which gradually merged with local styles. Their uniqueness and existence cannot be denied, but their homogenization with the native population must also be taken into consideration.

216 217 218 219 220

221

Rainey, The Sacred Bridge, 154– 56; E. Stem, EAEHL, 4:1024–27; N. Na’aman, “Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to God’ on His Campaign to Judah,” BASOR 214 (1974) 35; N. Na’aman, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah and the Date of the lmlk Stamps,” VT 29 (1979) 67; AEHL, 121–22; C. Edenburg, “Notes on the Origin of the Biblical Tradition Regarding Achish King of Gath” VT 61 (2011) 34– 38. Cf. Stem, EAEHL, 4:1024–27. Ortiz, 307. “Syria, the Philistines, and Phoenicia,” in Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd ed., vol. 2, pt. 2, chap. 33, 526, n. 3; cf. H. J. Stoebe, Das Erste Buch Samuelis, KAT 8.1 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973) 141. “Khirbat al- Muquannaʿ- Ekron: An Archaeological Survey,” IEJ 8 (1958) 166–70. Cf. Hess (1996) 230; A. Rainey, “Ekron,” IDBSup, 255; T. C. Mitchell, “Philistia,” in Archaeology and Old Testament Study, ed. D. W. Thomas (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 405– 6; Fritz, 146, 254. See B. P. Irwin, DOTHB, 246– 48.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 79

9/18/14 9:20 AM

80

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

Explanation Why include all this dull administrative material? Certainly, one purpose is to sound the narrative’s main theme, the fulfillment of Yahweh’s promise of the land. That is what makes this section the very heart of Joshua: the goal of the conquest of Canaan is to enable Israel to settle and possess the land and to pass it on as its “inheritance.”222 Josh 13:1–7 provides “the theological infrastructure for the chapters to follow. . . . [S]tatic geographic data is converted into active ‘salvation history.’”223 The passage turns the corner from conquest to settlement. It should represent the end of the story. The long journey from Egypt to the Promised Land is finally over. The people have won the land. They need only divide it among themselves and live on it according to the laws God has been so good to give them. Historical reality was not that simple. Israel still faced a major task. The western coast, the southern wilderness, and the northern mountain land remained under foreign control. And the hero, who had brought victory to Israel through his obedience to Yahweh, was too old to carry on his victorious ways. Now what? The reader expects a repetition of Deut 31 and 34. The only question remaining is who will be the new leader? Our writer surprises us. New leadership is not the issue. Leadership rests in the hands of God. He will carry out his promise (v 6). “The emphasis in the conquest phase is on Yahweh’s faithfulness in giving Israel the land. The emphasis in the occupation phase is on Israel’s unfaithfulness and progessive failure to serve Yahweh faithfully.”224 The central issue remains one of obedience to divine command. Will the conquering hero now distribute the land to the people? Here we see the true audience to whom the book is written. The ultimate editor(s), who joined Joshua to the Torah and to the rest of the historical books, created the final message of Joshua. He shaped the traditions and collections of Joshua to speak to an Israel that had experienced false leadership, leadership that would not divide the conquered land among the people. The issue is expressed in its sharpest terms by Ezek 45. Israel’s history with kingship had been one of oppression in which rulers claimed too much land for themselves, evicting the rightful owners and refusing to distribute the land (vv 8– 9). These territorial lists “are indeed the core of the Book of Joshua. They are the ‘legal data’ supporting the tribes’ claims to their territories and validating their God’s faithfulness to them.”225 The story of Naboth’s vineyard in 1 Kgs 21 is a perfect example of what many kings must have done in Israel. Our writer uses the example of Joshua to remind all future generations of Israel how a leader of God’s people must act. He must act just as Yahweh commanded (Josh 13:6b). Land that he conquers he must distribute. Thus the writer shows that Joshua distributed the land as soon as he conquered it (Josh 11:23; 12:7). Only such obedient action could bring cessation of war (cf. Josh 11:23). 222 223 224 225

Hubbard, 397– 98. Nelson, 165; note the excursus in Harstad, 489– 97. Provan et al., Biblical History of Israel, 189. Howard, 322.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 80

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Explanation

81

Israel must not wait until they conquer all the land to distribute it. The whole history of Israel showed that land constantly remained to be conquered. The writer explained this fact in Judg 2. Here the emphasis is on proper action for a people in possession of less than all the land. At different stages the story had different audiences. The oral tradition spoke to tribes and then to royal aspirants fighting for divided unconquered land. The collected traditions spoke to a recently divided monarchy seeking to unite all Israel to renew possession of the land. The message of Joshua is particularly applicable for an Israel ready to return from Babylonian exile. The people of Israel have suffered punishment because of the action of their kings. Now they are called to reflect upon their history and learn from the past. When God gives Israel the land once more, they must distribute it equally as God has commanded. No one ruler nor any ruling class may slice up the land for themselves. The land belongs to Yahweh. He gave it to his people, just as he conquered it for his people. As Howard explains: “The very fact that each tribe’s inheritance is described in language that is almost identical to the others’ in its general contours guaranteed that each tribe would be able to take its inheritance confidently knowing that it was of a piece with that of its fellow tribes.”226 So God effectively tells Israel, “Divide up what you have now and wait in faith for what remains.”227 The time has come! “Until now the Israelites have obediently forborne the taking of booty, a routine means of compensation, but it is high time for them to receive grants of land.”228 This section surprises the reader. We expect to hear of Joshua’s immediate obedience to the command of Yahweh (v 7). Instead, we find a lengthy list of territory east of the Jordan for which Joshua has no responsibility. Why? The only explanation is that the theology of leadership continues to play the dominating role in the book. Joshua is the leader who did just what Moses said and did, and is experiencing the divine presence just as Moses experienced it.229 It was particularly the East Jordan tribes who had had questions about Joshua, who wanted to be sure that the divine presence was with Joshua as it had been with Moses (Josh 1:17). Now we see Joshua bringing about for them that which Moses promised. The tribes east of the Jordan can now take and possess the land that Moses gave them. Thus God has proven to be with Joshua, and Joshua has proven to be the leader with conviction and courage (Josh 1:18). The text serves as an example to all generations of the rewards of obedience to God and his chosen leader. It also presents an example for all future leaders who seek to give Israel rest in their land. They must be leaders of conviction and courage, following the example and commandments of Moses. Then they, like Moses and Joshua, can lay claim to the hotly disputed land east of Jordan. The chapter has much to say about God and divine faithfulness. It illustrates “the magnitude of his momentous capacity to make land grants at will in the territories he does not control.”230 Land remaining represents no problem for

226 227 228 229 230

Ibid. Nelson, 165. Coote, 657. Cf. chap. 1; also Knauf, 127. Coote, 657.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 81

9/18/14 9:20 AM

82

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

Yahweh, the God of Israel. God can gift it to whoever is chosen at whatever time pleases the donor, for God owns all the land. Land is what Israel desires more than anything else. “The importance of this God- given land to the ancient Israelites can hardly be overstated. Land represents a means of livelihood, a place of safety, a source of national identity. The ideal life is ‘rest’ in the land. Land is freedom and salvation.”231 But in the middle of the chapter is a hint of warning. Some enemies remain. The task is not finished. After the aged Joshua passes from the scene, Israel will need new leadership to rid itself of the menace of the Geshurites and Maacathites (Josh 13:13). Thus the chapter becomes a call to leadership as well as an example of leadership. The call will be repeated through the next chapters, finding its climax in Judg 1–3. A similar hint appears elsewhere in the chapter. Israel is given only half the land of the Ammonites (Josh 13:25). A strong enemy lurks on their border, an enemy who will soon test Israel’s will and faith (Judg 3; 10–11; 1 Sam 11:11; 14:47; 2 Sam 10–12), an enemy who will threaten Israel until the final days of its existence (2 Kgs 24:2; Jer 40:14; 41:10, 15). Will the people of Israel be faithful so that their God and his leader can drive the enemies out? Or will Israel succumb to the religious temptations of the Ammonite god (1 Kgs 11:1– 8, 33; cf. 2 Kgs 23:13)? From the first, Israel is reminded that faithfulness to the example of Moses and Joshua leads to defeat of enemies, but temptation and further tasks continually lie before Israel. One final note of warning is found in v 22. God has defeated one man who tried to practice divination. Such activity is outlawed in Israel (Deut 18:14). But can Israel remember the lesson? Thus our surprise at these verses turns to respect, as we see an author seeking to set up a theological example for the people of Israel, calling forth obedient, courageous leadership for the task ahead, while giving encouragement on the basis of the past faithfulness of God.

231 Pressler, 87.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 82

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Translation

83

B. Beginning with Caleb (14:1–15) Bibliography Auld, A. G. Joshua Retold: Synoptic Perspectives. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. ———. “Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts.” In Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Ed. J. A. Emerton. VTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979. 1–14. ———. “Textual and Literary Studies in the Book of Joshua.” ZAW 90 (1978) 412–17. Beltz, W. Die Kaleb-Traditionen im Alten Testament. BWANT 98. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1974. 30–37, 64–70. Dahlen, R. W. “The Savior and the Dog: An Exercise in Hearing.” WW 17 (1997) 269–77. Fewell, D. N. “Deconstructive Criticism: Achsah and the (E)razed City of Writing.” In Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies. Ed. G. A. Yee. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. 115– 37. Geus, C. H. J. de. “Richteren 1:1–2:5.” VoxTh 36 (1966) 32–53. ———. The Tribes of Israel: An Investigation into Some of the Presuppositions of Martin Noth’s Amphictyony Hypothesis. SSN 18. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976. Gottwald, N. K. The Tribes of Yahweh. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979. Kallai, Z. “The Southern Border of the Land of Israel—Pattern and Application.” VT 37 (1987) 438–45. Kitz, A. M. “Undivided Inheritance and Lot Casting in the Book of Joshua.” JBL 119 (2000) 601–18. Lindars, B. “The Israelite Tribes in Judges.” In Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Ed. J. A. Emerton. VTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979. 95–112. Margolis, M. L. The Book of Joshua in Greek: According to the Critically Restored Text with an Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Principal Recensions and of the Individual Witnesses. Part 5, Joshua 19:39–24:33. Publications of the Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1931–38. Repr., Monograph Series. Philadelphia: Annenberg Research Institute, 1992. McKinlay, J. E. “Meeting Achsah on Achsah’s Land.” Bible & Critical Theory 5 (2009). Merling, D., Sr. The Book of Joshua: Its Theme and Role in Archaeological Discussions. Andrews University Doctoral Dissertation Series 23. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews UP, 1997. North, R. “Caleb.” BO 8 (1966) 167–71. Noth, M. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1943. 44–47. ———. Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948. 143–50. Pace, J. H. “The Caleb Tradition and the Role of the Calebites and the History of Israel.” Diss., Emory University, 1976. Rainey, A. “The Administrative Division of the Shephalah.” TA 7 (1980) 194–202. ———. “The Biblical Shephelah of Judah.” BASOR 251 (1983) 1–22. Rudolph, W. Der ‘Elohist’ von Exodus bis Josua. BZAW 68. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1938. 217–18. Schick, C. “The Boundary between ‘Judah and Benjamin.’” PEFQS 16.3 (1884) 181–87; 18.1 (1886) 54–58. Svensson, J. Towns and Toponyms in the Old Testament: With Special Emphasis on Joshua 14–21. ConBOT 38. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994. Winther-Nielsen, N. A Functional Discourse Grammar of Joshua: A Computer-Assisted Rhetorical Structure Analysis. ConBOT 40. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1995. Woude, A. S. van der. “Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Juda und Israel.” In New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament. FS M. J. Mulder, ed. A. S. van der Woude. OtSt 25. Leiden: Brill, 1989. 38–48. Wüst, M. Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Texten des Alten Testaments. Vol. 1, Ostjordanland. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1975. 202–12. Zwickel, W. “Die Landnahme in Juda.” UF 25 (1993) 473–91.

Translation 1These a

are what the sons of Israel inherited b in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar, the priest, and Joshua, the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes distributed as 2the inheritance to the sons of Israel by the lot a of their inheritance, just as Yahweh commanded by the hand of Moses b for the nine c and a half tribes. 3For Moses had given the inheritance of the two and a half tribes a beyond the Jordan, but to the Levites he did not give an inheritance

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 83

9/18/14 9:20 AM

84

B. Beginning with Caleb (14:1–15)

in their midst. 4Because a the sons of Joseph comprised two tribes— Manasseh and Ephraim— they did not give a share to the Levites in the land, except cities to live in with their pasture lands for their cattle and goods. b 5Just as Yahweh commanded Moses, so the sons of Israel did: they apportioned the land. 6The sons of Judah approached Joshua in Gilgal. Caleb, the son of Jephuneh the Kenizzite, said to him, “You know the thing which Yahweh spoke to Moses, the man a of God, on my account and on your account in Kadesh-Barnea. 7I was forty years old when Moses, the servant of Yahweh, a sent me from Kadesh- Barnea to spy out the land. I returned the word to him just as it was on my heart. b 8My brothers who went up with me caused the heart of the people to melt, a but I remained totally loyal to Yahweh, my God. 9Moses swore in that day, ‘Surely the land on which your foot made its way will become an inheritance for you and for your sons forever, because you remained totally loyal to Yahweh, my God.’ a 10Now it is a fact that Yahweh has given me life, just as he spoke, for these a forty-five years since that time when Yahweh spoke this word to Moses when Israel walked in the wilderness, so that right here today I am eighty-five years old. 11Still, today, I am just as strong as the day when Moses sent me; my strength now is just the same as it was then for war or for daily activities. a 12So now give me this mountain which Yahweh spoke about in that day, for you heard on that day that the Anakim are there and large fortified cities. If, however, Yahweh be with me, a then I will dispossess them, just as Yahweh spoke.” 13Then Joshua blessed him and gave Hebron to Caleb, the son of Jephuneh, a for an inheritance. 14Therefore, Hebron has belonged to Caleb, the son of Jephuneh, the Kennizite, until this day because of the fact that he was totally loyal to Yahweh the God of Israel. 15Now the name of Hebron had previously been Kiriath- Arba; he had been a great man among the Anakim. a Then the land had peace from war.

Notes 1.a. Fritz (150) proposes the antecedent ‫ נחלת‬has fallen out here. 1.b. Auld (Joshua Retold, 23) calls this verse “a very cumbersome sentence” and reverts to three editorial levels to explain it. The Heb. uses two forms, first the qal, then the piʿel, of the verbal root ‫ נחל‬in this verse. LXX has interpreted the sentence as parallel to its interpretation of Josh 13:32. The MT finds a closer parallel in 13:14b from the LXX: “and this is the division that Moyses divided for the sons of Israel in Araboth Moab beyond the Jordan opposite Iericho” (NETS). MT omitted v 14b. LXX (and Syr.) has even changed the second verb into the sg., while retaining the compound subject. 2.a. MT uses a construct relationship at the beginning of v 2, thus continuing the sentence of v 1. Fritz (150) says these first two words are kaum zu übersetzen, “hardly to be translated.” Most modern commentators and translators separate the construct relationship by repointing ‫גּוֹר ל‬ ָ ‫ ְבּ‬on the basis of LXX and Tg. readings. This would introduce a new sentence: “Their inheritance was by lot . . .” See Nelson (175). Fritz (150) reads ‫בגורל‬ ‫נחלו אותם‬, “by lot he caused them to inherit.” The final fulfillment formula appears to refer back to Num 34:13, where Joshua, Eleazar, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the sons of Israel do not appear. Thus the original text most likely separated vv 1 and 2 into two sentences. The later tradition understood the fulfillment in a broader sense to incorporate passages such as Num 26:1, 52– 56; 32:2, 28; 34:16–29, thus joining vv 1 and 2 into one sentence (but cf. Wüst, Untersuchungen, 202– 3). 2.b. LXX reads “Joshua” instead of “Moses,” connecting the statement to the act of distribution rather than that of commanding. 2.c. Several Heb. MSS, Syr., and Tg. frag. insert “to give” before “for the nine and a half tribes.” This interprets v 2 as a separate sentence and supplies a verb implied by the context. 3.a. LXX represents a tradition corrupted by homoioteleuton, “for Moses had given, the inheritance of the two and a half tribes” falling out after the preceding “and a half tribes.” See Nelson (175).

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 84

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

85

4.a. The Heb. syntax of v 4 is parallel to that of v 3, both beginning with ‫ ִכי‬clauses and a pf. verb. The second part of each verse explains why the Levites did not gain a share in the inheritance. In each verse the verb of the second part continues the subject of the first part, so that v 4b appears to state that the sons of Joseph did not give a portion to the Levites. This has led to early attempts to clarify the syntax, as seen in the passive reading of the LXX, followed by most modern translations with the notable exceptions of Noth and Hertzberg. In any reading, the subject remains indefinite, at best. 4.b. The Gk. tradition is either corrupt or did not understand the Heb. ‫ולקנינם‬, which it translates lamely with a repeated “and their cattle” (cf. Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek, 269). The Heb. term apparently means “purchased goods,” unless Noth is correct in seeing a stereotyped paronomastic construction meaning “all my earthly goods.” 6.a. Tg. adds a prophetic dimension to the text by translating “man of God” as “prophet of God” (Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, vol., 49). 7.a. As often, LXX has “God” instead of “Yahweh” (see Auld, “Joshua,” 12–13). 7.b. “Just as it was on my heart” reads literally “ just as with my heart.” LXX has changed this to “according to his mind,” thus saying Caleb spoke what Moses wanted to hear. On the basis of 1 Kgs 8:17–18; 10:2, Noth translates, “ just as I made up my mind to do.” F. Stolz (THAT, 1:863) speaks of the capacity for critical judgment. Deut 15:9 uses the same expression, ‫דבר עם לבב‬, to express the idea of “thought, idea, matter about which one is thinking.” In our passage the meaning seems to be that the report of the things was precisely that which Caleb remembered from his experiences (cf. Hertzberg). 8.a. MT has a purely Aram. form, ‫המסין‬, for the Heb. ‫המסן‬, which appears in Deut 1:28, a verse to which our text is related (cf. GKC §75ii). Fritz (150) follows Noth in reading ‫המסו‬. 9.a. The Gk. tradition reads the suffix as 2nd pers., with evidence for both the sg. and pl. readings. 10.a. IBHS 17.4.2 notes: “This association with time is extended to circumstances where there is no immediacy or explicit dating: anarthrous ‫( זה‬rarely ‫ )זאת‬occurs with numerals in expressions of time and appears to emphasize the time.” 11.a. The final idiom may refer to military maneuvers (cf. 1 Sam 29:6; Nelson, 175) or to daily activities (cf. 2 Kgs 11:8; 19:27 = Isa 37:28; Ps 121:8). It apparently represents a sign of adult strength not usual for a child (1 Kgs 3:7) or an old man (Deut 31:2 and here). LXX interprets the idiom in a military sense here by transposing “for war” to the end of the sentence. See Harstad, 516. 12.a. For the translation possibilities of this verse, see Nelson (176). MT has the pronoun attached to the sign of the accusative, though there is no preceding verb. Thus the text must necessarily be read with strong manuscript and versional support as the preposition ‫ ִא ִתּי‬, “with me.” 13.a. LXX fills out the phrase with “the son of Kenaz,” with a slightly different construction than it has used in vv 6, 14. 15.a. LXX reads the city as “Kiriath Argob.” This may result from textual corruption (Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek, but could also reflect confusion with the Argob of Bashan (Deut 3:4, 13, 14; 1 Kgs 4:13). Similarly, instead of reading “great man,” LXX read μητρόπολις, “metropolis,” possibly reflecting a Heb. ‫( אדם‬cf. Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek. Compare Nelson [176]).

Form/Structure/Setting Vv 1 and 15 delineate the section with clear introductory and concluding formulas. Each formula is related to similar formulas elsewhere in the book. In Josh 11:23aβ a variation of the introductory formula occurs, followed immediately by the precise closing formula, which we find in 14:15. For the present structure of the book, this signals that the thought of chap. 11 is being taken up and expanded after the excursus-like summaries of chaps. 12 and 13.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 85

9/18/14 9:20 AM

86

B. Beginning with Caleb (14:1–15)

Tradition The Caleb narrative reflects a complex tradition history.232 Caleb’s importance is reflected in the fact that the books of Joshua and Judges tell his story three times (here; Josh 15:13–19; Judg 1:12–15) “with different emphases each time.”233 Fritz suggests that the tradition of chap. 14 originally explained why the Calebites settled down in Hebron. The basic tradition that gives background and meaning to the Josh 14 context is the spy narrative of Num 13–14. The age of the tradition behind Josh 14 appears in at least three major elements: reference to Joshua as Hosea (Num 13:8; Deut 32:44), reference to Caleb as a Kenizzite (Num 32:12), and the central place of Caleb rather than Joshua. The tradition swings to Hebron to open an opportunity for the rest of the story. The climax comes with the approbation of Caleb: “But my servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit and has followed me wholeheartedly, I will bring into the land into which he went, and his descendants shall possess it” (Num 14:24, NRSV). Such attention to Caleb hints at other traditions featuring Caleb that the editor either did not choose to use or to which he did not have access. Such traditions belong to Horeb, the center of the Caleb tradition. Joshua gave Caleb only the city of Hebron (v 13a). This gains special significance in light of the early tradition in Num 13–14. This narrative centers around two poles: the faithfulness of Caleb, who “has followed me [Yahweh] wholeheartedly” (Num 14:24; cf. Num 32:11, 12),234 and the rebellion of the other spies (Num 13:28, 31; 14:4). The story then relates the punishment of the rebels (Num 14:39– 45), but mentions only the promise to Caleb (Num 14:24). The story in Num 13–14 is incomplete. It lacks one element: the heroic acts of Caleb bringing the saga to its promised fulfillment. Josh 14:6–15 provides the missing element, but with a surprising twist. Caleb is not given the land, nor even the mountain, but only the city, a city already taken by Joshua (Josh 10:37). Howard suggests the Anakim had retaken the city (cf. Josh 11:22).235 That may be the historical reality, but it is not important to the editor. The editor concentrates on the distribution of the land and on divine faithfulness. Anything else belonging to the tradition proves extraneous to his purposes.

Source and Redaction Harris maintains that the lists “are selective and ideological in their final form” because archaeologists have found more sites than those listed in Joshua.236 This means the editor has collected, chosen, arranged, and so interpreted these materials. But to what extent? The leading source critics find confusion at this point. Eissfeldt provides the basic source division of Josh 14: P, vv 1– 5; JE combined, vv 6–15.237 John Bright offers the following divisions: original narrative, vv 1a, 4*, 5; P editor, vv 1b–2*; Dtr, 232 233 234 235 236 237

Fritz, 150, speaks of oral tradition. Howard, 327; cf. Fritz, 150. See Pressler, 92. Howard, 327. Harris, 85. Old Testament, 251.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 86

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

87

vv 6–15.238 Fritz speaks of a conglomeration of additions that can be traced to various redactors who cannot be more clearly defined.239 He sees the Caleb narrative as composed and inserted by Deuteronomistic editors after the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian. The “original” narrative appears only in vv 6a, 7–10a, 13. At the beginning of chap. 14 (vv 1–5), we find an introduction to the lists of chap. 15 followed by a brief narrative about Caleb (14:6–15). The two segments are quite loosely connected thematically. By including Caleb the Kenizzite among “the sons of Judah,” the editor or compiler has utilized the leading theme to connect the two segments. “While Caleb is portrayed as having been assimilated into Israel early, this nevertheless suggests that such assimilation was understood to have been possible. . . . This means that the distinction between Israel and others was in practice likely to have been less than what the book of Joshua (and Deut, etc.) advocates.”240 Caleb even takes the initiative as spokesperson for the Judeans, but his speech is personal, not tribal. The ultimate editor has shown here and in Josh 15:13–19 a strong interest in Caleb, the faithful spy, and in the promises made to him. Caleb fighting for his land stands at the front of the allotments as prime example of how each of the tribes should fight. The basic war is won. Battles for control of the allotments still lie ahead. In v 1, the editor uses traditional “inheritance” language to describe land allotment, including a notice of the joint leadership between priests and tribal heads. As with chap. 1, emphasis is placed on obeying Moses. The language and personnel come much more from custom and tradition than from a particular scribe or school. Language here is not really a basis for literary or redaction division. For the first section, then, it is quite clear that we have a literary composition that reflects on the themes of obedience to divine command, possession of the land, and the plight of the Levites. As such, the verses reflect a history of theological work in Israel. The Caleb narrative ties back to the Numbers account to show divine faithfulness by completing the Caleb narrative. As Hess notes, “the account of Caleb [in Josh 14] is intended as a detailed development of the campaign in chap 11,”241 both accounts having the same ending. Such structural strategy points to an editor of the whole much more than continued accretions, though textual study shows we cannot rule accretions out entirely. The ultimate historian has taken up the old narrative and given it a new interpretation. Caleb becomes the example of the faithful leader who is totally loyal to Yahweh. As such, he is rewarded with the first inheritance in the Promised Land, an inheritance “until this day” (v 14). Such is precisely an inheritance that the exiled readers of the ultimate history sought in vain.

Form The Caleb narrative in its present form is an etiological narrative, with the concluding “until this day” formula (v 14). Childs has shown, however, that the 238 239 240 241

Bright, 624. Fritz, 150– 51. Pitkänen, 280. Hess (1996) 241.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 87

9/18/14 9:20 AM

88

B. Beginning with Caleb (14:1–15)

etiological element here “no longer reflects an ethnic etiology, but a theological doctrine of the editor. The presupposition for such a theological appropriation is an existing tradition.”242 Nelson outlines five stories with a similar format (Josh 14:6–15; 15:18–19; 17:3– 6; 17:14–18; 21:1–3).243 Elements of the narrative include: confrontation (14:6a; 17:3– 4; 17:14; 21:1) case and request (vv 6b–12; 17:4; 17:14–16; 21:2) flashback to Moses (vv 6a– 9; 17:4; 21:2) land grant (v 13; 17:4; 17:17–18; 21:3) reference to Yahweh’s command (v 4b; 21:3) summary of results (vv 14–15; 17:5– 6; 17:18; 21:41– 43) Nelson maintains that such stories “are intended to justify land tenure by pointing back to an endowment by an authorized figure . . . to an ancestor by setting forth a case that legitimates the claim to ownership.”244 Such an original form may lie behind this narrative in 14:1–15, although in the current context it goes beyond a story about proof of land tenure to become an example narrative setting Caleb up as the brave, loyal warrior Israel needs to gain, retain, or regain the land. The present narrative revolves around the statement of loyalty repeated in vv 8, 9, and 14. Caleb’s loyalty is an example for all forever.245 The narrative structure highights the form- critical problem of the narrative. The narrative begins abruptly (v 6) without the normal temporal or nominal opening. Still, the opening sentence gives a geographical setting and introduces the characters: Joshua and the men of Judah. This gives way to confrontation between Caleb and Joshua in the form of a long monologue by the former. Repetition within the monologue reveals the major points being made: (1) the age and continued strength of Caleb reflect divine blessing upon him (vv 7a, 10, 11); (2) Caleb has been obedient to Moses and to Yahweh (vv 7b, 8b, 9b, 14); and (3) the land has been promised to Caleb (vv 9, 10aβ, 12aβ, 12bβ). This last point has significant nuances. Moses swore to give to Caleb the land over which he had walked (v 9; cf. v 7). Caleb then asked only for a mountain (v 12a), which still represented a large amount of territory encompassing several cities (v 12b). Joshua gave him only a city (v 13). This fact, joined with Caleb’s Kenizzite connections, may represent a northern bias against Judah in the south.

Structure Josh 14:1 introduces the major unit of 14:1–17:18, which describes inheritances west of the Jordan just as chap. 13 describes the inheritances east of the Jordan. Chap. 18 then changes geographical location and in so doing creates a clear transfer to a new major literary unit. The subunits first set the scene for distributing territory to the two major tribes, Judah with Caleb and Joseph divided into Ephraim

242 243 244 245

“A Study of the Formula ‘Until this Day,’” JBL 82 (1963) 287; cf. Hawk (2010) 152. Nelson, 177. Ibid. Cf. ibid., 178.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 88

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

89

and Manasseh. A reference to the Canaanites closes each subunit (15:63; 16:10; 17:12–13; 17:18). With Josh 14:1 we thus reach a turning point. After having briefly summarized the victories east and west, the giving of the land east and west, and the possessing and distribution of the land in the east, the narrative turns to the distribution and possession of the land in the west. Josh 14–22 “reveals the difficulties of the Israelites gaining a homeland. . . . [T]he Israelite conquest was difficult and incomplete. . . . The theme of the Book of Joshua is promise, not fulfillment.”246 Chap. 14 does not describe the act of distribution and possession for the nine and a half tribes. Vv 2– 5 take up the Levitical theme of Josh 13:14, 33 and carry it a step further, preparing in turn for the Levitical distribution and possession in chap. 21. Vv 6–15 reach back to Num 13:14; Deut 1:21–36 (cf. Num 26:65; 32:12), bringing up the promise to Caleb, the faithful spy. Here, too, the narrative structure of giving is carried forward (v 13), and the theme of possession is introduced (v 14a). The Caleb theme is not complete (see Josh 15:13–19; Judg 1:11–15), yet the reason for its presence here is perfectly clear as the Comment and Explanation will show. McConville and Williams summarize the literary role of Caleb: The focus on Caleb at this point . . . does more than simply recall the special promise made to him by Moses (v. 9; cf. Deut 1:36); it recalls the fundamental issue that faces Israel as it embarks upon this new phase of its mission and places at the beginning of it the most outstanding example of the courage and faithfulness required in the task that lies ahead.247 Likewise, Earl emphasizes the boldness required to fulfill Israel’s God- given mission.248

Setting The question of setting must be addressed. Coote opts for the seventh century, during the time of Josiah, though allowing for a long history of revision before and after Josiah.249 Knauf places the narrative in the Persian period, when Judah and Samaria formed the real existing Israel.250 Josh 14:1–18:1 plus 19:49– 51 and 21:43– 45 thus belongs to his Hexateuch Redaction. The Joshua-Judges Redaction adds Josh 14:6a and 18:2–19, 48. The Prophetic or Book Redaction also added significant materials, especially to the border descriptions and to Josh 20:1–21:42. Again, the ability to isolate such small, discrete units of text and their history of origin at such a late date represents great scholarly ingenuity without real evidence in the Hebrew textual tradition and a strong commitment to an understanding of the Hebrew scribal education tradition and the process of canonization built on only a small amount of evidence. Without such historical skepticism we may ask, who would have told the story 246 247 248 249 250

Merling, Book of Joshua, 184. McConville and Williams, 65. Earl, 173–74. Cf. Harstad, 518. Coote, 672. Knauf, 135.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 89

9/18/14 9:20 AM

90

B. Beginning with Caleb (14:1–15)

in this way? The clue may lie in v 6a. The story has its roots in Gilgal, even though “this mountain” (v 12) is far from Gilgal. As in earlier Gilgal narratives, especially chaps. 7– 8, a polemical element lies behind the narrative. The conquest hero Joshua is shown to win out over the demands of the Judean hero Caleb. This takes on added significance in light of 1 Sam 30:14, where a portion of the southern Negev is claimed by the Calebites in the time of the intense struggle between the Judean David and the Benjaminite Saul. David’s part in the Hebron polemic is seen in 1 Sam 25, when the Calebite Nabal does not recognize David. This results finally in the death of the Calebite and the marriage of his widow Abigail to David, who thus gains claim to Calebite property. Ultimately, it was at Hebron that David consolidated his strength and was crowned for the first time (2 Sam 2:1– 4), but it was also at Hebron that Absalom was crowned during the revolt against his father David (2 Sam 15). Thus, control of Hebron was an important political strategy in early Israelite history. Our narrative appears to be an early chapter in that history when Benjamin claimed control of Hebron but graciously blessed the Calebites by granting control of Hebron to them.

Table 14.1 Joshua 14 Form and Narrative Elements Narrative: List intro and request narrative Element

Passage

Marker

Disjunctive intro setting stage of persons, place

v1

Disjunctive emphasizing inheritance

Obedience theme

v2

Lord commanded Moses

Historical explanation

vv 3–4

Tribes with land or not to get land

Obedience theme repeated

v5

Just as . . . so did

Exposition (pf. or disjunctive)

v 6a

Complication (impf. consec.)

Change or crisis (speech or dialogue)

Genre: Ironic land grant/ example narrative with etiological editing Element

Passage

Marker

List intro with historical explanation

vv 1–5

These are the . . . just as . . . so did

Opening disjunctive missing; introduces characters and location

Meeting

v 6a

Judah (+ Caleb) meets Joshua at Gilgal

v 6b

Impf. consec.: you know [and need to act implied]

Testimony and legal request

v 6b

My loyalty, Moses’ promise, request for hill country

vv 7–12

Speech requesting promised land for loyalty

Decision

v 13

Joshua grants inheritance of city with blessing formula

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 90

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments Narrative: List intro and request narrative Element

Passage

Marker

91 Genre: Ironic land grant/ example narrative with etiological editing Element

Passage

Resolution (impf. consec.)

v 13

Impf. consec. blessing Caleb with city

Legal affirmation plus etiological conclusion based on personal loyalty

v 14

Ending/ denouement (formulaic)

vv 14–15

Formulaic ending affirming Hebron for Caleb

Historical review

v 15a

Conclusion

v 15b

Marker Therefore (‫ל־כּן‬ ֵ ‫ ) ַﬠ‬+ pf . . . ‫ ַﬠד ַהיּוֹם ַהזֶּ ה‬, “until this day” = etiology formula; ‫ ַא ֲח ֵרי יְ הוָ ה‬+ ‫ִמ ֵלּא‬ = loyalty formula Name formula

Rest formula with ‫ָשׁ ְק ָטה‬

Comments 1 Nelson describes the opening sentence as a “rather baroque accumulation of details,”251 while Fritz describes vv 1– 5 stylistically and in regard to content (sachlich) as a conglomerate of later additions from different redactors.252 In vv 1– 3 the verbal root ‫ נחל‬is paired with “Moses” as subject similar to the use in Josh 13:32 and pointing back to the only previous use of the verb in the book, at 1:6 (see Comment there). The cognate noun is the key term that holds the final half of the book of Joshua together (11:23; 13:6, 7, 8, 14, 23, 28, 33; 14:2, 3, 9, 13, 14; 15:20; 16:5, 8, 9; 17:4, 6, 14; 18:2, 4, 7, 20, 28; 19:1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 16, 23, 31, 39, 41, 48, 49, 51; 21:2; 23:4; 24:28, 30, 32). The proliferation of the term in this section and, particularly, the verbal use at the key points of structure (11:23; 13:32; 14:1; 16:4; 19:49, 51) show that the ultimate editor has invested the term with great theological significance, even if the earlier tradition used it simply as “settlement, homestead.”253 God has given a homestead for his people through the generations. Chap. 14 cautions against taking the inheritance language too far, though. The land is an inheritance for a people totally loyal to Yahweh, as Caleb was. It is God’s gift to his people. It is not a basis for the people’s claim on God. “The land of Canaan” here refers to all the territory west of the Jordan (cf. Josh 5:12; 22:9–11, 32), as compared to the more limited meaning in Josh 13:3– 4 (see Comment there). Eleazar, the son of Aaron (Exod 6:23, cf. Lev 10; Num 3:1– 4, 32; 20:22–28), appears for the first time since Deut 10:6. He fulfills the task set out in Num 34:17 for himself, Joshua, and the leaders of the tribes. Here these leaders are called

251 Nelson, 176. 252 Fritz, 150. 253 Contra G. Gerlemann, “Nutzrecht und Wohnrecht: Zur Bedeutung von ‫ אחזה‬und ‫נחלה‬,” ZAW 89 (1977) 312–25.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 91

9/18/14 9:20 AM

92

B. Beginning with Caleb (14:1–15)

“heads of the fathers of the tribes” in agreement with the language of Num 32:28. They thus join Joshua in fulfilling the command of Josh 13:7. Knauf maintains that the text’s mention of Eleazar and the heads of the fathers of the tribes mirrors the distribution of administrative powers in the Persian era between the governor with the large landowners on one side and the high priest with the temple aristocracy on the other.254 Knauf thus sees Israel as a band of families, not an organized nation. “Land” now refers only to the family farm, a far cry from what the text in itself describes. Knauf emphasizes that land comes not from political powers but from God.255 Yet his view seems to decrease God’s gift to Israel from a national territory to a small group of farms. He suggests that the idea of Israel comprising twelve tribes is simply an abstraction that at no time squared with historical reality. Coote gives extensive attention to agricultural distribution and redistribution of land. He claims: “Throughout agrarian history the world over, periodic reallocations of land within cultivating communities have nearly always been carried out by lot. The lottery ensures fairness and allows a community to express its solidarity.”256 As he usually does, Coote transfers this agricultural practice to the period of Josiah and pleads indifference towards the historicity of the actions under Joshua. 2 References to lots are found also in Numbers (26:55– 56; 33:54; 34:13) and appear there for the first time in the Deuteronomistic History. Lots appear to be stone objects used to gain impartial decisions, which were often (Prov 16:33), if not always, interpreted as decisions given by God. The precise nature and use of lots remains unclear.257 Lots are understood to be capable of impartially revealing the divine decision concerning the distribution of the land so that no tribe can claim to have been cheated in the process. “Just as Yahweh (Moses) commanded”—the Ausführungsformel (literally, “the formula of carrying out,” thus the obedience formula)—has played a leading role in the structure of Joshua to this point (1:7, 13; 4:10; 7:11; 8:27, 31, 33, 35; 10:40; 11:12, 15, 20; 13:6; cf. 1:16, 18; 4:8; 9:24).258 It repeatedly demonstrates that God determines the actions and fortunes of Israel. The people of God are not called to act on their own initiative and desire, nor are they to set their own goals. God sets the goals and issues the commands that lead to their achievement. The introduction to the distribution of the land of Canaan is thus opened (v 2) and concluded (v 5) by the obedience formula. Pressler maintains that the theme of obedience to Moses receives no less emphasis in the second half of the book than it did in the first half.259 3 V 3 briefly summarizes chap. 13 as an explanation of why the assignment of property in “the land of Canaan” included only nine and a half tribes. As the priestly tribe, Levi did not receive full property shares but only residences in the various towns describing where they might live. See chap. 21. 254 255 256 257

Knauf, 136. Ibid., 137. Coote, 667–70. Cf. J. Lindblom, “Lot- Casting in the Old Testament,” VT 12 (1962) 164–78; E. Renner, “A Study of the Word goral in the OT,” diss., Heidelberg, 1958; W. Dommershausen, TDOT, 2:450– 56; H. H. Schmid, THAT, 1:412–15; A. M. Kitz, “The Hebrew Terminology of Lot Casting and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” CBQ 62 (2000) 207–14; idem, “Undivided Inheritance and Lot Casting in the Book of Joshua,” JBL 119 (2000) 601–18. 258 Cf. G. Liedke, THAT, 2:530– 36. 259 Pressler, 92.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 92

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

93

4 V 4 seeks to solve the mathematical problem: nine and a half plus two and a half plus one equals twelve. The answer is simple, divide one tribe into two, thus adding still one more tribe to the equation. The entire problem centers on the existence of two systems for naming the tribes of Israel, one including Joseph and Levi (Gen 29:31– 30:24; 35:23–26; 46:8–25; 49:1–27; Exod 1:2– 4; Deut 27:12–13; 1 Chr 2:1–2; Ezek 48:31– 35) and the other omitting Levi and dividing Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen 48; Num 1:5–15, 20– 43; 2:3– 31; 7:12– 83; 10:14–28; 26:5– 51; 34:16–28; Ezek 48:1–29). The early poetic passage in Deut 33 combines both systems, while the even earlier poetry of Judg 5 does not even name twelve tribes. Two lists in 1 Chr 12:25– 38 and 27:16–22 bring further complexities.260 V 4 solves the problem by saying that Joseph was divided into two tribes, thus taking away the tribal portion of Levi. This rested on the tradition that Jacob adopted the sons of Joseph as his own (Gen 48:5– 6) and on the appointment of the Levites as priests (cf. Num 18; Deut 10:9; 12:12; 14:27, 29; 18:l; Josh 13:14, 33). The Levites are not left without provision. They are promised cities and pasture lands, thus preparing the way for chap. 21. 5 V 5 underlines Israelite obedience parallel to the obedience of Joshua emphasized earlier. It joins Josh 11:23 in giving a summary statement of what is yet to be described in detail. Thus the writer emphasizes at each step that Israel’s actions correspond to the divine will. Nelson notes, “traditional tribal borders are therefore not optional or due to historical contingency, but the result of Yahweh’s gracious guidance.”261 They are also attached to Moses and his commands, another indication like those in chaps. 1–11 that Joshua acts in the shadow of Moses and represents the ideal leader after Moses.262 6 Fritz maintains that vv 6–15 are based on Num 13–14, opposing Noth’s contention that Deut 1:22– 35 is the basis.263 For Fritz, his source conclusions give evidence against Noth’s Deuteronomistic History theory and supports Fritz’s simpler idea of later Deuteronomic redaction. The original narrative included for Fritz only vv 6a, 7–10a, 12a, and 13. The actual distribution begins with the tribe of Judah (see Josh 15:1). This is a distinctive emphasis over against chaps. 1–12, where the central tribes of Benjamin and Ephraim-Manasseh appear in the spotlight, but it is in line with Judges 1. As seen in the section on Form/Structure/Setting, the material used here appears to have originated in Benjamin. In the final biblical account, tribal polemic and enmity have been overcome. The emphasis now is on each tribe getting its assigned portion. Judah comes first, because its representative, Caleb, plays a special function for the editor. Knauf places the writing in the Persian period when the southern territory

260 The problem has been discussed by H. Seebass, “Erwägungen zum altisraelitischen System der zwölf Stämme,” ZAW 90 (1978) 196–219; M. Metzger, “Probleme der Frühgeschichte Israels,” VF 22 (1977) 30– 43; C. H. J. de Geus, Tribes of Israel; N. Gottwald, Tribes of Yahweh, 345–75, 887– 89; B. Lindars, “Israelite Tribes in Judges,” 95–112. See “Studies on Tribal Society” in Introduction. 261 Nelson, 177. 262 Cf. Hess (1996) 237– 38. 263 Fritz, 151.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 93

9/18/14 9:20 AM

94

B. Beginning with Caleb (14:1–15)

belonged to Edom but also included Arabs and Judeans among its inhabitants.264 For Knauf, Caleb formed the foundation of a future political possibility that for exilic/post- exilic Judah no longer appeared possible. Gilgal, the center of activity in chaps. 1–12 (e.g., 4:19; 5:9; 10:6), is mentioned only here in chap. 13–24. Whether this gives a setting for the following chapters or only for this particular episode can be debated. Its origin in the material probably rests on the history of tradition of the narrative itself (see Form/Structure/Setting). The Kenizzites are related to the Edomites through the genealogy of Esau in Gen 36:11, 15, 42 (cf. Gen 15:19), but both Caleb and Kenaz are connected to the tribe of Judah in 1 Chr 4:11 (LXX 13, 15). The importance of the CalebiteKenizzite tradition appears also in the fact that the first judge comes from this line (Judg 3:9–11). “Caleb, the quintessential Israelite, therefore carries a hint of the ‘outsider’ status that characterizes Rahab and the Gibeonites and therefore subtly reinforces the sense that tribal and national identity are not primarily constituted by blood ties.”265 ‫אישׁ האלהים‬, “man of God,” is a title of honor that appears to have roots in the northern prophetic tradition (see particularly 1 Sam 9:6– 8; 1 Kgs 13; 17:17–24; 2 Kgs 1:9–16; 4– 8), even though literarily, it appears almost exclusively in the Deuteronomistic History or sources dependent on it.266 The term is applied to Moses in Deut 33:1, 1 Chr 23:14, 2 Chr 30:16, Ezra 3:2, Ps 90:1. Our passage may well be the source of the designation for Moses. This ties Moses into the prophetic circles, but also accords him honor above ordinary prophets.267 The title here may reflect the use of the tradition by the early prophetic circles in the north. The title is used by Caleb in v 6 to underline the authority by which he makes his request of Joshua. “On your account,” apparently includes Joshua within the faithful spy tradition as is done in Num 13:16; 14:6, 30, 38; 26:65; 32:12. The remainder of the story in chap. 13, with the possible exception of v 12b, ignores Joshua’s participation (note especially v 8), as also Num 13:30–33; 14:24. 7 Kadesh-Barnea was the significant staging point for Israelite activities in the wilderness (Num 13:26; 20:1, 14, 16, 22; cf. Num 32:8; 33:36–37; 34:4; Deut 1:2, 19, 46; 2:14; 9:23). Among these are the sending of the twelve spies, Israel’s complaints in reaction to the report of ten of the spies, Yahweh’s sentence of forty years in the wilderness, Miriam’s death and burial, and Moses’ striking the rock and thus being excluded from the promised land. Josh 10:41 states that Kadesh- Barnea is the southern limit of Joshua’s activities. It is generally located at Tell el- Qudeirat (= M.R. 096006), but archaeological finds at that location indicate occupation only from the tenth century BCE.268 The largest oasis in northern Sinai and a strategic highway intersection, it is properly located halfway between the southern end of the Dead Sea and the western boundary at Wadi el Arish. Fritz seems to have no doubt about

264 Knauf, 138. 265 Hawk (2010) 154. 266 See W. E. Lemke, “The Way of Obedience,” in Magnalia Dei, the Mighty Acts of God, ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976) 312–14, 323, n. 77. 267 J. A. Holstein, “The Case of ‘ʾish haʾelohim ’ Reconsidered: Philological Analysis versus Historical Reconstruction,” HUCA 48 (1978) 69– 81; cf. J. Kühlwein, THAT, 1:136– 37; N. P. Bratsiotis, TWAT, 1:250– 52. 268 M. Dothan, EAEHL, 3:697– 98.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 94

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

95

the location at Qudeirat.269 He finds the tradition of a wilderness stay here built, however, on the experience of the giant fortress that was built there by the Israelite monarchy. Rainey expresses doubt that any Israelite evidence will be found there.270 The forty-year notice joined with the forty-five years in v 10 seems to indicate the conquest required five years. 8– 9 “Caleb wants his grant before the lottery gets started.”271 His name means “dog” and can be explained either negatively or affirmatively—as a wild scavenger or a faithful servant. The melting heart refers to loss of courage and being overcome with fear. “I remained totally loyal to Yahweh” is a rare expression in the Hebrew text, appearing to have its basic source in the Caleb tradition (Num 14:24; 32:12; Deut 1:36). It gives thematic expression to the present text (vv 8, 9, 14).272 It is taken up only one time outside the Caleb tradition, in the judgment against Solomon (1 Kgs 11:6) that marks the beginning of Israel’s downfall. Hubbard takes the literal expression: “to fill (piel) behind” as a short form of “to fill the heart, to walk behind.”273 Without any evidence to back the following supposition, I see the expression as a military term meaning “to fill the ranks behind the commander.” Whatever the literal meaning, the theological intention is to call people to absolute loyalty to God and not to any other claimant to deity. The ultimate historian presents the Caleb tradition as the prime example of how Israel should act. The writer refers to Caleb’s perfect example and to the moment when Israel began its irreversible trend in the opposite direction. 10–11 The forty-five years here in opposition to the forty years in v 7 appear to allow five years for the conquest between the forty years in the wilderness and the present day. Caleb is now forty-five years older, but he reports that he is strong as ever, a condition credited to a God determined to keep the promise to Caleb. 12 “This mountain” most likely refers to the southern part of the hill country of Judah that can be seen from Gilgal. The Anakim are connected to the primeval giants, the Nephilim (Num 13:33; cf. Gen 6:4), also known by various other names (Deut 2:10–11, 20–21). They are particularly tied to Hebron (Num 13:22, 28), where Joshua defeated them decisively in Josh 11:21–22. Howard surmises that “Anakites had returned to at least some of their former places.”274 Here is another step on the way to fulfillment of the divine promise to destroy these enemies (Deut 9:2; see Comment on 11:21). For Caleb, that destruction depends only on the divine presence (cf. Josh 1:5, 9, 17), not on any human abilities or strategies. 13–15 The Caleb/Hebron narrative reinforces the narrative of chap. 11, with both accounts ending with references to rest.275 The land Caleb demands “is precisely the territory that so daunted his fellow spies decades earlier.”276 For Hebron, see Comment on Josh 10:3. It is the first inheritance given as a home for the 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276

Fritz, 153. Sacred Bridge, 120–21. Coote, 673. See M. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist (Zürich: Theologischer, 1980). Hubbard, 405. Howard, 329. Cf. Hess (1996) 241; Hubbard, 406. Hawk (2010) 153; cf. Num 13:29– 33.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 95

9/18/14 9:20 AM

96

B. Beginning with Caleb (14:1–15)

Israelites west of the Jordan. The writer uses an etiological formulation to lay claim to Hebron even in his own day (cf. Form/Structure/Setting). 13 Joshua blessed Caleb in the same manner as the ancestors blessed their children (e.g., Gen 27; 24:60; 32:1 [ET 31:55]; 48:9; and so on). This showed his position of authority over Caleb (see Exod 39:43; 2 Sam 19:40 [ET 19:39]). “Blessing in the name of the Lord tapped into the power and resources of God himself.”277 For Caleb, this signified the promise of success, fertility, and military achievement.278 The blessing represents a promise for steady continued success over a long period of time, not just in one particular moment or event.279 In this case, the blessing is for the work of Caleb and his descendants in Hebron. 15 The etiological note required explanation, based on the ancestral traditions (Gen 23:2; 35:27). The name Kiriath-Arba means literally “the town of the four.” Scholars have interpreted this variously as highways, parts of the city, cities, four clans, etc.280 Josh 14 understands Arba not in the meaning “four,” but as the name of a man, a hero of the primeval Anakim, thus demonstrating the power of God in granting Israel control over a city with such a proud and powerful history. It also “adds to the prestige of Caleb, for he took the city of the greatest giant of the land.”281 With the words “and the land had rest from war,” the editor reminds readers of the words in Josh 11:23, thereby taking up the story of the settlement and carrying it a step further. The editor does this by underlining the conditions that make the next step possible. After all the battles of conquest, God has brought peace to the land so that Joshua and his cohorts can distribute the land to the various tribes of Israel. God is the giver of victory in battle. He is also the provider of peace for normal existence.

Explanation The editor of Joshua juxtaposed two pieces of literature to prepare for the distribution of the Promised Land. First, he used the traditions of the book of Numbers to show that the process of land distribution followed the precise pattern that God had set out in his earlier instructions to Moses. The right persons distributed the land. The proper persons received the land. The excluded persons were sent to their own land. The privileged priests were given no land responsibility, though their interests and needs were taken care of. Even the problem of the number of tribes created by the exclusion of the priestly tribe was explained as within the purpose of God. The division of the land was not the work of a king arbitrarily giving out gifts to those who served him or bribing those whose power and influence he needed. The division of the land was for the good of the people, according to the plan of God. With all this focus on land, “the main point of chapters 14–19, however, is to confirm that Joshua faithfully executes his commission to apportion Canaan among the nine- and- a-half tribes (13:7).”282 277 Howard, 330. 278 See J. Scharbert, TDOT, 2:279– 308; G. Wehmeier, Der Segen im Alten Testament (Basel: Reinhardt, 1970) 143– 46. 279 C. Westermann, Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzügen, GAT 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 88–101. 280 See E. Lipin´ski, “ʿAnaq-Kiryat ʾArbaʿ-Hébron et ses Sanctuaires Tribaux,” VT 24 (1974) 41– 55. 281 Harris, 87. 282 Hubbard, 403.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 96

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Explanation

97

Coote muses over the fairness of the whole process and thereby delves into the sovereignty and caprice of God. He concludes: “There is no ending point to this progression or to the dilemmas evoked in the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, essential though it is.” So Coote affirms the “categorical otherness of God while retaining with the Psalmists the right to question God.”283 Coote basically reduces everything to faith in a gracious, just God and to responsible exercise of human freedom. Second, the editor appropriated an oral tradition with a long history to show that the tribe of Judah, that tribe which endured longest in the history of God’s people, had received the first inheritance. Actually, it was not all the tribe of Judah, but only the man Caleb. This, too, fulfilled the promises of the book of Numbers. Thus it stood in God’s plan. But it did more. It showed that God could give territory among his people to people with foreign connections, for Caleb was a Kenizzite and thus related to the Edomites, the people so cursed by Israel at the time of the exile (see Ps 137:7; Isa 63; Jer 49:7–22; Obadiah). It was not his family connections that brought blessing upon Caleb. Blessing came because Caleb totally followed Yahweh. This complete loyalty to Yahweh established Caleb as the perfect example of those who would receive the land from Yahweh. It reminded later generations who had lost the land that they had done so because they had followed the example of Solomon, who refused to follow Yahweh, but instead went to foreign lands and followed the desires of the worshipers of foreign gods (1 Kgs 11). This began the path that led to Israel’s destruction. The editor has placed the opening part of the Caleb story here for one reason, it seems: “It increases the sense that the ‘outsiders’ in Israel’s midst often are ironically more insightful and more zealous for the Lord than are the pedigreed Israelites.”284 Thus the Caleb narrative ties back to Rahab (Josh 2) and the Gibeonites (Josh 9). The editor shows that Deut 27 and 28 proved true in Israel’s history. “The message is clear: such faithfulness is rewarded with land, blessing, and rest from war.”285 Caleb the loyal man received the promised blessings, while the writer’s audience knows that ultimately Israel was not loyal and received the threatened curses. Josh 14 sets forth two major points which continue to have value for the people of God. Life in all its dimensions is to be lived according to the plans set forth by God, not by the greedy, selfish plans designed by humans. Blessing comes ultimately to the one who totally follows God.

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18) Bibliography See Bibliography for 13:1–19:51 above. Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. ———. “The Negeb of Judah.” IEJ 8 (1958) 26–38. ———. “The Northern Boundary of Judah.” PEQ 90 (1958) 27–31. ———. “The Province List of Judah.” VT 9 (1959) 225–46. Ahituv, S. “The Missing District: A Study in the List of the Cities and Districts of Judah in Joshua 15:21–62.” ErIsr 24 (1993) 7–11, 232 (Heb.). Ahlström, G. W. “Giloh: A Judahite 283 Coote, 670–71. 284 Creach, 101; cf. Hess (1996) 242. 285 Pressler, 93.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 97

9/18/14 9:20 AM

98

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

or Canaanite Settlement.” IEJ 34 (1984) 170–72. Albright, W. F. “The Administrative Divisions of Israel and Judah.” JPOS 5 (1925) 17–54. ———. “The Northern Boundary of Benjamin.” AASOR 4 (1922–23) 150–55. ———. “The Site of Tirzah and the Topography of Western Manasseh.” JPOS 2 (1931) 241–51. Alt, A. “Bemerkungen zu einigen judäischen Ortslisten des Alten Testaments.” BBLAK 68 (1951) 193–210. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Vol. 2. Munich: Beck, 1959. 289–305. ———. “Judas Gaue unter Josia.” PJ 21 (1925) 100–115. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Vol. 2. Munich: Beck, 1959. 176–288. ———. “Megiddo im Übergang vom kanaanäischen zum israelitischen Zeitalter.” ZAW 60 (1944) 67–85. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichten des Volkes Israel. Vol. 1. Munich: Beck, 1953. 256–73. ———. “Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Joshua.” In Kleine Schriften zur Geschichten des Volkes Israel. Vol. 1. Munich: Beck, 1953. 193–202. ———. “Zur Geschichte von Beth-Sean: 1500–1000 v. Chr.” PJ 22 (1926) 108–20. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichten des Volkes Israel. Vol. 1. Munich: Beck, 1953. 246–55. Auld, A. G. “Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts.” In Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Ed. J. A. Emerton. VTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979. 1–14. ———. “A Judean Sanctuary of ʿAnat (Josh. 15:59)?” TA 4 (1977) 85–86. ———. “Judges I and History: A Reconsideration.” VT 25 (1975) 261–85. Beecher, W. J. “arb in Josh. xvii. 15, 18, and Ezek. xxi. 24, xxiii. 47.” Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis 2.2 (1882) 128–33. Beltz, W. Die Kaleb-Traditionen im Alten Testament. BWANT 98. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1974. 30–37. Ben-Barak, Z. “Inheritance by Daughters in the Ancient Near East.” JSS 25 (1980) 22–33. Bergman, A. “The Israelite Tribe of Half-Manasseh.” JPOS 16 (1936) 224–54. Blakely, J. A. “The Location of Medieval/Pre-Modern and Biblical Ziklag.” PEQ 139 (2007) 21–26. Campbell, E. F. “The Boundary between Ephraim and Manasseh.” In The Answers Lie Below. Ed. H. O. Thompson. Washington: University of America Press, 1984. 67–74. ———. “The Shechem Area Survey.” BASOR 190 (1968) 19–41. Charbel, A. “Beit Jimal tra le città bibliche della Shefela (gios 15:33–36).” Salm 31 (1969) 485–96. Cross, F. M., and G. E. Wright. “The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah.” JBL 75 (1956) 202–26. Currid, J. D. “The Deforestation of the Foothills of Palestine.” PEQ 116 (1984) 1–11. Dahl, G. “The ‘Three Heights’ of Joshua 17:11.” JBL 53 (1934) 381–83. Danielius, E. “The Boundary of Ephraim and Manasseh in the Western Plain.” PEQ 89 (1957) 55–67; 90 (1958) 32–43, 122–44. Demsky, A. “The Genealogies of Manasseh and the Location of the Territory of Milcah Daughter of Zelophehad.” ErIsr 16 (1982) 70–75. Dever, W. G. “Gezer.” EAEHL, 2:428–43. Drews, R. “The ‘Chariots of Iron’ of Joshua and Judges.” JSOT 45 (1989) 15–23. Elitzur, Y. “The Boundary Line between Benjamin and Ephraim (Jos 16:2).” In Studies in Bible and Exegesis Arie Toeg in Memoriam. Ed. U. Simon and M. GoshenGottstein. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1980. 7–14 (Heb.). ———. “Rumah in Judah.” IEJ 44 (1994) 123–28. Elliger, A. Die Frühgeschichte der Stämme Ephraim und Manasse. Diss., Rostock, 1972. Elliger, K. “Die Grenze zwischen Ephraim und Manasse.” ZDPV 52 (1930) 265–309. ———. “Josua in Judäa.” PJ 30 (1934) 47–71. ———. “Lokalisierung von ‘Michmethath’: Jos 16:6, 17:7.” In Archaeologie und Altes Testament. Ed. A. Kuschke and E. Kutsch. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1970. 91–100. ———. “Neues über die Grenze zwischen Ephraim und Manasseh.” JPOS 18 (1938) 7–16. ———. “Thappuah.” PJ 33 (1937) 7–22. Eshel, H. “A Note on Joshua 15:61–62 and the Identification of the City of Salt.” IEJ 45 (1995) 37–40. Fernández Truyols, A. “El límite septentrional de Benjamín: a) Jos. 18, 12–13; b) Jos. 16,1–2.” Bib 13 (1932) 49–60. ———. “Los Límites de Efraim y Manasés.” Bib 14 (1933) 22–40. Fewell, D. N. “Deconstructive Criticism: Achsah and the (E)razed City of Writing.” In Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies. Ed. G. A. Yee. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. 115–37. Fleishman, J. “A Daughter’s Demand and a Father’s Compliance: The Legal Background to Achsah’s Claim and Caleb’s Agreement (Joshua 15:16–19; Judges 1:12–15).” ZAW 118 (2006) 354–73. Fritz, V. “Erwä-

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 98

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Bibliography

99

gungen zur Siedlungsgeschichte des Negev in der Eisen I-Zeit (1200–1000 v. Chr.) im Lichte der Ausgrabungen auf der Ôirbet el-Mafjar.” ZDPV 91 (1975) 30–45. Galil, G. “The Administrative Districts of the Judean Hill Area.” Zion 89 (1984) 205–24 (Heb.). ———. “The Administrative Districts of the Shephelah.” Shnaton 9 (1985) 55–71 (Heb.). ———. “‘Geba’-Ephraim and the Northern Boundary of Judah in the Days of Judah.” RB 100 (1993) 358–67. ———. “Giloh and Early Israelite Settlements.” BurH 17 (1981) 3– 15. Garfinkel, Y., and S. Ganor. “Khirbet Qeiyafa: Shaʿarayim.” JHS 8 (2008). Garsiel, M., and I. Finkelstein, I. “The Westward Expansion of the House of Joseph in the Light of the ʿIzbet Sartah Excavations.” TA 5 (1978) 192–98. Geus, C. H. J. de. The Tribes of Israel: An Investigation into Some of the Presuppositions of Martin Noth’s Amphictyony Hypothesis. SSN 18. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976. Glock, A. “Taanach.” EAEHL, 4:1138–47. Gottwald, N. K. The Tribes of Yahweh. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979. Gophna, R. “The Boundary between the Kingdoms of Judah, Ashkelon, and Gaza in the Light of an Archaeological Survey in the Shiqma Valley.” PrWCJewSt 7 (1981) 49–52 (Heb.). Görg, M. “Zum Skorpionenpaß.” VT 24 (1974) 508–9. Heidet, L. “Notes de géographie biblique: les royaumes de Juda et des dix tribus: la ligne intermédiaire de démarcation.” Bib 7 (1926) 83–87. Hertog, C. den. “The Geographical Shape of the Unconquered Land in Joshua 13:2–5 MT and LXX.” In The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort. Ed. J. van Ruiten and J. C. Vos. VTSup 124. Leiden: Brill, 2009. 51–60. Herzog, Z. “Beersheba Valley Archaeology and Its Implication for the Biblical Record.” In Congress Volume, Leiden 2004. Ed. A. Lemaire. VTSup 109. Leiden: Brill, 2006. 81–102. Hogg, H. W. “The Ephraim Genealogy.” JQR 13 (1900) 147–54. Holmes, S. Joshua, the Hebrew and Greek Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1914. James, F. “Beth-Shean.” EAEHL, 1:207–12. Jenni, E. “Historisch-topographische Untersuchungen zur Grenze zwischen Ephraim und Manasse.” ZDPV 74 (1958) 35–40. Kaiser, O. “Stammesgeschichtliche Hintergründe der Josephgeschichte: Erwägungen zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Israels.” VT 10 (1960) 1–15. Kallai, Z. “The Land of the Perizzites and the Rephaim (Josua 17,14–18).” In Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies. Ed. C. Brekelmans and J. Lust. BETL 94. Louvain: Leuven UP, 1990. 197–205. ———. “The Settlement Traditions of Ephraim.” ZDPV 102 (1986) 68– 74. ———. “Simeon’s Town List: Scribal Rules and Geographical Patterns.” VT 53 (2010) 81–96. Kallai-Kleinmann, Z. Judea, Samaria, and the Golan. Jerusalem: Publications of the Archaeological Survey of Israel I, 1972. ———. “The Town Lists of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan.” VT 8 (1958) 134–60; VT 11 (1961) 223–27. Kellermann, D. “Überlieferungsprobleme alttestamentlicher Ortsnamen.” VT 28 (1978) 423–32. Kingsbury, E. E. “He Set Ephraim before Manasseh.” HUCA 38 (1967) 129–36. Kuschke, A. “Das Deutsche Evangelische Institut für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes: Lehrkursus 1959.” ZDPV 76 (1960) 38–39. ———. “Historisch-topographische Beiträge zum Buche Josua.” In Gottes Wort und Gottes Land. Ed. H. G. Reventlow. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. 90–109. ———. “Kleine Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte der Stämme Asser und Juda.” HTR 64 (1971) 291–313. Lance, H. D. “Gezer in the Land and in History.” BA 30 (1967) 34–47. Lemaire, A. “Galaad et Makîr.” VT 31 (1981) 39–61. Lipinœski, E. “ʿAnaq-Kiryat ʾArbaʿ-Heœbron et ses Sanctuaires Tribaux.” VT 24 (1974) 41–55. Liver, J. “The Israelite Tribes.” In The World History of the Jewish People. Vol. 3, Judges. Ed. B. Mazar. New Jersey: Rutgers UP, 1964. 183–211. MacLaurin, E. C. B. “Anak/Anaks.” VT 15 (1965) 468–74. Margolis, M. L. The Book of Joshua in Greek: According to the Critically Restored Text with an Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Principal Recensions and of the Individual Witnesses. Part 5, Joshua 19:39–24:33. Publications of the Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1931–38. Repr., Monograph Series. Philadelphia: Annenberg Research Institute, 1992. Mazar, A. “Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site near Jerusalem.” IEJ 31 (1981) 1–16. Mazar, A., and G. Kelm. “Canaanites, Philistines, and Israelites at Timna/Tel Batash.” Qad 13 (1980) 89–97 (Heb.).

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 99

9/18/14 9:20 AM

100

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

Mazar, B. “The Early Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country.” BASOR 241 (1981) 74–85. McConville, J. G. “Priesthood in Joshua to Kings.” VT 49 (1999) 73–87. McKinlay, J. E. “Meeting Achsah on Achsah’s Land.” Bible & Critical Theory 5 (2009). Meer, M. N. van der. Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses. VTSup 102. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Mettinger, T. N. D. Solomonic State Officials: A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the Israelite Monarchy. ConBOT 5. Lund: Gleerup, 1971. Mitchell, H. G. T. “Josh. xv. 10.” Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis 8 (1888) 161–62. ———. Together in the Land. JSOTSup 134. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Mittmann, S. Beiträge zur Siedlungs- und Territorialgeschichte des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970. ———. “Josua 16, 1 und die Präposition le.” BN 70 (1993) 14–20. Mosca, P. G. “Who Seduced Whom? A Note on Joshua 15:18/Judges 1:14.” CBQ 46 (1984) 18–22. Na’aman, N. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. JBS 4. Jerusalem: Simor, 1986. ———. “Ephraim, Ephrath, and the Settlement of the Judean Hill Country.” Zion 49 (1984) 325–31 (Heb.). ———. “Josiah and the Kingdom of Judah.” In Good Kings and Bad Kings. London: T&T Clark, 2005. 189–247. ———. “The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah.” TA 18 (1991) 3–71. Namiki, K. “Reconsideration of the Twelve-Tribe System of Israel.” AJBI 2 (1976) 29–59. Neef, H.-D. Ephraim: Studien zur Geschichte des Stammes Ephraim von der Landnahme bis zur frühen Königszeit. BZAW 238. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995. North, R. “Israel’s Tribes and Today’s Frontier.” CBQ 16 (1954) 146–53. ———. “Three Judean Hills in Josue 15,9f.” Bib 37 (1956) 209–16. Noth, M. “Die Ansiedlung des Stammes Juda auf dem Boden Palästinas.” PJ 30 (1934) 31–47. ———. “Der Beitrag der samarischen Ostraka zur Lösung topographischer Fragen.” PJ 28 (1932) 54–57.———. “Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches.” ZDPV 58 (1935) 185–255. Reprinted in ABLAK. 1:229–80. Orlinsky, H. M. “The Supposed Qiryat-Sannah of Joshua 15:49.” JBL 58 (1939) 255–61. Otto, E. Jakob in Sichem: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche, archäologische und territorialgeschichtliche Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte Israels. BWANT 110. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1979. 227– 60. ———. “Survey-archäologische Ergebnisse zur Geschichte der früheisenzeitlichen Siedlung Janoah (Jos. 16,6.7).” ZDPV 94 (1978) 108–18. Ottoson, M. Gilead, Tradition and History. Lund: Gleerup, 1969. 136–43. Phythian-Adams, W. J. “The Boundary of Ephraim and Manasseh.” PEFQS (1929) 228–41. Power, E. “Note to the Preceding Article: Another View on the Line of Demarcation between the Kingdoms of Juda and Israel.” Bib 7 (1926) 87–95. Rainey, A. F. “The Administrative Division of the Shephelah.” TA 7 (1980) 194–202. ———. “The Biblical Shephela of Judah.” BASOR 251 (1983) 1–22. Rake, M. ‘Juda wird aufsteigen!’ Untersuchungen zum ersten Kapitel des Richterbuches. BZAW 367. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006. Rogerson, J. W. “Frontiers and Borders in the Old Testament.” In In Search of True Wisdom. FS R. E. Clements, ed. E. Ball. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. 116–26. Rösel, H. N. “Judges 1 and the Settlement of the Lea Tribes.” PrWCJewSt 8A (1982) 17–20 (Heb.). ———. “Das ‘negative Besitzverzeichnis’—traditionsgeschichtliche und historische Überlegungen.” In ‘Wunschet Jerusalem Frieden’: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of IOSO. Jerusalem, 1986. Ed. M. Augustin and K.-D. Schunck. BEATAJ 13. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1988. 121–35. Rösel, M. “The Septuagint-Version of the Book of Joshua.” SJOT 16 (2002) 5–23. Rudolph, W. Der ‘Elohist’ von Exodus bis Josua. BZAW 68. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1938. 217–18. Saarisalo, A. The Boundary between Issachar and Naphtali: An Archaeological and Literary Study of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia, 1927. Sakenfeld, K. D. “In the Wilderness, Awaiting the Land: The Daughters of Zelophehad and Feminist Interpretation.” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 9 (1981) 179–96. Sauer, J. A. “A Review of Gezer II (HUC).” BASOR 233 (1979) 70–74. Schmitt, G. Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes. BWANT 91. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970. Schunck, K.-D. Benjamin. BZAW 86. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1963. 142–67. ———. “Ophra, Ephron und Ephraim.” VT 11 (1961)

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 100

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Translation

101

188–200. Seebass, H. “Das Haus Joseph in Jos 17, 14–18.” ZDPV 98 (1982) 70–76. ———. “Zur Exegese der Grenzbeschreibungen von Jos 16, 1–17:13.” ZDPV 100 (1984) 70–93. _____. “Das Buch Josua als Nicht-Fortsetzung des Buches Numeri” in The Book of Joshua, ed. Ed Noort, Leuven: Peeters, [2012] 253–54). Shemesh, Y. “A Gender Perspective on the Daughters of Zelophehad: Bible, Talmudic Midrash, and Modern Feminist Midrash.” BibInt 15 (2007) 80–109. Simons, J. “The Structure and Interpretation of Joshua XVI– XVII.” In Orientalia Neerlandica. Leiden: Brill, 1948. 190–215. Szpek, H. M. “Achsah’s Story: A Metaphor for Societal Transition.” AUSS 40 (2002) 245–56. Talmon, S. “The List of Cities of Simeon.” ErIsr 8 (1967) 265–68 (Heb.). ———. “The Town List of Simeon.” IEJ 15 (1965) 235–41. Tappy, R. E. “Historical and Geographical Notes on the ‘Lowland Districts’ of Judah in Joshua xv 33–47.” VT 58 (2008) 381–403. Tengstrom, S. Die Hexateucherzählung: Eine literaturgeschichtliche Studie. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. Tov, E. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Ulrich, D. R. “Lines in Pleasant Places: Joshua 15–19.” Journal of Biblical Counseling 18 (2000) 54–57. Vaux, R. de. Histoire ancienne d’Israel. Vol. 1. Paris: Gabalda, 1971. Translated as The Early History of Israel. Trans. D. Smith. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1978. Vos, J. C. de. Das Los Judas: Über Entstehung und Ziele der Landbeschreibung in Josua 15. VTSup 95. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Wächter, L. “Zur Lage von Michmethath.” ZDPV 84 (1968) 52–62. Wallis, G. “Thanath-Silo.” ZDPV 77 (1961) 38–45. Westbrook, R. Property and the Family in Biblical Law. JSOTSup 113. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Winther-Nielsen, N. A Functional Discourse Grammar of Joshua: A Computer-Assisted Rhetorical Structure Analysis. ConBOT 40. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1995. Wright, G. F. “Geological Light on the Interpretation of ‘the Tongue’ in Joshua 15:2–5, 18:19.” JBL 30 (1911) 18–28. Yadin, Y. “Megiddo.” EAEHL, 3:830–56. Zadok, R. “On Five Biblical Names (Jos 16,7).” ZAW 89 (1977) 266–68. Zertal, A. “Kh. Aujah el-foqa (Ataroth)—An Iron Age Fortified City in the Jordan Valley.” PEQ 141 (2009) 104–123. ———. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey. Vol. 2, The Eastern Valley and the Fringes of the Desert. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 21.2. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Zobel, H. J. Stammesspruch und Geschichte. BZAW 95. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1965. 112–26.

Translation 1aThe

lot b belonged to the tribe of the sons c of Judah for their clans: beginning at d the border of Edom, the wilderness of Zin to the Negev, the southern end. e 2Their southern border was the end of the Salt Sea from the tongue a facing the Negev. 3It goes out south a of the ascent of the Scorpions, to Zin, goes up south of Kadesh-Barnea, passes over to Hezron, goes up to Adar, turns to Qarqa. 4It passes over to Azmon, goes out to the Brook of Egypt. The limits of the boundary are a at the sea. This will be for you (pl.) b the southern boundary. 5The boundary to the east is the Sea of Salt a unto the end of the Jordan. The border on the north side is from the tongue of the Sea at the end of the Jordan. 6The border goes up to Beth H · agal and passes north of Beth Arabah. The border goes up to the stone of Bohan, the son of Reuben. 7The border goes up to Debir a from the Valley of Achor, then turning northward to Gilgal, b which is in front of the ascent of Adummim, which is south of the valley. Then the border c passes to the waters of En Shemesh. Its limits are at En Rogel. 8The boundary goes up the valley of the son of a Hinnom to the shoulder of the Jebusites on the south (that is, Jerusalem). The boundary goes up to the top of the mountain which is in front of the Valley of Hinnom to the west, which is at the end of the Valley of the Rephaim to the north. 9The boundary then bends from the top of the mountain to the spring of the waters of Nephtoah a and goes out to the cities of Mount Ephron. b The border bends to Baalah (that is, Kiriath-Jearim). 10The border turns from Baalah westward to Mount Seir, a passes to the

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 101

9/18/14 9:20 AM

102

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

shoulder of Mount b Jearim to the north (that is, Chesalon). c It goes down to Beth Shemesh and passes to Timnah. d 11The border goes out to the shoulder of Ekron to the north. The border bends to Shikkeron, passes over Mount Baalah, and goes out to Jabneal. These are the limits of the border to the west. 12The border on the west a is the Mediterranean Sea and territory. This is the border of the sons of Judah all around for their clans. 13But to Caleb, the son of Jephuneh, he gave a portion in the midst of the sons of Judah according to the speech of Yahweh a to Joshua, namely, Kiriath- Arba, the father of Anak. (It is Hebron.) 14Caleb a dispossessed from there the three sons of Anak: Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak. 15He a went up from there to the inhabitants of Debir. (The name of Debir previously was Kiriath- Sepher.) 16Caleb said, “Whoever strikes against Kiriath- Sepher and captures it, I will give to him Achsah, my daughter, for a wife.” 17Othniel, son of Kenaz, brother of Caleb, captured it. Then he gave to him Achsah, his daughter, for a wife. 18When she came, she allured a him into asking from her father a field. She alighted b from the donkey. Then Caleb said to her, “What is wrong with you?” c 19She said, “Give me a blessing, because the land of the Negev a you have given me. Also give me pools of water.” Then he gave to her the upper pools and the lower pools. 20This is the inheritance of the tribe of the sons of Judah for their clans. a 21The cities in their entirety a belonged to the tribe of the sons of Judah to the boundary of Edom in the south: Kabzeel, Eder, b Jagur; 22Kinah, Dimonah, Adadah; a 23Kedesh, Hazor, Yithnan; a 24Ziph, Telem, Baaloth; 25Hazor- Hadattah, a Kiriath- Hezron (that is, Hazor); 26Amam, Shemah, Moladah; 27Hazar- Gaddah, Heshmon, Beth Pelet; 28Hazar- Shual, Beersheba, Bizyothyah; a 29Baalah, Iyim, Ezem; 30Eltolad, Chesil, a Hormah; 31Ziklag, Madmannah, Sansannah; 32Lebaoth, Shilhim, a Ayin, and Rimon, b in all twenty- nine cities c and their villages. 33In the Shephelah: Eshtaol, Zorah, Ashnah; 34Zanoah, En Gannim, Tappuah, Enam; 35Yarmuth, Adullam, Socoh, Azekah; 36Shaarim, Adithayim, Gederah, and Gederothayim, a fourteen cities and their villages. 37Zenan, Hadashah, Migdal- Gad; 38Dilean, Mizpeh, Yokteal; 39Lachish, Bozkath, Eglon; 40Cabbon, Lahmas, a Chitlish; 41Gederoth, Beth- Dagon, Naamah, and Makkedah, sixteen cities and their villages. 42Libnab, Ether, Ashan; 43Yiphtah, Ashnab, Nezib; 44Keilah, Achzib, and Mareshah, nine cities and their villages. 45Ekron and her suburbs and her villages; 46from Ekron and to the sea, everything which is beside Ashdod and her villages. 47Ashdod, her suburbs and her villages; Gaza, her suburbs and her villages unto the brook of Egypt, and the (Mediterranean) a Sea and territory. 48And in the hill country: Shamir, Yattir, and Socoh; 49Dannah, Kiriath- Sannah a (it is Debir); 50Anab, Eshtemoh, a Anim; 51Goshen, Holon, and Giloh, eleven cities and their villages. 52Arab, Rumah, a Dumah, and Eshan; 53Yanim, a Beth Tappuah, Aphekah; 54Humtah, Kiriath-Arba (it is Hebron), and Zior, nine cities and their villages. 55Maon, Carmel, Ziph, Yuttah; 56Jezreel, Yokdeam, a Zanoah; 57Kayin, Gibeah, and Timnah, ten cities and their villages. 58Halhul, Beth- zur, Gedur; 59Maarath, Beth- Anoth, and Eltekon, six cities and their villages. a 60Kiriath- Baal (that is, Kiriath- Jearim) and Rabbah, two cities and their villages. 61In the wilderness: Beth- Arabah, Middin, Secacah; 62Nibshan, the City of Salt, and En Gedi, six cities and their villages.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 102

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Translation

103

63But

as for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, a the sons of Judah were not able to dispossess them. The Jebusites have lived with the sons of Judah a in Jerusalem until this day. 16:1The lot a went out to the sons of Joseph: from the Jordan by Jericho to the waters b of Jericho eastward, the wilderness going up c from Jericho into the hill country of Bethel. 2It goes out from Bethel to Luz, a passes over to the territory of the Archites, Ataroth. 3It goes down westward to the territory of the Japhletites unto the territory of lower Beth-Horon and unto Gezer. a Its limits are at the sea. 4The sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, received their inheritance. 5The territory of the sons of Ephraim belonged to their clans: The border of their inheritance to the east a was Ataroth-Adar b unto upper Beth Horon. 6The border goes out to the Sea. Michmethath is on the north. The border turns eastward to Taanath- Shiloh, passes over it a eastward to Janoah. b 7It goes down from Janoah, Atarroth, a and to Naarath, touches Jericho and goes out to the Jordan. 8From Tappuah the border goes westward to the river Kanah. Its limits are the sea. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the sons a of Ephraim for their clans. 9Cities are also set apart for the sons of Ephraim in the midst of the inheritance of the sons of Manasseh, all the cities and their villages. 10But they a did not dispossess the Canaanites who live in Gezer, and the Canaanites lived in the midst of Ephraim until this day, and they became slaves doing forced labor. 17:1The lot a belonged to the tribe of Manasseh, for b he was the firstborn of Joseph, to Machir, the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead, c for he was a man of war. Gilead and Bashan belonged to him. 2It [the lot] belonged to the remaining sons of Manasseh for their clans, to the sons of Abiezer, to the sons of Helek, to the sons of Asriel, to the sons of Shechem, to the sons of Hepher, and to the sons of Shemida. These were the sons of Manasseh, the son of Joseph, a the males, by their clans. 3But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, only daughters. These are the names of his daughters: Nablab, Noah, Hoglab, Milcah, and Tirzah. 4They approached Eleazer the priest, Joshua the son of Nun, and the chiefs, saying, “Yahweh commanded Moses a to give us an inheritance in the midst of our brothers.” He gave to them, in accord with the commandment of Yahweh, an inheritance in the midst of the brothers of their father. 5The sections of Manasseh fell out ten, a disregarding the land of Gilead and Bashan which is beyond the Jordan, 6because the daughters of Manasseh a inherited an inheritance in the midst of his sons, while the land of Gilead belonged to the remaining sons of Manasseh. 7The boundary of Manasseh was from Asher, that is Michmethath, which is across from Shechem, and the boundary goes southward to the inhabitants a of En Tappuah. 8The land of Tappuah belonged to Manasseh, but Tappuah on the border of Manasseh belonged to the sons of Ephraim. 9The border went down to the river Kanah. These cities a south of the river belonged to Ephraim in the midst of the cities of Manasseh, but the boundary of Manasseh was north of the river. Its limits were the sea. 10To the south belonged to Ephraim and to the north to Manasseh. Its boundary a was the sea. They touched Asher to the north and Isaachar to the east. 11There belonged to Manasseh in Issachar and in Asher: Beth- shean and its suburbs, Yibleam and its suburbs, with the inhabitants of Dor and its suburbs, and the inhabitants of En Dor and its suburbs, and the inhabitants of Taanach and its suburbs, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and its suburbs, the three of Napheth. a 12The sons of Manasseh were not able to dispossess these cities. The Canaanites were determined to live in this land. 13When the sons of Israel became strong, they set the Canaanites to forced labor, but they did not completely dispossess them.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 103

9/18/14 9:20 AM

104

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

14The

sons of Joseph spoke with a Joshua, “Why have you given to me b for an inheritance one lot and one section, though I am a great people. Up until this point, c Yahweh has blessed me?” 15Joshua said to them, “If you are a great people, go up for yourself into the forest and create a for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites and the Rephaim, b since the hill country of Ephraim is too restrictive c for you.” 16Then the sons of Joseph a said, “The hill country is not enough for us, but iron chariots are among all the Canaanites who live in the land in the valley, to those in Beth- Shean and her suburbs and to those in the Valley of Jezreel.” 17Joshua said to the house of Joseph, to Ephraim and to Manasseh, a “You are a great people with great power. 18To you will belong not one lot, for the hill country a will belong to you, though it is forest. Creating b it, you shall possess its farthest limits, because you will dispossess the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, even though they are strong.”

Notes 15:1.a. A quick glance at a critical edition of the Heb. or Gk. text reveals immediately the complexity of the textual situation in these chapters. The problems of transliterating and transmitting the many proper names makes it impossible to comment on textual variants of almost every name in the text. We must confine ourselves to the most important variants, quite a task in itself. Knauf (37) finds chaps. 15–19 written in late Heb. as contrasted to the classic Torah Heb. of most of the book, excluding chap. 15 from any time earlier than the Persian period. If he is correct in this, then some problems may result from the different linguistic strata. He also thinks border descriptions are constructed on the scribe’s desk (Knauf, 141). De Vos (Das Los Judas, 90– 91), followed by den Hertog (“Geographical Shape,” 53, n. 9), says the Gk. translator apparently did not know the place names because, living in Egypt, he was so far removed from Palestine. They think the translator would have been more accurate if the names were of importance to him and to his community. Den Hertog places the changes in the course of textual transmission of the Gk. rather than in the hand of the translator. Summary numbers are also a problem. When they disagree with the number of cities in the relevant list, the summary number is always low. Kallai decides “the state of the text . . . renders the endeavor [defending the summary numbers] futile” (VT 53 [2010] 90). I surmise that lists gradually expanded as political and sociological situations changed, and administrators of the list did not always keep up with the current totals. 1.b. The Heb. text uses ‫הגורל‬, “lot,” in Josh 15:1, 16:1, and 17:1, whereas the LXX seems to presuppose ‫הגבול‬, “border, territory,” in each instance. Auld argues on the basis of Josh 21:20, 40 and 1 Chr 6:51 that the LXX has preserved the earlier text form. He concludes that “chaps 13–17 of Joshua were without mention of gwrl or ‘lot’ until a very late stage in their development” (“Textual and Literary Studies in the Book of Joshua,” ZAW 90 [1978] 416–17). Steuernagel, Holzinger (1901), and Nelson argue, on the other hand, that LXX has corrected the texts in light of Josh 18:5ff. Both conclusions depend upon larger literary presuppositions. Whichever is correct, it shows that the copyists continued to interpret as well as transmit the text for a long period until its final stabilization in the first Christian century. 1.c. LXX does not translate “sons”; cf. Auld, “Joshua,” 10–11. 1.d. MT has only one preposition, ‫אל‬, “towards, at,” in the verse. LXX has translated this with ἀπό, “from,” and has also introduced the same preposition before “the wilderness.” This could represent a loss by haplography (Soggin). Preliminary and Interim Report (2:33– 34) retains MT with note that one may have to make translational adjustments to the text due to the distinctions between the two languages. Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1, 32– 33) views Gk. changes as illusionary clarification. He sees the meaning as toward the Negev in the direction of Teman, that is, due south. Barthélemy shows from internal evidence that the LXX reference to Kadesh- barnea is not original. 1.e. MT has two expressions for “southwards,” “forming somewhat of a tautology” (Soggin). LXX has clarified this with language from Num 20:16 (Margolis [Book of Joshua in Greek]; Nelson; Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:34). The attempt in MT appears to be to

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 104

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

105

describe the boundary beginning at Edom and reaching to the extreme end of the Wilderness of Zin (cf. Num 34:3– 4). Preliminary and Interim Report (2:34) sees the assimilation to Numbers and translates “in the direction of the Negeb, at its southern end.” 2.a. Nelson points out that “tongue” may be a tongue of water, i.e., a bay, or a tongue of land, i.e., a peninsula. 3.a. LXX reflects ‫מנגד‬, “in front of, opposite,” rather than MT ‫מנגב‬, “south of.” The verbs in these boundary lists are a challenge to students of the Heb. language. The “perfect consecutives” apparently represent a statement into the future with lasting impact. See Harstad’s excursus, 535– 37. 4.a. The written text (Kethib) has a sg. verb following the pattern of the context, while the Masoretes chose to read (Qere) a pl. verb in grammatical agreement with the subject. 4.b. MT suddenly returns to direct address with a 2nd pers. pl. suffix, which the LXX changes in line with the context to 3rd pers. pl. (cf. Vg.). Noth explains it as an addition from Num 34:6–7, while Soggin follows the LXX; but MT can be retained (with Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:34. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 1:33; and Nelson, who sees LXX harmonizing or assimilating to v 2). Judah’s southern border is emphasized as Israel’s southern border. 5.a. LXX interprets the text, adding “all” before the Sea of Salt. 7.a. Steuernagel describes the text as corrupt to the foundations. LXX reads, καὶ προσαναβαίνει τὰ ὅρια ἐπὶ τὸ τέταρτον τῆς φάραγγος Αχωρ καὶ καταβαίνει ἐπὶ Γαλγαλ, ἥ ἐστιν ἀπέναντι τῆς προσβάσεως Αδδαμιν, ἥ ἐστιν κατὰ λίβα τῇ φάραγγι, καὶ διεκβαλεῖ ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ πηγῆς ἡλίου, καὶ ἔσται αὐτοῦ ἡ διέξοδος πηγὴ Ρωγηλ. NETS translates “and the boundaries go higher to the fourth part of the ravine of Achor and go down to Galgal, which is before the approach of Addamin, which is to the southwest of the valley, and pass through to the water of the fountain of the sun, and its outlet shall be the fountain of Rogel.” The Greek’s “and the boundary continues [goes higher] on to the fourth part of the Valley of Achor is based by” Margolis (Book of Joshua in Greek) on a corruption in the old Heb. script between ‫( דברה מעמק‬MT) and ‫רבעה מעמק‬. Compare Nelson, 183. Noth admits his own uncertainty in interpreting MT ‫ דבר‬as a preposition meaning “behind.” “The MT, despite its difficulties, is preferable” (see Nelson). 7.b. Instead of “then turning northward to Gilgal,” LXX reads “go down to Galgal.” Preliminary and Interim Report (2:35), Steuernagel, Noth, and Fritz follow LXX, explaining ‫ צפנה פנה‬as dittography. Noth reads ‫ גלילות‬on the basis of Josh 18:17, while Steuernagel translates Gilgal as “circle of stones” (cf. Hertzberg), saying it does not fit geographically here. The Preliminary and Interim Report (2:35) turns Noth’s argument around and sees LXX as a correction based on 18:17 (cf. Bright). Gray and Bright seek to avoid geographical difficulties by seeing a second Gilgal coming in view. No easy or even probable solution is apparent. Nelson concludes: “the textual evidence is not clear enough to permit correction.” Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:34) retains MT with a note that text criticism cannot provide an answer to a choice between Gilgal and Galiloth. 7.c. LXX lacks “border.” 8.a. LXX lacks “son of.” 9.a. The consonants can be read “the spring of Merneptah,” after the Egyptian Pharaoh (cf. Noth). 9.b. LXX reads “to mount Ephron,” followed by Noth (cf. Soggin with reference to Baldi). Margolis (Book of Joshua in Greek), Preliminary and Interim Report (2:35), and Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:34) suggest an original reading of ‫ ִﬠיֵּ י‬, “ruins,” a reading Nelson follows from LXX and Theod. as representing OG. He sees LXX B as a corrupt text at this point (cf. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 1:35). Fritz sees “the cities” as an addition to be deleted. See Josh 18:15. 10.a. LXX transposes the verb in front of “to Mount Seir” instead of behind it. 10.b. LXX confuses letters in reading ‫הר‬, “mount,” as ‫עיר‬, “city.” Similarly Beth Shemesh, “house of the sun,” becomes “city of the sun.” 10.c. Fritz sees reference to Chesalon as a gloss to Seir. 10.d. Some MSS and LXX read the city Timnah as the common word ‫( תימן‬cf. v 1), “south.” 12.a. LXX reads “their border.” MT witnesses slight confusion caused by dittography,

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 105

9/18/14 9:20 AM

106

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

which has appeared in another form in LXX. Fritz reads ‫וגבול ימה הים הגדול‬, “and the border to the west was the Great Sea.” Nelson corrects ‫ ים הימה הגדול‬to ‫ימה הים הגדול‬, “as implied by T” (Theodotian). 13.a. LXX reads, “speech of God, and Joshua gave to him the city Arbok, the metropolis of Enak.” On the use of “God” for “Yahweh,” see Auld, “Joshua,” 12–13. For the last part, cf. Josh 14:15. The grammatical restructuring is for clarity since the Heb. does not specify a subject for “he gave.” LXX loses, however, the theological emphasis of God’s word directed to Joshua. Steuernagel says this is done because such a word has not been previously reported. Nelson follows MT and points to Josh 14:15 of LXX. 14.a. LXX adds the unnecessary “son of Jephuneh,” transposes two of the names, and omits the final “descendants of Anak.” The phrase is also lacking in Judg 1:10 and is dependent upon Num 13:22 (Nelson). Fritz deletes it as a later gloss. Interestingly, LXX adds the phrase in Judges. Auld notes (“Judges I and History: A Reconsideration,” VT 25 [1975] 270) that MT of Judg 1:11–15 agrees with LXX tradition in Josh 15:15–19. 15.a. LXX inserts the implicit subject, “Caleb.” 18.a. Translation is complicated by the use of vocabulary of whose meaning we are uncertain and by complex textual variants. ‫ ותסיתהו‬is a hipʿil from ‫סות‬, meaning “to mislead, incite, deceive entice away, incite against” (HALOT). It “always has a pejorative sense” (Soggin; cf. Noth, Ehrlich). Steuernagel and R. C. Boling (Judges, AB 6A [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975] 56– 57) follow some evidence from LXX and Vg. in making the subject masc., Boling translating, “he nagged her.” The argument of Noth and Soggin that only Caleb and his daughter are involved is not true to the text. Certainly, here the conversation is between the newlyweds, even though Othniel is not mentioned by name. The implication is that the bride used her feminine charms to gain a request from her new husband. One cannot defend the emendation on grounds of protecting the image of the first judge (against Boling; cf. Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:35– 36). The problem that in the following scene the wife confronts her father is to be explained in the sense that she gained her husband’s agreement before carrying out her plan. Certainly, this explanation is better than having her excite her father by asking him for a field as Winther-Nielsen would argue on the basis of Othniel being a “locally minor participant of the previous unit” (Functional Discourse Grammar, 255 with n. 42). Winther- Nielsen’s understanding of discourse grammar results in an interpretation that goes against his own literal translation and does not make good sense in the context. Auld may be correct in following LXX in restoring: ‫לאמר אשׁאל מאת אבי‬, “saying, I will ask my father” (VT 25 [1975] 271), though Nelson says this simply reduces the tension, concluding that “MT is preferable as difficult but not impossible” (184; see also 187– 88 with nn. 6 and 7). 18.b. The verb ‫ ותצנח‬has caused all sorts of scholarly consternation and conjecture. G. R. Driver went so far as to suggest “she broke wind” (NEB; “The Problems of Interpretation in the Heptateuch,” in Mélanges biblique rediges en l’honneur de André Robert [Paris: Blood & Gay, 1966] 75–76), but this “has not found wide acceptance” (R. C. Boling, Judges, AB 6A [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975] 57). E. W. Nicholson must be followed when he concludes that “the problem of the meaning of ‫ צנח‬still remains” (“The Problem of ‫צנח‬,” ZAW 89 [1977] 265). Thus we join him in following tradition and translating “she alighted” (cf. Joshua). 18.c. The Heb. reads literally, “What to you?” The implication is often “What is it to you?” “What ails you?” “What do you want?” (BDB, 552). 19.a. Nelson translates “land of the Negev” as “arid land” (cf. REB, “this arid Negeb”; GWT, “some dry land”; Message, “desert land”). Compare HALOT. 20.a. LXX omits “for their clans,” which Nelson classifies as a MT expansion based on Josh 15:1, 12. 21.a. LXX reads ἐγενήθησαν δὲ αἱ πόλεις αὐτῶν πόλις πρώτη φυλῆς υἱῶν Ιουδα, “There were their cities, cities belonging to the tribe of the sons of Judah.” Margolis (Book of Joshua in Greek) interpreted this as forming two headings, a general one for vv 21b– 62 and a special heading for the cities of the Negev in vv 21b– 32. He sees MT merging these into one. The meaning of ‫ מקצה‬is weakened into a pronoun by LXX. Modern translators usually render “furthermost” (JB) or “in the extreme South” (RSV). It may also mean the whole, all of the cities (cf. BDB, 892; NEB). 21.b. Nelson (cf. Fritz) follows OG in reading “Arad,” seeing MT as a transposition

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 106

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

107

of two letters. This is quite probably correct, though one quite distant from the most difficult text. The correction normally runs from the less known town to the more well known. 22.a. Nelson and Fritz read “Ararah” as “suggested by OG.” Preliminary and Interim Report (2:36– 37) and Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:37– 38) point to 1 Sam 30:28 and read “and Aradah.” 23.a. LXX joins the last two names into “Hazor-Yithnan,” probably correctly (cf. Soggin; Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek; Nelson; Fritz; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 1). Preliminary and Interim Report, (2:37) reads “Hazor of Ithnan.” 25.a. LXX reads “Hazor- Hadattah” as ‫חצרתה‬, “and her villages,” thus relating it to the previous verse, possibly correctly. Noth (cf. Fritz) sees it as a later addition. 28.a. “Bizyothyah” appears in LXX as “and her villages” (‫)בנותיה‬, which is supported by Neh 11:27 and is probably correct, needing only a slight change in the Heb. text (cf. Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:37– 38; BHS; Soggin; Nelson; Fritz; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 1:39– 41). 30.a. Nelson notes OG reading of “Baithel” is best explained as influenced by Josh 19:4. See 1 Chr 4:30. 32.a. Fritz sees this otherwise unknown town to be changed to “Sharuhen” (‫)שׁרוחן‬ with Josh 19:6. 32.b. LXX seems to have read ʿEn Rimmon as one word (Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek), probably correctly (cf. Soggin, Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:38; BHS; Nelson; Fritz; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 1:40– 41 Josh 19:7; Neh 11:29). 32.c. MT lists thirty- six cities before this note, showing the continuing change in the transmitted text. LXX says twenty-nine cities also, but it lists thirty. Nelson’s reconstructed list has thirty- three cities. He suggests removing the four cities compounded with Hazor to achieve twenty-nine cities. Howard suggests that “some locales listed were not considered substantial enough settlements to have merited inclusion in the running total, or an early copying error may account for the discrepancy” (341). 36.a. LXX καὶ αἱ ἐπαύλεις αὐτῆς presupposes ‫וגדרתיה‬, “her villages,” probably correctly (Soggin; BHS; but denied by Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:38). Nelson finds OG reading as reflecting ‫וגדרתיה‬, which he translates as “sheepfolds” and sees as an interpretive translation based on the same text as MT. The change brings exactly fourteen cities into the list, whereas MT lists fifteen. 40.a. NRSV reads “Lahmam” on the basis of many Heb. MSS, a reading Preliminary and Interim Report (2:39) and Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:41– 42) reject. See the latter for specific evidence. 47.a. MT reads the “Territory Sea,” a confusion with the following word caused by the change of one letter. LXX preserves the correct reading, “The Great Sea,” i.e., the Mediterranean. See Fritz. Compare Tov (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 61). 49.a. Nelson follows MT here in reading “Kiriath- Sannah” but then sees the reference to Debir as an incorrect gloss. He sees the possibility that Kiriath- Sannah is a corruption caused by preceding name “Dannah.” Fritz reads the more familiar “Kiriath- sepher” with LXX and Syr. Preliminary and Interim Report (2:39) and Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:42– 43) retain MT, the latter holding open the possibility that Debir had three names in its history. 50.a. Fritz opts for more frequent spelling of ‫אשׁתמע‬. 52.a. Fritz suggests on the basis of content (sachlichen Gründen) reading “Dumah.” 53.a. Nelson (cf. Fritz) goes with reading tradition (Qere) in reading “Janum” over against written text (Kethib) of “Janim.” 56.a. Nelson points to alternate reading of “Jorkeam” represented by LXX B and 1 Chr 2:44 and preferred by Fritz, Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:39, and Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:43– 44). 59.a. LXX adds a verse omitted by homoioteleuton from MT: “Tekoa, Ephrathah (that is, Bethlehem), Peor, Etam, Culon, Tatam, Shoresh, Cerem, Gallim, Bether, and Manocho, eleven cities and their villages” (following the Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:40, reconstruction, though recognizing with Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek, that “the corruptions defy emendation” and Nelson that “Hebrew forms are in some cases conjectural”). The verse was omitted by homoioteleuton, the copyist moving from “and their

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 107

9/18/14 9:20 AM

108

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

villages” at the end of v 57 to the same wording at the end of v 59 (cf. Howard, 343; M. Rösel, SJOT 16 [2002] 12). 63.a. LXX does not transmit “with the sons of Judah,” which may well represent a later dogmatic reflection (Fritz; cf. Auld, VT 25 [1975] 274–75). Nelson follows MT. 16:1.a. See Note 15:1.a. Fritz reads ‫ גבול‬here, though he read ‫ גורל‬in 15:1. 1.b. LXX does not read “to the waters of Jericho,” an awkward expression, but the resulting Gk. “would be senseless here” (Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek). Nelson points to haplography in the Gk. tradition eliminating “to the waters of Jericho.” The expression ensures that the border is understood to have been outside Jericho, so that Jericho is not included in Joseph’s territory. Nelson (cf. Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:40– 41) points to LXX rearrangements and omissions at several points in 16:1– 6 but concludes that awkward MT is preferable. 1.c. Fritz wants to append a waw to the verb, creating a new independent clause. MT has a participle with wilderness as the apparent subject, though most translations assume some prepositional meaning here. 2.a. LXX has skillfully rearranged the text to read: “and will go up from Jericho into the hill country, the wilderness into Bethel- Luz, and they will go out to Bethel and run along the borders of Achatarothi.” In so doing, it has provided no evidence for a more original text. 3.a. LXX places “and unto Gezer” at the end of v 5. 5.a. Fritz sees “to the east” as a gloss to delete, making no sense and lacking in the Syr. 5.b. Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:44– 45) discusses the history of Ataroth- Adar here and in 18:13 and decides that Adar belongs here and Orek in 18:13. 6.a. LXX does not repeat “border” as the subject and omits the accusative pronoun “it,” smoothing out the construction somewhat. This continues with the omission of the opening verb of v 7. Soggin refers to MT as incomplete here. Nelson notes that the pronoun “it” is masc. here, but when referring to a town it would normally be fem. Nelson solves this by reference to a territory rather than a town or by making Taanath- shiloh or Michmethath a “geographical landmark” rather than a town. 6.b. Fritz quotes Noth in seeing the pronoun and direct object marker are not in place according to the subject matter involved. Fritz sees the possibility of part of a town name missing but cannot follow that idea any further. 7.a. The MT lacks the expected prepositions here. 8.a. LXX does not reflect “sons” (cf. Auld, “Joshua,” 10–11). 10.a. LXX adds “Ephraim” as explicit subject and then inserts at the end an explicit reference to 1 Kgs 9:16, “until Pharaoh, king of Egypt, came up and took it and burned it with fire. He killed the Canaanites and the Perizzites, and all the inhabitants of Gezer. Pharaoh gave it into the dowry of his daughter.” This results in the omission of the final clause of MT (cf. Judg 1:29), which may itself be a later insertion of a traditional phrase (cf. Auld, VT 25 [1975] 275, n. 52; Nelson). M. Rösel (SJOT 16 [2002] 13) notes that the LXX is independent of the Kings translation and adds Perizzites to the text. 17:1.a. See Note 15:1.a. LXX also adds “sons” before “Manasseh.” 1.b. Howard (350) finds the Heb. particle ‫כי‬, “for,” to mean “indeed” or “in fact” here. 1.c. Howard (350, n. 147) underlines the definite article attached to “Gilead,” interpreting it to mean the region of Gilead not the person of Gilead. Compare Keil, 179. 2.a. LXX omits “sons of Manasseh, the son of Joseph,” which may be a later specification by the tradition. Similarly, in the next verse, the genealogical expansion after “son of Hepher,” is not represented by LXX. Also in v 4, “son of Nun” does not appear in LXX. The first two appear to be present in 4Q Joshb, while room is available for “son of Nun” in v 4. Still, Nelson takes them for MT expansions. 4.a. LXX, many Heb. MSS, Tg. MS, and Vg. read the idiomatic “by the hand of Moses.” 5.a. LXX reads somewhat more smoothly: “Their portion fell: from Anassa and the plain of Label which is part of the land of Gilead, which is beyond the Jordan.” This omits all reference to Bashan, which may have been added because of its traditional ties with Gilead. 6.a. LXX reads “daughters of the sons of Manasseh,” making the genealogy of v 3 explicit. The LXX omission in v 3 necessitated this. LXX also then changes “his sons” to “their brothers.” 7.a. Margolis (Book of Joshua in Greek) speaks of deep- seated corruption here and does

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 108

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

109

not even attempt to restore part of the verse in LXX. LXX may be translated: “and the borders of the sons of Manasseh were Delanath, which is before the sons of Anath, and it goes up to the borders, to Jamin and Jassib to the fountain of Thaphthoth. 8It shall be Manasseh.” Noth, Soggin, Gray, Hertzberg, and Fritz see the LXX as correct in reading ‫ישׁבי‬, “inhabitants,” as the name of a town, “Yashib” (Nelson, “Yashub”). The Preliminary and Interim Report (2:42– 43) and Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:46) take the construction as a compound name of a town: “Yashib- en-tappuah.” Nelson points to Heb. metathesis of the final two letters. Restoration on the basis of such corruptions is extremely difficult. 9.a. Steuernagel describes the beginning and end of the verse as incapable of being understood, explaining the problem through a series of editorial glosses. LXX reads: “And the borders shall go down to the valley of Karana on the south over against the valley of Jariel. Tereminthos [= Terebinth or turpentine tree] belongs to Ephraim in the midst of a city of Manasseh. The borders of Manasseh on the north are unto the brook. And its limit is the Sea.” Nelson says any retroversions are uncertain and cannot be used to produce a preferable text. LXX shows that the tradition may have worked on the text to eliminate the name ‫אלה‬, “cultic tree.” Nelson “follows the grammatically awkward” MT. Fritz joins Noth in striking out “‫האלה‬, these.” 10.a. Fritz follows LXX in reading ‫והיה‬. 11.a. The text here gives us great difficulties, as Steuernagel pointed out. Fritz sees the last sentence as incapable of being understood, hardly original, and sounding too much like Naphath Dor. “The textual situation is too complicated to permit the definite recovery of an ‘original’ text” (Nelson). Nelson translates: “In Issachar and in Asher there belonged to Manasseh: Beth- shean and its daughter towns, Ibleam and its daughter towns, En- dor and its daughter towns, Taanach and its daughter towns, and Megiddo and its daughter towns. (The third one is Naphath).” He sees the last sentence as a gloss. Dor and “the population of” are secondary additions from Judg 1:27. OG read the last sentence as indicating the list had only three cities and so dropped the others. Fritz uses Syr. and Tg. to delete “En- Dor and its suburbs” as resulting from dittography. Auld says it is “grammatical nonsense . . . in all its versions” (VT 25 [1975] 280). LXX omits “Yibleam and its suburbs, with the inhabitants of Dor and its suburbs, and the inhabitants of Taanach and its suburbs,” then translates the final phrase, “the third part of Mapheta and its suburbs.” LXX adds “Taanach.” George Dahl (“The ‘Three Heights’ of Joshua 17:11,” JBL 53 [1934] 381– 83) suggested that the final phrase was a marginal note later incorporated into the text. The note sought to show that Dor, the third town in the list, should be read as Naphath Dor, distinguishing it from En- Dor. He noted that all other occurrences of Naphath are with Dor (Josh 11:2; 12:23; 1 Kgs 4:11). He argued that En- Dor was an even earlier attempt to identify precisely Dor since it does not appear in the parallel texts in Judg 1:27 and 1 Chr 7:29. The major modern commentaries and the Preliminary and Interim Report (2:43– 44) agree with Dahl, but the report retains the last sentence as the earliest attested text. Noth accepts this but sees “En Dor” as the original and “Dor” the first gloss. Howard (353– 54) says Dahl’s theory, followed by NIV, is defensible, making good sense, but a better suggestion, says Howard, is to interpret as “three-heights country” in relation to the last three cities. Auld (VT 25 [1975] 281) sees with Holmes (Joshua) the possibility of the LXX preserving the more original text with only three names and then suggests that a verse or two are missing from the text so that “two originally separate notes had become telescoped.” Tov (E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, DJD 14 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1995] 158– 59) shows that 4Q Joshb has the reference to En Dor before that to Yibleam. See van der Meer (Formation and Reformulation, 103– 5), who suggests the Qumran copyist was confused, reading ‫ נפת‬as a pl., thus “the three hill countries.” Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:47– 48) sees that in the original tradition behind Judg 1:27, Josh 17:11, and 1 Chr 7:29, the most primitive reading is a simple Dor. But in Josh 17:11 the original literary form is En- Dor. Dor has then entered the text from Judg 1:27, creating a doublet, which was then glossed by the last sentence referring to a trio of cities. 14.a. 4Q Joshb has ‫ אל‬before “Joshua” instead of ‫את‬, which appears in MT. 14.b. LXX made the suffix pl. in accord with the context. 14.c. LXX (cf. Vg.) gives no translation of the difficult Heb. ‫עד אשׁר עד כה‬, “up to this point” or possibly “to such an extent” (cf. Noth). Perles (Perles II, 6) suggested reading ‫ עד‬as an abbreviation of ‫עד דבר‬, “because of the fact that” (cf. Noth, Soggin, Hertzberg,

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 109

9/18/14 9:20 AM

110

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

BHS). 4Q Joshb has ‫עם רב אשׁר כה‬. Tov (E. Ulrich et al., Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, DJD 14 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1995] 159) suggests MT represents a doublet. Nelson keeps “obscure” MT. Fritz changes ‫ עד‬to ‫על‬, an action he sees most commentators taking (cf. NET notes). Howard (355) follows many modern translations in omitting ‫עד‬, “until,” to read “but I am a numerous people whom Yahweh has blessed until now.” NAB translates, “Our people are too many, because of the extent to which the Lord has blessed us.” ‫ אשׁר עד‬normally means “until” in a temporal or geographical sense. Here at first reading it appears to be temporal. ‫ עד כה‬is a virtual synonym. Either a copyist has combined two readings into one, or the distinction is temporal and quantative. This would lead to a translation as in the text above, reading the first phrase as temporal and the second as indicating the quantity of blessing. 15.a. The Heb. term ‫את‬ ָ ‫וּב ֵר‬ ֵ , “to create,” is the piʿel form rather than the normal qal and seems to indicate a technical meaning, “clearing ground.” See HALOT, DCH. 15.b. LXX omits “in the land of the Perizzites and the Rephaim,” which could be a later introduction of traditional terminology. Nelson says the reason for the MT expansion is unclear. Rudolph (Der ‘Elohist’), and Schmitt (Du sollst, 93) see “Rephaim” as dittography from “Mount Ephraim.” 15.c. The verb ‫ אוץ‬occurs eight times in the qal and twice in the hipʿil. Only here is the meaning “to be too narrow, restricted” suggested for it. Otherwise, it means “to urge, be urgent, be in a hurry.” Certainly, the Preliminary and Interim Report (2:45) is correct in rejecting NEB’s conjecture uniting the verb and the prepositional phrase into a single form, ‫אצלך‬, “beside you.” 16.a. LXX offers a text with somewhat different emphases: “They said, ‘The Mount Ephraim does not satisfy us. Choice horses and iron belong to the Canaanites, to the ones dwelling in it in Beth Shean and in its villages, and in the Valley of Jezreel.’” The explicit subject “sons of Joseph” is not repeated. The hill country becomes Mount Ephraim. “Among all” disappears, as does “in the land in the valley.” Nelson sees all as secondary except for explicit subject, which he views as MT expansion. Fritz focuses on “those in Beth- Shean and its suburbs and those in the Plain of Jezreel.” He sees them missing in LXX and to be explained as clarifying additions. 17.a. LXX is addressed “to the sons of Joseph” rather than to “the house of Joseph, to Ephraim and to Manasseh,” the latter possibly reflecting later specification by the tradition. Fritz calls this a gloss. Nelson sees MT expansion though noting possibility of Gk. haplography. LXX also makes the statement a conditional one by inserting “if ” at the beginning. 18.a. LXX harmonizes the text a little by reading “forest” for “hill country,” then omitting “its farthest limits.” Nelson sees MT preferable here. LXX then concludes: “You will be stronger than he in strength.” Nelson sees this as “more facile and thus presumably secondary.” Steuernagel sees a corrupt text to be explained by later insertions from vv 15– 16. Hertzberg simply accepts the final Gk. sentence as correct. Noth and Fritz follow R. Smend (Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht [Berlin: Reimer, 1912] 333) in inserting a negative into the text, “You cannot drive out the Canaanites.” Soggin and Knauf correctly deny this. Nelson calls it “methodologically indefensible.” The Preliminary and Interim Report (2:45– 46) also rejects such interpretive modifications. But Auld, working on Judg 1:19, which has the negative, is uncertain as to how to read our passage (VT 25 [1975] 273). 18.b. See Note 17:15.a.

Form/Structure/Setting The introductory formula of Josh 15:1 opens the section and takes up the theme of 13:6–7; 14:2. One may look for the conclusion of the section at several points. Josh 17:18 is the logical conclusion for two main reasons: (1) Josh 18:1 makes a definite break through geographical change; (2) conflict with the Canaanites concludes each of the subsections in chaps. 15–17, ending at 17:18, but not appearing in chaps. 18–19.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 110

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

111

Tradition The writer employs several types of traditional materials: Border descriptions (15:1–12; 16:1b–3, 5– 8; 17:7–10) List of Judean cities (15:21– 62) Caleb tradition (15:13–19) “Canaanites who remain” tradition (15:63; 16:10; 17:12–13, 15–16, 18) The Zelophehad tradition (17:3– 4) The Josephite expansion tradition (17:14–18) Each must be examined briefly to understand the types of materials at the writer’s disposal and how they were interpreted.

Table 15.1. Boundary Towns of Tribe of Judah with Cities of Tribe of Judah (15:1–63) Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

v 2 Scorpion Pass (Akrabbim)

Naqb es-Safa

v 3 KadeshBarnea

ʿAin el-Qudeirat

096006

Hezron (Addar)

ʿAin Qedeis

100999

Karka

ʿAin el Qoseimeh

089007 085010

Distance

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

S border of Judean territory SW of Dead Sea No

Azmn

ʿAin Muweilih

Brook of Egypt

Wadi el ʿArish

v 6 Beth Hoglah

Deir Hajlah

197136

4 mi. SE of Jericho

Beth Arabah

ʿAin elGharabeh

197139

3 mi. SE of Jericho; 3 mi. W of Jordan

v 7 Valley of Achor (7:24)

El-Buqeiʿah Valley

Debir

Khan et Hatrur

184136

Gilgal (18:17, not chaps. 1–12)

Araq ed-Deir

180133

Pass (Ascent) of Adummim

Talʿat edDamm/Maʿale ʿadummim

178132

The gorge (ravine; valley)

Wadi el-Havd

178133

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 111

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

60 mi. S of Gaza

Iron 1

Ezem Nahal Bezor

No

Wadi enNuwēʿime Thoghret ed Debr, 10 mi. E of Jerusalem

6 mi. SW of Jericho on road to Jerusalem

9/18/14 9:20 AM

112

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Waters of En-Shemesh

ʿAin el-Hod

175131

En-Rogel

Bir Ayyub/En Rogel

178130

Valley of Ben Hinnom v 8 Jerusalem Valley of Rephaim Waters of Nephtoah

Wadi erRababeh El-Quds/ʿIr Dawid

Distance 2 mi. E of Jerusalem 2150 ft. S of Gihon Spring at foot of E slope of City of David Outside walls of Jerusalem

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

Kidron/ Tyropoeon

172131

Wadi el-Ward

Baalah (Kiriath-Jearim; Baale of Judah)

Lifta/Me Neftoah El-Qastel/ Mevasseret Siyyon Tell el-Azhar/ Tell Qiryat Yeʿarim

v 10 Mount Seir

Saris/Soresh Beth-Meir

157134

Mount Jearim (Chesalon)

Kesla/Kesalon

154132

Beth Shemesh

Tell erRumeileh/Tell Bet Shemesh

147128

24 mi. W of Jerusalem

Timnah

Tell el-Batashi/ Tell Batash

141132

4 mi. NW of Beth Shemesh; 3.4 mi. E of Ekron

v 11 Ekron

Khirbet el-Muqannaʿ/ Tell Miqne

136131

21.7 mi. SW of Jerusalem

132137

3.7 mi. N and slightly W of Tel Miqne; 3.5 mi. NW of Ekron and 4.9 mi. SE of Jabneel NW of Ekron

Mount Ephron

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

168133

3 mi. NW of Jerusalem

165134

159135

Shikkeron

Tell el-Ful

Mount Baalah

El-Maghar

129138

Jabneel

Yebna/Tabe

126141/ 121147

v 21 Kabzeel

Khirbet Gharreh/Tell ʿIra

148071

Eder (Arad)

Tell ʿArad

162076

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 112

8 mi. W of Jerusalem 9 mi. W of Jerusalem on W slopes of Judean range 4.3 mi. W of Jersualem Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yavneh-yam

13 mi. NE of Beersheba

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Distance

Jagur

Khirbet el-Gharrah

148071

11 mi. E of Beersheba

113 Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

v 22 Kinah

Khirbert Gazze/Horvat ʿUza

165068/ 163081

4 mi. SW of Arad

Wadi el-Qeini, south of Hebron; Khirbet Taiyib 3.1 mi. NNE of Arad

Dimonah

Khirbert edh-Dheiba/ Khirbet Taiyib

164079/ 224101

2.2 mi. NE of Tell Arad

Dhiban

Adadah (Aroer?)

ʿArʿarah/ Khirbet Aroer

148062

12 mi. SE of Beersheba

v 23 Kedesh (Kedesh Barnea)

ʿAin el-Qudeirat

096006

Hazor (Hazor-ithnan)

el-Jebariyeh

No

Tell ʾEsdar

No 37 mi. SW of Beersheba

Imitnan, 13.4 mi. S of Beersheba

Ithnan v 24 Ziph

Khirbet ez-Zeife, 19 mi. S of Arad

Khirbet Kusefe

156048

v 25 Hazor Hadattah

el-Hudeiria

170086

7.1 mi. NE of Arad

Kerioth- Hezron (Hazor)

Khirbet Qaryatein/Tell Qeriyot

161083

5.3 mi. N of Arad

v 26 Amam

Bir el-Hamam/ Beʾer Nevatim

141070

Telem (Telaim) Bealoth (= Baalat-beer?)

Shema

Moladah

Khirbet el-Waten/ Khirbert Yitan

142074/ 152069

E of Beersheba

Khirbet el-Watan

137071

2.5 mi E of Beersheba

Khirbet Kuseifeh, 12 mi. E of Beersheba; Tel Malhata/Tell el-Milh, SE of Beersheba

v 27 HazarGaddah Heshmon Beth-Pelet v 28 Hazar Shual

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 113

9/18/14 9:20 AM

114

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Beersheba

Tell es-Sebaʿ/ Tell Beer Shevaʿ

134072/ 130072

Distance

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location Bir es-Seba/ ʿBeʾer Shevaʿ

Biziothiah (perhaps, the surrounding area or villages) v 29 Baalah (Balah; Bilhah)

Tulul elMedhbah

Iim

Deir el-Gawi

142086

12 mi. NE of Beersheba

Ezem

Uhm el-ʿzan

148051/ 140055

N of Beersheba

v 30 Eltolad

Khirbet Erqa Saqra

Chesil (Bethul)

Tell Umm Betin

Hormah

Khirbet el-Meshash/Tell Masos

Umm el-ʿAzam, 15 mi. SE of Beersheba

12.5 mi. SE of Beersheba 138076

E of Beersheba

146069/ 137087/ 152069/ 119088/ 148071

7 mi. E of Beersheba; 10 mi. NE of Beersheba; 7 mi. NE of Beersheba

Tell Khuweilfeh/ Tell Halif; Tell el-Milh; Tell eshSheriʿah, 12 mi. NW of Beersheba; Tel Ira

9 mi. NNW of Beersheba

Iron

Tell elKhuweilifeh, 10 mi. NNE of Beersheba; Tell es-Sebaʿ/Tell Beer Shevaʿ

Yes

Khirbet umm Demne

v 31 Ziklag

Tell eshShariaʿah/Tell Serʿ

119088/ 134072

Madmannah

Khirbet Tatrit

143084

Sansannah

Khirbet eshShamsaniyat

140083

9.6 mi. NW of Beersheba

Shilhim (Sharuhen)

Tell Farʿah (S)/ Tell Sharuhen

100076/ 093097

12.4 mi. SE of Gaza

Tell el-‘Ajul, 3.7 mi. SE of Gaza

ʿAin

Khirbet Dufna

209292/ 212236

24 mi. N of Sea of Galilee; 1.5 mi. W of Tel Dan

Khirbet Ayun, 2.5 mi. E of S tip of Sea of Galilee

Rimmon

Khirbet Khu-welifeh/ Tell Halif

137087/ 137086

v 32 Lebaoth (Beth-Biri; Beth-Lebaoth)

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 114

Horvat Rimmon/ Khirbet Umm er-Ramāmîm

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

115

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Distance

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

Eshtaol

Khirbet Deir Shubeib

148813/ 151132 (or 148134)

1.5 mi. E of Zorah and 13 mi. W of Jerusalem

Yes

Deir-Abu Qabus

Zorah

Sarʿah/Tell Zorʿa

148131

13 mi. W of Jerusalem; 1.9 mi. N of Beth Shemesh

Ashnah

Aslin

edge of coastal plain E of Azekah

Khirbet Zanu‘/ Khirbet Zanoah

on ridge S of the Sorek Valley 2 mi. S of Beth Shemesh

Khirbet Wadi Allin just SE of Beth Shemesh

Ramen

v 34 Zanoah

150125

Yes

ʿumm Giina, 1 mi. SW of Beth Shemesh; Khirbet UmmedhDhiyad

2 mi. S of Beth Shemesh

En Gannim

Beit Jemal

Tappuah

Beit Natif

Enam

Khirbet en-Nebi Bulus

v 35 Jarmuth

Khirbet el-Yarmuk/Tell Yarmut

147124

3 mi. SW of Beth Shemesh and 16 mi. SW of Jerusalem

Adullam

Khirbet esh-Sheikh Madhkur/ Khirbet ʿAdullam

150117

5 mi. S of Beth Shemesh

Socoh (Soco)

Khirbet ʿAbbad/Khirbet Sokho

147121

Azekah

Khirbet Tell Zakariyeh/Tell ʿAzeqa

144123

Khirbet al-ʾAlmi

145124

Khirbet esh-Sharia, 1 mi. NE of Azekah

v 36 Shaaraim

Wadi es-Sant

Adithaim

el-Hadîtheh site 2.5 mi. NNW of Yalo

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 115

149122

12 mi. W of Bethlehem

No

Khirbet Shumeila Adullam

No

Yes

2.5 mi. NNW of Yalo

9/18/14 9:20 AM

116

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Gederah (Gederothaim)

Khirbet Judraya

v 37 Zenan

ʾAraq el-Kharba

Map Reference

Distance

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location Tell Judeideh 1.2 mi. N of Beth-Gubrin; Khirbet Jedireh in Aijalon Valley, 10 mi. SE of Lod; Qatra

149121/ 141115/ 129136

Hadashah

Midgal-Gad

Khirbet el-Mejdeleh/ Khirbet Migdal Gad

140105

v 38 Dilean

Ras Dahinah (Dihna)

(143421)

Mizpah

Unknown

135123

Tell el-Duweir/ Tell Lachish

135108

Eglon

Tell ʿAitum/ Tell ʿEton

143100/ 124106

v 40 Cabbon

Tel Haraqim

133631

Lahmas (Lahmam)

Khirbet el-Lahm

140108

Chitlish

Khirbet el-Baqar

130061

v 41 Gederoth

Tel Milha

128760

Beth-Dagon

Khirbet Dajan

134156

Naamah

Khirbet Farad

Makkedah

Khirbet el-Qom

3.7 mi. SE of Lachish; 5 mi. S of Beit Jibrin

No

15 mi. W of Hebron

Yes

Joktheel (Jekuthiel) v 39 Lachish Bozkath Yes

Tell el-Hesi Machbenah

2.8 mi. S of Beit Jibrin

5.6 mi. SE of Jaffa 22 mi. W of Jerusalem

146104

6 mi. E of Lachish; 6 mi. W of Hebron

Khirbet Beit Maqdumʾ; Tell es-Safi Tell es-Safi/Tel Zayit, 16.8 mi. E of Ashkelon; Tell elJudeideh, 6 mi. NE of Lachish; Khirbet Tell el-Beida

v 42 Libnah

Tell Bornat/ Tell Burna

138115/ 135123/ 141115/ 145116

5 mi. NE of Lachish

Ether

Khirbet el ʿAter/Tell ʿEter

138113

4 mi. NE of Lachish; .9 mi. W of Beit Jibrin

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 116

Yes

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Ashan (Bor Ashan)

Tell Beit Mirsim/Tell Bet Mirsham

15:43 Iphtah

Terqumiyeh

144114

Ashnah

Idna

148107

Nezib

Khirbet Beit Nesib eshSharqiyeh

150110

v 44 Keilah

Khirbet Qila

150113

Achzib Mareshah (Marisa)

Khirbet Tell el-Beida/ Khirbet Lavnin Tell Sandahannah/Tell Maresha

Map Reference

Distance

6.2 mi. NW of Hebron; 6.8 mi. SE of Beit Jibrin 6 mi. E of Lachish; 8 mi. NW of Hebron 2 mi. from Khirbet Qila (Keilah); 9.3 mi. E of Lachish; 7.5 mi. NW of Hebron 15.5 mi. SW of Jerusalem; 8.5 mi. NW of Hebron

145116

3 mi. W of Adullam

140111

1.2 mi. S of Beit Govrin; 18.6 mi. SE of Ashkelon

117 Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location Khirbet Asan, 5 mi. NW of Beersheba

No

Atar Nehusha

Edom Kezib (Achzib) Bathesar Ailon

v 45 Ekron

Khirbet el-Muqannaʿ/ Tel Miqne

136131

v 46 Ashdod

Esdud/Tel Ashdod

117129

v 47 Gaza

Ghazzeh

099101/ 100100

Wadi of Egypt

Wadi el ʿArish

v 48 Shamir

Khirbet es-Sumara

Jattir

Khirbet ʿAttir/ Khirbet Yatir

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 117

14 mi. from Mediterranean; 10 mi. from Ashdod; 35 mi. SW of Jerusalem 10 mi. N of Ashkelon; 2.5 mi. from Mediterranean 3 mi. from Mediterranean

Yes

Yes

Yes

Tell Harube/ Tell ʿAzza el-Bireh; Khirbet Raddana

143092 143093/ 170.147

12 mi. WSW of Hebron

No

151084

13 mi. SW of Hebron; 4.3 mi. SW of es-Samuʿ; 9.3 mi. SE of Tell Beit Mirsim

No

9/18/14 9:20 AM

118

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Distance

Socoh (Soco)

Khirbet Shuweikeh

150090

10 mi. SW of Hebron

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

Yes

Tell Beit Mirsim, 13 mi. SW of Hebron; Khirbet Tarrameh, 5 mi. SW of Hebron

v 49 Dannah

Kiriath- Sannah (Debir; Kiriath-Sepher)

Khirbet Rabud

151093

v 50 Anab

Khirbet ʿAnab es-Seghireh/Tel Rekhesh

145091

Eshtemoh (Eshtemoa)

Es-Samuʿ

156089

Anim v 51 Goshen

Khirbet Ghuwein et-Tahta Tell Khuweillifa/ Tel Halif

Holon (Hilen)

Khirbet ʿAlin

Giloh

Khirbet Jala

v 52 Arab Dumah (Rumah) Eshan

Beni Naʿim

Beth-Tappuah

Taffuh

Khirbet Marajim

3 mi. W of Debir; 5 mi. SW of Hebron 8.5 mi. SSW of Hebron; 14 mi. NE of Beersheba 12.5 mi. S of Hebron; 2.5 mi. S of Eshtemoh

Yes

Yes

137087 152118

Khirbet er-Rabiyeh Khirbet ed-Deir Domeh Khirbet Hallat Samaʿa

v 53 Janin

Aphekah (Aphek, Aphik)

156084

7.5 mi. SSW of Hebron

153093 148093

154105

10 mi. NW of Hebron 5 mi. NNW of Hebron 1.9 mi. SW of Hebron 9 mi. SW of Hebron 10.5 mi. SW of Hebron 4 mi. E of Hebron 3.5 mi. WNW of Hebron

152099/ 155098/ 157102

Yes

Khirbet el Hadab 4.3 mi. SW of Hebron; Khirbet Kanan 3 km SW of Hebron

v 54 Humtah

Kiriath-Arba (Hebron)

Tell erRumeideh

160104/ 160103

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 118

19 mi. SSE of Jerusalem; 23 mi. NE of Beersheba; 15 mi. W of Dead Sea

El-khalil

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Distance

v 55 Maon

Khirbet Maʿin/ Horvat Maon

162090

8.7 mi. N of Arad; 8 mi. SSE of Hebron

Carmel

Khirbet el-Kirmil

162092

8 mi. SE of Hebron

Ziph

Tell Zif

162098

3 mi. SSE of Hebron

Juttah

Yatta

158095

5.6 mi. SW of Hebron; 3.1 mi. SW of Ziph

Jokdeam

Khirbet er-Raqqaʿ

160096

4 mi. S of Hebron

Zanoah

Khirbet Beit Amra

155095

1.2 mi. W of Juttah

v 57 Kain

En-Nebi Yaqin

164100

6 mi. SE of Hebron

Gibeah

el-Jebaʿ

Passage/City

119 Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

Zior

No

v 56 Jezreel

No

Wadi Abu Zennakh

7.5 mi. SW of Bethlehem

Timnah v 58 Halhul

Halhul

160109

4 mi. N of Hebron

Beth Zur

Khirbet et-Tubeiqeh

159110

20 mi. SW of Jerusalem; 4 mi. N of Hebron

Gedor

Khirbet Jedur

158115

3 mi. north of Hebron

v 59 Maarath

Khirbet Qufin

160114

2 mi. N of Beth-zur; 6.5 mi. N of Hebron

Beth-Anoth

Khirbet Beit ʿAnun

162107

1.5 mi. SE of Halhul; 3 mi. NNE of Hebron

Eltekon

Khirbet ed-Deir

160122

5 mi. WSW of Bethlehem

v 59 Theko

Khirbet Tequʿ

Ephratha (Bethlehem)

Beit Lahm

Phagor (Peor)

Khirbet Fagur

Aitam

Khirbet Wadi el-Hoh

169123

Koulon Tatami Sores

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 119

9/18/14 9:20 AM

120

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Karem

ʿEn Karim

Map Reference

Distance

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

SW of Jerusalem

Gallim Baither

Khirbet el-Yehud

Manocho v 60 KiriathBaal (KiriathJearim)

Deir el-ʿAzar/ Tell Qiryat Yeʿarim

159135/ 161133

v 61 Beth- Arabah

Khirbet Hamideh/ Khirbet Bir el-Hilu ʿAin elGharabeh

Middin

Khirbet Mazin

193120/ 188127

Secacah

Khirbet Qumran

194128/ 187125

v 62 Nibshan

Ein el-Ghuweir

189115/ 186123

City of Salt (Ir-Hamelach)

Ein el-Turaba

189113/ 184052/ 193127

En Gedi

ʿAin Jidi (Tell Jurn)/En Gedi (Goren)

187097

Rabbah

Soba (=Baalah); Tell el-Achar, 8 mi. N of Jerusalem; Abu Gosh 9 mi. N of Jerusalem

149137

7.5 mi. Kiriath-Jearim

197139

3 mi. SE of Jericho

Tell Muhalhil Khirbet Abu Tabaq Khirbet Abu Tabaq; Khirbet es-Samrah, 4.3 mi. SW of Khirbet Qumran Khirbet el-Maqari, 5.6 mi. SW of Khirbet Qumran; 10.5 mi. SE of Jerusalem Masad Gozal; Khirbet Qumran; Ain el-Ghuweir

28 mi. S of Jericho

Behind all these traditions stands Israel’s self- conscious identity as a group of twelve tribes that reaches back to “its earliest historical memories.”286 Israel’s tribal make- up was “established before the emergence of the monarchy”287 (see “Studies on Tribal Society” in Introduction vol 7a). Hess suggests that there were 7500 members in a tribe that was organized and functioned as an extended family, 286 Hess, DOTHB, 967. 287 Nelson, NIDB, 5:669.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 120

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

121

though Nelson sees “no evidence for any sort of institutional structure on the tribal level.” Such a viewpoint ignores Joshua’s references to tribal leaders and elders and the fact that tribal membership gave Isael’s tribes the important “ability to assert frontiers and land claims . . . in the face of foreign incursions” (cf. Judges). Tribal identity proved to be a strong force in times of defeat and loss of land. Nelson offers this: “secondary associations of kinship-based endogamous ‘clans’ into larger social organizations intended to meet challenges that transcended the purely local, such as the need to defend territory.”288 Land possession marked Israel as the recipient of God’s covenant obligated to maintain covenant standards or lose the land. Each tribe of Israel received its explicitly marked parcel of land. Nelson describes three different “verbal maps” of Israel’s tribal territory.289 In one, derived from imperial Egypt, the eastern boundary is the Jordan River so that crossing the Jordan (Josh 3– 4) means entering the land (see Num 34:1–2; Josh 22). The second map reaches the utopian limits of the Mediterranean to the Euphrates (Gen 15:18; Exod 23:31; Deut 1:7; 11:24; Josh 1:4) and is related to the Babylonian and Persian province called “beyond the River.” Josh 13– 19 offers a third template closer to historical and geographical reality, which covers every piece of land and is taken up in Solomon’s redistricting (1 Kgs 4:7–19). (1) The border descriptions are apparently the oldest materials used. Hess traces boundary lists to before 1000 BCE, while conceding that the present biblical lists represent historical growth as land changed hands.290 Coote notes that the listing of a town in one tribe’s list when the town’s geographical location placed it in the jurisdiction of another tribe shows that “traditional jurisdictions had to be honored” even when the boundaries were partly artificial.291 The same tradition is used to prepare the southern border in Josh 15:1– 4 as was used in Num 34:3– 5, where it serves for all Israel. The function of a southern border is not clear from a political standpoint since it is not clear over against whom such borders would be established or what function they would serve. Knauf argues that borders are fiction because they constantly fluctuate, particularly under such a tribal society.292 Nelson describes the function of boundaries as to “delineate between administrative units or tribal claims. They are intended to foster good relations and reduce tensions.”293 I would add that such functions fit a society built on loosely aligned tribal groups. Still, Nelson notes the difference between the boundaries of Judah and the cities of Judah and suggests that “‘Boundary Judah’ represents traditional tribal concerns, but it probably does not represent any genuine historical situation.”294 Nelson shows how these boundaries would have to predate Solomon’s (1 Kgs 4:7– 19) but then finds them to be a “learned scribal enterprise.” For Nelson, the city lists present a different situation, representing “an actual administrative situation,” that comes from the reign of Josiah.295 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295

Ibid., 5:668– 69. Nelson, 668. Hess, DOTHB, 968. Coote, 681. Knauf, 150. Nelson, 185. Ibid. Ibid., 186.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 121

9/18/14 9:20 AM

122

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

The southern border may be fashioned simply to parallel the important northern border,296 while the eastern Judean border is simply a natural lake. This crucial border is the northern dividing line, which occupies the majority of the space in the text and is the most detailed. The next list is the southern border of the sons of Joseph (Josh 16:1–3), again a vital tradition for Benjamin, for which it serves as the northern border (cf. Josh 18:12–13). E. Otto agrees with Schunck and Täubler that Josh 16:1– 3 represents tradition after the division of the monarchy.297 The other extensive list is the eastern border of Ephraim and the Jordan, which is usually claimed for Manasseh. It is not impossible that Benjamin also laid claim to this territory. (2) The city lists show by their combination of two structural systems that they have been used in varied situations within their history. Nelson sees an ideological purpose rather than an administrative description, suggesting that the lists may go back to a pre- Israelite conception of Canaan, one most probably of Egyptian origin.298 (3) The Caleb tradition links to the spy tradition behind Num 13. (4) The tradition of the Canaanites who remain represents a countertradition to the battle reports of chaps. 6–11. Its inclusion points forward to the problems created in the book of Judges. (5) The Zelophehad tradition (17:3– 4) has its roots in Num 27:1–7. (6) Finally, the Josephite expansion tradition must rest on ancient tradition. It deals with precisely the part of the land that proved most troublesome for Israel to conquer, namely, the city of Beth Shean and the Valley of Jezreel. It represents the problem of tribes conquering individual territory, a problem that the writer of Joshua would not have invented. The narrative is told in the dialogue style so common to ancient Israelite narrative. The origin of the traditions behind the lists and small narratives of this section is not necessarily the same as the present written text. Knauf points to missing city lists for Ephraim and Manasseh and attributes this phenomenon to anti- Samaritan intrusions into the text.299 As Hess points out, scholars (including Alt, Na’aman, and Knauf) point to features of the present text that may reflect the late monarchy (and possibly even later), but these features “demonstrate their continued use but do not establish the origins of these texts,” especially as administrative documents.300 This would explain the addition of cities that archaeologists would have singled out as not yet established during the tribal period of Israel’s existence in the land. The division into twelve units reflects the administrative system of the monarchy,301 while the divisions into four areas may well have military functions.302 Such political subdivisions were naturally altered through the generations to fit new historical circumstances. 296 297 298 299 300 301 302

Cf. Y. Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 233; C. H. J. de Geus, Tribes of Israel, 80. Jakob in Sichem, 233. Nelson, 187; cf. Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 69–77; Na’aman, Borders and Districts, 62– 65. Knauf, 169. Hess (1996) 249. Alt, “The Formation of the Israelite State in Palestine,” 173–237. Yadin, “Megiddo.” EAEHL, 3:830– 56.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 122

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

123

The biblical writer saw these political changes in an entirely new light, as the divine work in bringing all the cities of Judah under the control of Israel. God gave not only the land, not only the tribal areas, but each of the cities to his people. Political leaders may administer the land under their political systems, but the ultimate destiny of the land and its cities remained in the hands of Yahweh, the God who gave the land to his people. What is remarkable here is the fact that Jerusalem is not given Judah. This may be explained (1) as arising from the continued Jebusite occupation prior to David’s conquest of the city; (2) as reflecting the Judean administrative procedure whereby Jerusalem is mentioned separately from Judah and is the “city of David,” that is, under the king’s personal control; (3) or as representing a Benjaminite claim to the city, perhaps based on the tradition of the war with the king of Jerusalem (cf. chap. 10; Judg 1:21). The third alternative would join it to the other elements of tradition within the book of Joshua, which reflect an early polemic between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Pitkänen points out that “Judah might already have had special significance at the beginning of the allotment process, even before they became particularly prominent and obtained kingship in the time of David.”303 The tradition of the Canaanites who remain has usually been assumed to have its original place in Judg 1, from which it has been borrowed for use in Joshua. Auld argues for the priority of the Joshua narratives.304 The notices are carefully placed in our section at the end of units to give theological interpretation to the units. Thus they are not in an original Sitz im Leben but are part of a carefully constructed literary context. The duplicates in Judges are also not in an original literary context. Judg 1:1–21 is a Judean tradition showing the powerful occupation of the tribe of Judah, even against Jerusalem. It does note, however, that Judah could (LXX) not drive out the Canaanites, who were too strongly armed. The final verse deals with the reality that Jerusalem was not occupied until the time of David, and does so by blaming not the Judeans but the Benjaminites. The connection of Benjamin with Jerusalem can belong only to the early premonarchical tradition. Josh 15:63, then, reflects the later tradition or a different perspective on Judah not occupying Jerusalem.305 Rake points out that Josh 15:63 places Jerusalem in Judah’s territory over against 15:8; 18:16, 28, which place it under Benjamin. For her, Judg 1:21 represents a slick inversion of Josh 15:63.306 Rake continues that a passage’s power to convince a reader is relatively weak when it incorporates something new both in its point and in its presuppositions. For Rake, Josh 15:63 represents preparation for 2 Sam 5. Mitchell modifies this view in light of Judg 1:21, 27, where “could” (‫)יכל‬

303 Pitkänen. 298. 304 VT 25 (1975) 261– 85. Cf. C. H. J. de Geus, Tribes of Israel, 82– 83, 85– 86; Younger, “The Configuring of Judicial Preliminaries: Judges 1:1–2:5, and its dependence on the book of Joshua”; see JSOT 68 [1995] 75– 92; Butler, Judges, WBC 8 (Nashville: Nelson, 2009) 9– 34, 500– 501; the textual notes to Judg 1 show that Judges knew at least some form of the material in Joshua and added notes for clarity while telling the story for its own purposes. It may well be that Joshua represents a northern version of the materials while Judges represents a southern rendition. 305 Cf. S. Tengstrom, Die Hexateucherzählung, 77–78. 306 Rake, ‘Juda wird aufsteigen!’ 36– 37.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 123

9/18/14 9:20 AM

124

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

does not appear: “Joshua speaks of an inability to conquer, while Judges suggests an unwillingness to do so, and in this way emphasizes Israel’s sin.”307 In the second half of Judges 1, the reader turns to the northern tribes and begins on the positive note that Yahweh was with them and gave them victory (Judg 1: 22).308 This positive possibility is used, however, only as a contrast for the response of the northern tribes. All that can be said about the rest of the north is that they failed to do what God told them to do. Joshua evinces some interpretations of the northern material. The strict form of the Ephraim notice (Judg 1:29) has been adapted to the Joshua context (Josh 16:10), and the etiological formula added, to underline the point that the action had relevance for a later day. The significance of the addition of the forced-labor formula, uniquely absent from Ephraim in Judg 1, is not clear. The Manasseh reference is modified at one small but significant point. Josh 17:12 notes that Manasseh was not able to drive out the inhabitants, whereas Judg 1:27 says simply that they did not. Here we appear to have a northern interpretation of the tradition, just as there appears to be a southern interpretation in Judg 1:19. For Joshua, the inhabitants of Manasseh are simply part of the remaining peoples whom God is promising to drive out (Josh 13:6). For Judges, the Canaanites there represent the sin of Manasseh. This anti-Manasseh interpretation is shown conclusively in the final notice in Josh 17:18. The concluding narrative in Josh 17:14–18 shows definitely that the theme of the remaining Canaanites has been the central point for the writer of this section. Only here does the writer take up the problem of the strength of the Canaanites, a theme introduced in Judg 1 concerning the Judeans (1:19). Joshua 17:18, however, includes no mention of Israel not conquering. Rather, the narrative is told to promise that Israel will conquer the Canaanites (v 18). The theme of the Canaanites who remain is thus taken by the writer of Judg 1 from its original literary setting in Josh 15–17 to give a theological promise to the people of God. Both Judg 1 and Josh 15–17 may represent earlier collections of material, the one from Judah, the other from the circle of Joseph- EphraimBenjamin, using common tradition in polemics against one another. The biblical author has taken up the old materials and used them in two places to demonstrate the truth that God had revealed to him within the old traditions. In this section, then, as throughout the book, we find the biblical author taking up old traditions that have been meaningful in the life of the people for generations and using them to teach the word of God to readers in his day.

Source and Redaction The long lists in Joshua reflect scribal compositional genius, according to Nelson, but he accepts the traditional “inherited, historically valuable data” at the scribes’ disposal.309 Fritz sets off Josh 15:1b, 13–19, 21a, 45– 47, 60; 16:10; 17:11– 13, 15–16, 18b as Deuteronomistic additions and 17:2b– 6 as post- Priestly additions 307 Mitchell, Together in the Land, 155– 56. Cf. Butler, Judges, WBC 8 (Nashville: Nelson, 2009) 9–18. 308 Cf. the attempt to date the Judg 1 list under Solomon by T. N. D. Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials, 116, n. 24a 309 Nelson, NIDB, 5:669.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 124

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

125

based on Num 26:30–32.310 This sets up the Caleb narrative (13:15–19) as a distinct tradition inserted by the Deuteronomistic editor with Josh 14 as a redactional supplement. Fritz finds 15:45– 47 to be a late addition on the basis of style and content.311 The notices about unconquered cities (15:63; 16:10; 17:12–13) are most likely later redactional insertions. Knauf finds that the sequence of wayiqtol followed by weqatal clauses is not classic Hebrew syntax so that a pre–Persian Period dating is excluded. This means that for Knauf, the lists from Num 34 originated at a scribe’s desk.312 Seebass decides that the book of Joshua has no relationship to Numbers but is much more closely tied to Deuteronomic materials with a few priestly sprinklings.313 The Philistine territory— Gath, Ekron, Ashdod, Gaza, Ashkelon— is the most debated area. Knauf sets it aside as outside historical reality. Tappy argues that the Philistine list came from Sargon II and Sennacherib transferring outlying Philistine towns from Judah to the Philistines.314 Apparently Hezekiah managed to control Gath shortly before 700 BCE (2 Kgs 18:8), and the town disappears from the Bible and from Mesopotamian records. Between 720 and 712 BCE, Assyria gained control of Philistia. On Sennacherib’s ascension, Hezekiah joined Ekron and a weak Gath along with some Egyptian support in rebellion against Assyria. Ashdod and Gaza remained loyal to Assyria. Tappy points out that Sennacherib took the same order of march as represented in Judah’s districts in Josh 15: north district 2 (vv 33–36) to south district 3 (vv 37– 41) to central district 4 (vv 42– 44).315 He captured Judean towns and gave them to the Philistine towns listed in vv 45– 47— Ashdod, Ekron, and Gaza. Thus Tappy concludes that “both the annals of Sennacherib and vv 45– 47 in Joshua xv relate to smaller towns in the Shephelah (and along the coast) that likely shifted allegiance more than once in the political vicissitudes between Judah and Philistia,” and he refers to the Philistine additions as being part of a revised version of a tenth- century administrative list.316 Hess provides the best explanation of the inclusion of towns ruled by Judah or Israel decades or even centuries after Joshua. These lists were not archived documents. Rather they remained in use. The development of the town lists from family allotments to administrative documents . . . does not preclude the possible change in family locations, especially in the later periods of the monarchy. . . . [T]here is no question as to the development and specification of their texts as new towns emerged.317 This reminds us that the biblical text as we have it was not the product of a single moment of composition, but was a living document that constantly served developing purposes under changing conditions. The texts were not just the subject of literary redaction as seen in textual studies. They were subject to ongoing 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317

Fritz, 154– 56, 168–70. Ibid., 166. Cf. Rake, ‘Judah wird aufsteigen!’ Knauf, 141– 42. “Das Buch Josua . . .” VT 58 (2008) 383. Ibid., 393– 94. Ibid., 387, 402. Hess (1996) 248– 49.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 125

9/18/14 9:20 AM

126

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

updates as the life situation of Israel changed from being invading settlers to tribal league to united monarchy to divided monarchy and as the population and political changes brought new territories and new houses into the people Israel. Josh 15–19 is built on original tribal allotments which we have no reason to not attribute to Joshua. Government “agencies” took up the land-possession documents and incorporated them into the political system of Judah and probably of Israel. Political expansion or military defeat led to repeated updating of such lists until the ultimate editor incorporated the lists into the book of Joshua.

Form The major forms of Josh 15–17 are boundary lists, summary statements, city lists, and exception markers. Winther- Nielsen shows that the major structures within chaps. 15–17 are clear.318 The major sections begin with “The lot belonged to . . .” (15:1; 16:1; 17:1) and end with references to the previous inhabitants and their relationship to Israel, using the key word “dispossess.” Each subsection has its own structures: I. Lot of Judah (chap. 15) A. Borders of Judah (vv 1–12) 1. Southern border (vv 1b– 4) 2. Eastern border (v 5a) 3. Northern border (vv 5b–11) 4. Western border (v 12) B. Exception: Calebites in Hebron, Debir, and the Negev (vv 13–19) C. Summary (v 20) D. List of Judah’s cities (vv 21– 62) 1. On the southern border of Edom (vv 21b–32) a. Twenty-nine cities (vv 21b–32) 2. In the shephelah (vv 33– 44) a. Fourteen cities (vv 33–36) b. Sixteen cities (vv 37– 41) c. Nine cities (vv 42– 44) d. (no summary) 3. [Philistine] territory (vv 45– 47) 4. In the hill country (vv 48– 60) a. Eleven cities (vv 48– 51) b. Nine cities (vv 52– 54) c. Ten cities (vv 55– 57, LXX nine) d. Six cities (vv 58– 59) e. Eleven cities (v 59a, LXX only) f. Two cities (v 60) 4. In the wilderness (vv 61– 62) a. Six cities (vv 61– 62) E. Jebusites remain with Judah in Jerusalem (v 63) II. Lot of the sons of Joseph (chap. 16) 318 Functional Discourse Grammar, 256 with n. 44.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 126

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

127

A. Southern boundary (vv 1b–3) B. Inheritance of Manasseh and Ephraim (vv 4–10) 1. Borders of Ephraim (vv 4– 9) a. Southern border (vv 5b– 6aα) b. Eastern (?) border (vv 6aβb–7) c. Northern border (v 8) d. Summary conclusion (v 8b) e. Exception: (1) Ephraimite cities in Manasseh (v 9) (2) Canaanites remain with Ephraim in Gezer (v 10) III. Lot of the tribe of Manasseh (17:1–13) A. Exception: Machir, the firstborn, has Gilead and Bashan, east of the Jordan (v 1b) B. That which belongs to the remaining sons of Manasseh (vv 2–11) 1. Remaining sons of Manasseh (v 2) 2. Fulfilling the promise to the daughters of Zelophehad (vv 3– 4) 3. Summary (vv 5– 6) 4. Borders of Manasseh (vv 7–11) a. Southern border (v 7; cf. 16:6– 8) b. Exception: Ephraimite city in Manasseh (v 8) c. Southern border continued (v 9aα) d. Exception: Ephraimite cities in Manasseh (v 9aβba) e. Western border (v 9bβ) f. Summary distinction (v 10a) g. Northern border (v 10bα) h. Eastern border (v 10bβ) i. Exceptions: Manassite cities in Issachar and in Asher (v 11) C. Canaanites remain in Manasseh (vv 12–13) IV. Narrative epilogue as theological conclusion (17:14–18) It is difficult to describe the narrative structure of the Caleb narrative because the introduction (15:13) is only a link, resuming the narrative from 14:15. V 14 may be the original opening of the narrative where the same story is repeated, with a few insignificant variations, in Judg 1:11–15. Beltz maintains that v 14 is a good continuation of 14:13, the original conclusion of that segment of the Caleb narrative.319 Whatever the original introduction and context, vv 15–19 provide a wellformed narrative based on oral foundations. The setting is given in the somewhat foolhardy challenge of Caleb (v 16) in which he promises his daughter to whatever brave soul would conquer the city. The challenge is taken up and carried out by Othniel, leading to the climactic dialogue (vv 18–19). Here, surprisingly, Othniel is a silent onlooker. The new bride does all the talking. She uses her feminine charms to gain his acceptance to her proposition. Then she goes back to her father with the proposition. The father knows his daughter. At first sight, he can tell something is up and so immediately asks what is troubling her. She does not try to turn on the feminine charm with her father. Rather, she returns to the child’s role: “Give me, 319 Kaleb-Traditionen, 36.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 127

9/18/14 9:20 AM

128

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

daddy, give me. I’ve been cheated, daddy. It’s not fair.” Immediately, her father gives in, complying with the request of his daughter. Harris confesses: “Fathers always have difficulty saying no to daughters.”320 This has usually been understood as an etiological narrative even though the traditional etiological formula, “unto this day,” does not appear. Certainly it functions so in the present context, but its original context is not etiological. Coote studies the meanings for the mysterious Hebrew terms in v 18 often translated “dismount” or “get off” and “springs of water,” and suggests the possibility of translating them as terms for diarrhea and excrement, so that the story becomes a scatological pun or etiology. Beltz concludes that the story is a Calebite tribal tradition that seeks to represent Caleb as a sovereign nomadic prince who conquers his own territory of Hebron and then cleverly strengthens his own position by concluding a marriage agreement with economic advantages.321 This is not the tone of the story, however. Caleb does not set out to find the best possible marriage contract. Rather, he invites any rascal off the street to have his daughter if he can win one battle. Then his daughter continues her spoiled ways to gain economic advantages for herself over against her father. Certainly the tribe of Caleb could have found a better way to make a hero out of their nomadic prince. The story begins as a basic allotment narrative in which Joshua gives land to Caleb as God commanded. The narrative becomes a battle report as Caleb fights to gain the allotment. The battle report then sets up, as an example, narrative to be repeated by the other tribes seeking land. This might apply more specifically to the Joseph tribes and their later complaint for new allotments (17:14–18). Suddenly, the battle report changes to a military contest story with the assignment: defeat Debir (Kiriath- Sepher) and gain Caleb’s daughter Achsah. The awarding of the prize seems to conclude the story, but it has a surprise extension. Achsah manipulates husband and father to gain an addition to her dowry.322 Finally, this story, of gaining control of an allotment through military means which has been transformed into one of a daughter manipulating her father, is summarized as part of the allotment for the tribe of Judah. This final transformation incorporates the battle report and family story of Caleb the Kenizzite into the tribe of Judah, showing the expansion of this southern tribe. Certainly the tradition has been taken up in Scripture and used to show how God was working to provide land for his faithful servant, bringing blessing to his people. The daughters- of-Zelophehad narrative rests on the tradition behind Num 27:1–11, a narrative that illustrates case law. The Joshua narrative illustrates Joshua’s faithfulness in carrying out the word of Yahweh delivered through Moses and gives authority to the land claims of the tribe of Manasseh. The narrative is a simple request- and-fulfillment narrative extended by the editor’s explanation of the narrative’s relationship to the land- allotment context. The concluding complaint story featuring the “sons of Joseph” is presented fully in dialogue. It stands in some opposition to the Caleb narratives at the beginning 320 Ibid., 89. 321 Kaleb-Traditionen. 322 Cf. McConville and Williams, 68.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 128

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

129

of chap. 15 and the daughters- of-Zelophehad narrative in 17:3– 6. Both Caleb and the daughters were willing to stand up for their rights and, in the case of Caleb even fight. Joseph’s descendants simply ask for more, unwilling to fight for what was allotted them. Joshua ironically turns their demand back on them by saying if they are so blessed, then get to work. The Joseph tribe shows fear rather than faith. Caleb did away with the Anakim. Joseph’s two tribes fear to fight the Canaanites, but the Joseph tribes have to accept Joshua’s ruling to clear out another allotment from the forests and gain their own allotment by trusting God in the fight against the Canaanites.

Structure Joshua has not preserved a true narrative structure. Rather, it represents a literary creation, using the information from Num 27 to demonstrate the faithful obedience of Joshua to the commandments of Moses, the theme that we have seen to be dominant in the book. Also “the story ends on a rather ambiguous note; Joshua gives them reassurance that they can do it— but will they?”323

Setting Coote presents critical scholarship’s understanding of the text by seeing a Josianic or Hezekian setting for the lists because the lists represent twelve Judean administrative districts that are “partly ideals, if not utopian.”324 The inclusion of Philistine towns never controlled by Israel proves the Judean town list to be as much a “wish list” as an administrative list. Pressler finds the Judah of the boundary lists in vv 1–12 smaller than the Judah of the city lists in vv 20– 65, with the boundary lists still being idealized.325 But is it possible that a government unit was set up to administer territory that remained outside Judean military control but within civil operations? Hess argues for a twelfth- century setting for these materials.326 The setting of the lists appears to be some type of administrative document involving the tribes. They are obviously larger than family or clan documents, demonstrated in the fact that Caleb is allotted districts beyond his center in Hebron.327 The setting of the boundary lists may well be tribal disputes centering in Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh, the very centers of the narratives of chaps. 1–12, and the center of the kingdom of Saul, the Benjaminite, and his son (cf. 1 Sam 7:15–17; 2 Sam 2:8– 9). The setting also may have been within larger groups, such as the six northern tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin, Zebulon, Asher, and Naphtali.328 Such material could well have been preserved in the Benjaminite sanctuary of Gilgal, along with the other materials that make up Josh 1–11. As such, it was gradually removed from its political usage and became part of the religious tradition of the people, showing how Yahweh, not the political process, had given 323 324 325 326 327 328

Earl, 174. Coote, 677. Pressler, 94. Hess (1996) 261 with n. 1. Ibid., 248. Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 233.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 129

9/18/14 9:20 AM

130

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

the land to the tribes of Israel.329 E. Otto maintains that the disputes centered in Ephraim and Manasseh.330

Table 15.2. Joshua 15–17 Form and Narrative Elements Narrative: Tribal boundaries Element

Passage

Genre: Interpreted boundary list

Marker

Element

Passage

Marker

Exposition (pf. or disjunctive)

15:1a

None (impf. consec.)

Boundary lists

15:1–12

The lot for the tribe was

Southern border (cf. 16:1)

vv 1b–5

Apposition:

Property allotment

v 13

He gave (cf. Josh 1:2–3, 6, 11, 13–15; 2:9, 12, 14, 24; 5:6; 6:2, 16, 24; 7:7, 19; 8:1, 7, 18; 9:24, 27; 10:8, 12, 19, 30, 32; 11:6, 8, 23; 12:6–7; 13:8, 14–15, 24, 29, 33; 14:3–4, 12–13; 15:13, 16–17, 19; 17:4, 13–14; 18:3, 7; 19:49–50; 20:2, 4, 8; 21:2–3, 8–9, 11–13, 21, 43–44; 22:4, 7, 25; 23:13, 15–16; 24:3–4, 8, 11, 13, 33)

East, north, and west border lists

vv 6–12a

Disjunctive clauses

Battle report

vv 14–15

Caleb drove out

Judah summary

v 12b

Disjunctive clause: apposition clause

Military contest with battle report

vv 16–17

I will give my daughter

Manipulation narrative

vv 18–19

Give me a blessing

City lists by districts

vv 20–62

These were the cities

Failure report

v 63

Judah could not

‫זֶ ה־יִ ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם גְּ בוּל‬ ‫נֶ גֶ ב‬

Exposition (pf. or disjunctive)

v 13

Disjunctive

Joseph’s boundary list

16:1–4

The lot went out to

Complication (impf. consec.)

vv 14–15

Impf. consec.

Ephraim’s border lists

vv 5–8

The territory was

Change or crisis (speech or dialogue)

v 16

Speech

Exceptions

v9

Cities set apart

Resolution (impf. consec.)

v 17a

Impf. consec.

Failure report

v 10

Did not dispossess

329 Cf. S. Tengstrom, Die Hexateucherzählung, 77–78. 330 Jakob in Sichem, 227– 45.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 130

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting Narrative: Tribal boundaries Element

Passage

Marker

131

Genre: Interpreted boundary list Element

Passage

Marker

Ending/ denouement (formulaic)

v 17b

Formula

Manasseh boundary list

17:1–11

Exposition (pf. or disjunctive)

v 18a

Disjunctive temporal clause

Tribal component list

vv 1–2

Complication (impf. consec.)

v 18b

Impf. consec.: ask for land

Promise fulfillment narrative

vv 3–6

They came before saying

Change or crisis (speech or dialogue)

vv 18c–19a

Dialogue asking father

Manasseh boundary list

vv 7–10

Territory of Manasseh was

Exceptions list

v 11

There was to

Failure report

vv 12–13

They were not able

Complaint narrative

vv 14–18

Question and response

Complaint plus evidence

v 14

Why did you?

Resolution (impf. consec.) Ending/ denouement (formulaic)

Exposition (pf. or disjunctive)

v 19b

Formula—gave land

The lot was for

v 20

Disjunctive: list head

Response: go clear forest

v 15

If . . . then

v 21a

Disjunctive city list region

Renewed complaint with evidence

v 16

Hill country does not suffice

vv 21b–32a

List of cities

Final response

vv 17–18

Have what you want but work for it

v 32b

Sum total of list

v 33a

Disjunctive: list head

vv 33b–36a

List of cities

v 36b

Sum total of list

vv 37–41a

List of cities (no heading)

v 41b

Sum total of list

vv 42–44a

List of cities (no heading)

v 44b

Sum total of list

v 45

List of cities (no heading)

v 46

Disjunctive city list region

v 47

Partial border list

v 48

Disjunctive city list region

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 131

9/18/14 9:20 AM

132

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18) Narrative: Tribal boundaries Element

Joseph border

Passage

Marker

Genre: Interpreted boundary list Element

Passage

Marker

vv 49–51a

List of cities

v 51b

Sum total of list

vv 52–54a

List of cities (no heading)

v 54b

Sum total of list

v 54b

Sum total of list

vv 55–57a

List of cities (no heading)

vv 55–57a

List of cities (no heading)

v 57b

Sum Total of list

vv 58–59a

List of cities (no heading)

v 59b

Sum total of list

v 60a

List of cities (no heading)

v 60b

Sum total of list

v 61a

Disjunctive city list region

vv 61b–62a

List of cities

v 62b

Sum total of list

v 63

Unable-toconquer formula

16:1a

Impf. consec. + area introduction formula

vv 1b–3

Impf. consec. + pf. consec. border list

v4

Impf. consec. Manasseh and Ephraim heading

v 5a

Impf. consec. heading for Ephraim border list

vv 5b–8a

Complex border list with impf. consec., pf. consec., disjunctive + impf. and pf. consec.

v 8b

Summary of border list

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 132

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting Narrative: Tribal boundaries Element

Passage v9

v 10

17:1–2

Exposition (pf. or disjunctive)

v3

Complication (impf. consec.)

v 4a

Change or crisis (speech or dialogue) Resolution (impf. consec.) Ending/ denouement (formulaic)

v 4b

v 4c

vv 5–6

v7

vv 8–9 v 10

v 11

v 12

v 13

Marker

133

Genre: Interpreted boundary list Element

Passage

Marker

Exception note of Ephraim cities in Manasseh’s borders Unable-toconquer formula Impf. consec. introduction to Manasseh and Machir border list Disjunctive introducing family Impf. consec. before the priest Speech: daughters present case Formulaic impf. consec.

Impf. consec. introduction to border list of Manasseh Impf. consec. + pf. consec. border list Disjunctive + pf. exception Disjunctive + impf. consec. complex border description Impf. consec. list of exception cities Unable-toconquer formula Temporal clause exception to could-notconquer formula

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 133

9/18/14 9:20 AM

134

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18) Narrative: Tribal boundaries Element

Passage

Marker

Change or crisis (speech or dialogue)

v 14

Impf. consec. and dialogue: Joseph tribes seek land

Resolution (impf. consec.)

vv 15–18

Dialogue continued: Joshua sets out solution

Genre: Interpreted boundary list Element

Passage

Marker

Ending/ denouement (formulaic)

Comments 15:1–12 The first lot is given to the tribe of Judah. Its border comes from the tradition behind Num 34:3– 6. This represents not the order of birth of the sons of Jacob but the order of political priority for the ultimate editor of the biblical narrative, whose major concern is with Judah. Judah is the first to receive its inheritance, the last to fall, and the only remaining hope for restoring the lot of the people of God. The detailed border description “is a dynamic, vibrant boundary, almost lifelike in its movement.”331 Yet McConville and Williams maintain that overlap in the territories of Simeon and Judah and between chaps. 15 and 19 “suggests that the lists before us do not come in their entirety from a single time. . . . The text as we have it, therefore, appears to have undergone expansion and alteration over the time of Israel’s life in the land.”332 1 The verse begins by describing the southern aspect of Judah’s territory. In the south the boundary reached across to Edom below the Dead Sea. D. R. Seely sets out the territory: “The eastern border of the Wilderness of Zin is Edom, and it extends to the west at least to Kadesh- barnea and possibly beyond.”333 D. M. Stith adds that the wilderness lies north of the Wilderness of Paran.334 Kadesh- Barnea is an oasis inside the Wilderness of Zin. Similar sounding Hebrew letters lead at times to a confusion with the Wilderness of Sin. Zin appears to be a town that gave its name to the wilderness. 2 The boundary ran from the “tongue” at the southern end of the Dead Sea (“Sea of Salt”). 3 The Ascent of the Scorpions (‫ )עקרבים‬is witnessed in other ancient Near Eastern literature.335 It lay southwest of the Dead Sea. Görg suggests: “The ascent of Akrabbim should be connected with one of the passes between the Arabah and the Wadi Fiqre and Kurnub. It is usually identified with Naqb es-Safa. The ascent may have been a station point on the ancient expedition routes of Egyptian kings to the copper mines near the Arabah and to Transjordanian places as early as the 18th dynasty.”336 331 332 333 334 335 336

Howard, 333. McConville and Williams, 69. ABD, 6:1096. NIDB, 5:985. See M. Görg, “Zum ‘Skorpionenpass’ (Num XXXIV 4; Jos. XV 3),” VT 24 (1974) 508– 9. ABD, 1:141. See also F.- M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine, 2 vols. (Paris: Librarie Lecoffre,

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 134

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

135

4 Knauf argues that the southern border includes all of Philistia; however, he states that Israel never occupied Philistia.337 On the other hand, Knauf finds the city list corresponds to the reality of the Judean monarchy at the end of the seventh century. At its best, Israel claimed territory from the Brook of Egypt on the south to the Euphrates River on the northeast (2 Kgs 24:7; Isa 27:12). Disputing the normal location of the Brook, Görg writes: “this leads to an identification of the ‘Brook of Egypt’ with the Nahal Bezor. The commonly suggested equation with the Wadi el ʾArish should be ruled out, at least as far as the earlier lists are concerned.”338 5 Knauf understands the Judah/Benjamin border to be pure theory in assigning Judah the western border of the Dead Sea up to the mouth of the Jordan, though Knauf would like to assign it to the supremacy claims of the Jewish elite over against the nonexiled Benjaminites.339 This ignores the flexibility of the administrative uses of the texts that resulted in changes to them from premonarchical times to the time of the ultimate editor. 6 That Reuben should have descendants west of the Jordan has given rise to the theory that at one time Reuben lived west of the Jordan.340 7 The brevity of Manasseh’s listing along with that of Ephraim leads Coote to note the parallel with the lack of narratives about the conquest of this territory.341 8 The border here is carefully defined as going just south of Jerusalem itself, while the corresponding description for Benjamin places it just inside Benjaminite territory (18:16). This is a major point used by scholars in trying to date the list.342 9–12 Knauf indicates the reference to Baalah indicates that prior to David’s time the temple of a goddess stood there as the goddess of the tribe of Judah (cf. 2 Sam 6:2).343 This is, however, an interesting conjecture based on little evidence. The spring of the Waters of Nephtoah are often equated with the spring of Merneptah.344 13 See Notes and Form above on this brief narrative (vv 13–19) and its flashback repetition in Judg 1:10–15. The reason for incorporating the Caleb tradition at this point is to demonstrate again that everything was done according to the divine word, even when no specific reference can be made to where such a command was given. The command to Joshua is simply the command given to Moses and fulfilled through Joshua (cf. Judg 1:20), or it is based on a tradition that was not incorporated into the biblical text. Knauf suggests that the story is one that was understood by the first listeners but was not by subsequent generations.345 Fewell points out “how it [the story] interacts with its immediate contexts to produce different meanings” in Joshua and Judges.346 Joshua uses the narrative in

337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346

1933–1938); Noth; HIBD; but cf. Aharoni, LBHG. For a description of the boundary as a whole, see Y. Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 63– 65; Noth, 77, 86– 87. For small places like Hezron and Addar, note Table 15.1. Knauf, 142. ABD, 2:321. Rainey (Sacred Bridge, 258), however, thinks the Brook of Egypt must be el-ʾArish. Knauf, 142. Cf. R. de Vaux, Histoire ancienne = Early History, 576– 81. Coote, 684. Cf. Soggin, 173–74. Knauf, 142. On 15:9–10, see Robert North, Bib 37 (1956) 209–16. On Ephron, see K.- D. Schunck, VT 11 [1961] 188–200. Mentioned in ANET, 258 (see Nelson, 187). Knauf, 143. “Deconstructive Criticism,” 132.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 135

9/18/14 9:20 AM

136

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

a sacerdotal manner to explain “exactly how that portion of the land was taken” and to complete the promise to Moses and the portrait of Caleb. In Judges the taking of Kiriath- Sepher is “not an ending but a beginning. . . . [I]t sets the tone for the remainder of the conquest and settlement—indeed for the remainder of the book.”347 While Joshua uses Achsah as an exception that proves the rule of patriarchal dominance, Judges shows “that even in patriarchy women can sometimes have power.”348 14 The three sons of Anak are taken up from Num 13:22. The tribe of Judah is said to have killed them in Judg 1:11, a generalizing flashback to this passage along with the other flashbacks to Joshua in Judges 1. Hubbard speaks of “poetic justice” here since the Anak had frightened the Israelite spies to the extent that they refused to enter the Promised Land (Num13:22, 28, 33), rejecting Caleb’s sound advice.349 15–16 For Debir, see Comments on Josh 10:3. Hess sees in the double name an indication that Canaanites were present, possibly along with some other groups.350 The conquest of these towns gave Israel control over strategic southern centers. In 10:38–39, we are told that Joshua conquered Debir. Howard assumes that Debir had fallen back into “foreign hands.” Judg 1:12–15 presents a flashback to this passage. 17 Othniel is named as the first of the Israelite judges, the only judge of the southern clans (Judg 3:9–11).351 On the legal elements of a daughter gaining property from her father as part of the dowry laws, see Fleishman, who characterizes Achsah as “an opinionated woman who refused to submit to social dictates.”352 In her deconstructive reading of the text, Fewell refers to Achsah as a military prize, a trinket, an ornament, bobble, spoil of war, bait, due reward, bargaining chip, bargainer, incentive for heroism, and collateral.353 18 At this point, Harris understands the story as broken. The battle- prize story is ended. The audience expects nothing more from the narrative, but the battle prize appears only as a teaser providing the exposition for what is to follow. 19 For “blessing,” see Comments on Josh 14:13. Here the word has the simple meaning of “wedding present,” but the deeper meaning illustrated in Deut 28:1–14 is also implied. Hess points to Gen 24:61– 67, with its similar form and its tie to the blessing promised Abraham.354 20 The narrative summary shows that the Caleb- Othniel tradition has been incorporated as part of the tradition of the tribe of Judah. The territory occupied by Caleb and Othniel is seen to be a part of the territory given by God to the tribe of Judah. Here, again, we see the biblical writers’ view, one that does not separate primary and secondary causes. What may be deemed from a human perspective as human accomplishment is judged ultimately to be the lot given by God. 21– 62 The list of cities according to their political and military subdivisions is incorporated to show from still another perspective the greatness of God’s gift to 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354

Ibid. Ibid., 132– 33; cf. Hawk (2010) 155. Hubbard, 406; cf. Howard, 337. Hess (1996) 244– 45. See Butler, Judges, WBC 8 (Nashville: Nelson, 2009) on Judg 1:12–15. “Daughter’s Demand.” “Deconstructive Criticism,” 126–27. Hess (1996) 245.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 136

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

137

Judah. Judah controlled the borders and all the cities inside the borders. While not every city of Judah is named in these verses, the implication is that Judah received title to all the cities and land within her borders. Here again, what can be understood as a notice of military prowess is interpreted by the biblical writer as part of the divine domain given by God to his people. The author’s audacity in incorporating a political document into this theological literature represents a highly significant theological understanding of human priorities and responsibilities. Political documents and administration are not the ultimate authority. Political literature is not the final law. Above, beyond, and behind all political activity and authority stands the authority of God. The cities are arranged into groups— eleven in MT and twelve in LXX. These are separated into five larger geographical/political units: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

The Negev or southland (vv 21–32) The Shephelah or western foothills (vv 33– 42) Three Philistine cities (vv 45– 47) The Har or hill/mountain area (vv 48– 60) The Midbar or rocky desert wilderness (vv 61– 62)

The entire list includes 122 towns. The totals given after each unit, however, add up to 115 cities. LXX adds 11 to each total.355 The biblical text also includes cities with references to earlier names and later names, thus providing assistance to later generations in locating the towns. Such additions to the text apparently come from later generations updating the text. Several Judean cities also appear in lists of other tribal allotments, as exemplified by Beth Arabah (Josh 15:61; 18:18, 22). Howard maintains that the city’s appearance in multiple lists suggests it was a border city shared by the two tribes or was assigned later to Benjamin as a few slight adjustments were made. One expects such transfers during the long history of using and updating these lists.356 Knauf sees the list as coming from the Judean monarchy about 600 BCE but finds its significance for the author of Joshua in the Persian period.357 This understanding comes only when one shares Knauf’s literary and historical presuppositions. The text as presented seeks a meaning in the time of Joshua before one finds other suitable or perhaps unsuitable settings in projected chronological/historical contexts. 21 For cities in the Negev during the Iron Age, see V. Fritz.358 37– 41 For cities around Lachish, see D. Kellermann.359 45– 47 This district does not have the normal concluding formula. It includes three of the five Philistine cities and a territory that Israel did not control prior to the monarchy (Josh 13:2– 3; 2 Sam 8:1) and seldom during the monarchy. Thus Cross and Wright conclude, “The territory makes no sense as a political district, not only because of its size, but because neither Israel nor Judah ever controlled

355 356 357 358 359

See Howard, 340 and n. 116. Ibid., 365. Knauf, 145. ZDPV 91 (1975) 30– 45. VT 28 (1978) 429– 32.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 137

9/18/14 9:20 AM

138

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

it all.” Thus, for Cross and Wright, it is “an editor’s addition to the province list in order to fit it for his purpose of describing the total claim of the tribe of Judah.”360 Hubbard suggests that this must represent an “ideal inheritance” for Judah or reflect a time later in the monarchical period.361 The combination of including the Philistine towns here and listing them as part of the unconquered territory in chap. 13 points to this as an ideal description, a goal to be attained, not an accomplishment of immediately past history. 60 Kiriath- Jearim may also appear in Josh 18:28, though the text there is not clear. This has led to long discussions over the relationship between the extremely short town list of 15:60 and the Benjaminite list.362 Aharoni asserts that “there seems no reason to maintain that Kirjath- jearim and Rabbah cannot have been a separate province. . . . It is therefore obvious that other factors than size or the number of towns were decisive in determining the area of the provinces.”363 61– 62 Hess notes that archaeological surveys suggest that the first settlement in this district dates to the eighth century BCE, centuries after Joshua.364 He explains the inclusion of settlements not yet in existence as a development through the years from family allotment lists to administrative documents to town lists repeatedly used and updated through the centuries, so that the present text represents a seventh- or eighth- century reality. 63 The biblical writer’s emphasis is seen in his concluding remarks on Judah. A parallel passage (Judg 1:21) uses the same vocabulary and syntax to report that Benjamin could not drive out the Jebusites from Jerusalem. The border lists in Josh 15:8 and 18:28 place Jerusalem within Benjamin’s territory. To belong to Benjamin rather than Judah makes both geographic and political sense. This sets the city apart as independent in the Judah versus Ephraim/Manasseh conflicts and lets it become a “buffer zone” between the two Palestinian powers.365 Hubbard sees a Judahite writer or editor at work here in the time of David or afterwards. Howard surmises that Jerusalem lay on the border of the two tribal allotments without strong identity with either tribe.366 He proposes that Judah’s success in defeating the Jebusites may have been temporary while Benjamin’s failure was total. “The sons of Judah” were not able to dispossess the Jebusites and thus had to endure their presence in Jerusalem up to the writer’s day. This casts a spell over the entire future history of Jerusalem for the writer, despite David’s victory over the Jebusites (2 Sam 5:6–10). When we consider that the major part of the ultimate history centers on the activities of the kings of Judah in Jerusalem, this note becomes even more important. Nelson suggests that the reference to Jebusites is “a learned scribal flourish rather than the preservation of an ancient name.”367 If this scribal flourish hides the Jerusalem constituency, then we must find another group like the Jebusites to be the original inhabitants of what became Israel’s capital city. 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367

JBL 75 (1956) 218; cf. Alt, PJ 21 (1925) 106 = Kleine Schriften, 2:278, n. 3. Hubbard, 407. Cf. Y. Aharoni, VT 9 (1959) 226– 30; K.- D. Schunck, Benjamin, 153– 67. VT 9 (1959) 229– 30. Hess (1996) 246– 48. Hubbard, 409. Howard, 343. Nelson, 187.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 138

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

139

The Davidic government in Jerusalem was impaired by the fact that it had not accomplished the first command of God. It had not driven the Jebusites out of the capital city. Judah thus lived its life in the shadow of temptation from Jebusite gods and Jebusite practices. All of this stood in opposition to the command of Deut 7:1– 26; 20:16–18. Solomon might make the remaining nations slaves (1 Kgs 9:20–21), but this still was not what Yahweh had commanded (cf. Josh 9).368 Knauf concludes that even under Jewish domination Jerusalem remained essentially a Canaanite city (cf. Ezek 6:3).369

Table 16.1. Cities and Boundaries of Joseph Tribes (16:1–17:18) Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/ Israeli

Map Reference

Distance

16:2 Bethel (Luz)

Beitin

173148

12 mi. N of Jerusalem

Ataroth

Tell el-Mazar (es-Simadi)

196171

3.7 mi. S of Bethel

v3

Beit Ur et-Tahta

158144

2 mi. E of Upper Beth-Horon

Gezer

Tell Jezer/Tell Gezer

142140

v 5 Ataroth Addar

Tel-Mazar (es Simadi)

196171

Upper Beth Horon

Beit ʿUr el-Foqa

160143

v 6 Micmethath

Jebel el-Kabir

181183

Taanath Shiloh

Khirbet Taʿna el-Foqa

185175

v 7 Janoah

Yanun

183172/ 184173/ 193179/ 190182/ 187183

Ataroth

Tel-Mazar (es-Simadi)

196171

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

Khirbet ʿAttara; Khirbet el-Oga

Tell Abu Shushe Khirbet ʿAttara 5 mi. NW of Gibeon; 10 mi. NW of Jerusalem Khirbet ʿIbn Naser; Khirbet Makhneh el-Foqa 5 mi. SE of Shechem; Khirbet Juleijil E of Shechem

6.8 mi. SE of Nablus; 1.2 mi. NE of Aqraba

Khirbet Yanun; Khirbet Marah el-‘Inab; Bab en-Naqb; Tell Miske Tell es-Sheh Diyab

368 For the problem of Jerusalem prior to David, see N. Gottwald, Tribes of Yahweh, 568–71. 369 Knauf, 147.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 139

9/18/14 9:20 AM

140

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/ Israeli

Map Reference

Naarah (Naaran)

Khirbet el-Mifgir

193193/ 190144/ 187150/ 191144

Jericho

Tell es-Sultan

192142

Tappuah

Sheikh Abu Zarad

172168

Shechem

Tell Balatah

176179

Hepher

Tell el-Muhaffar

170205

Yasid

176189

Tell el-Farʿah North

182188

Distance

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location Tel el-Jisr, 3.5 mi. NW of Jericho; Khirbet el-Auja el-Foqaʿ; Nuʿema; Khirbet el-ʿAyash

10 mi. N of the Dead Sea

17:2 Abiezer Helek Asriel

Shemida v 3 Mahlah Noah Hoglah Milcah Tirzah

Yes Khirbit ʿIbn Naser; Khirbet Makhneh el-Foqa 5 mi. SE of Shechem; Khirbet Juleijil E of Shechem

v 7 Micmethath

Jebel el-Kabir

181183

Shechem

Tell Balatah

176179

40.4 mi. N of Jerusalem

Jashub

Yasuf

172168

8 mi. S of Shechem

En-Tappuah

Sheikh Abn Zarad

172168

7.5 mi. S of Nablus

v 11 Beth Shean (Beth-Shan)

Tell el-Husn/ Tell Beth Shean

197212

24 mi. NE of Shechem

Ibleam

Tell Belʿameh

177205

10 mi. SE of Megiddo

Dor (Naphoth Dor)

Khirbet el-Burj/Tell Dor

142224

12 mi. S of Mount Carmel; 13 mi. S of Haifa

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 140

Yes

Yes

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/ Israeli

Map Reference

En-dor

Khirbet Safsafeh/ Khirbet-Safsafot

187227/ 185226/ 170218

Taanach

Tell Tiʿinnik

171214

Megiddo

Tell el- Mutesellim/Tell Megiddo

167221

Distance

141 Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location Tell el-ʿAjjul; Tell Qedesh/ Tell abu Qudeis

5 mi. SE of Megiddo; 25 mi. from Mediterranean

Yes

Yes

16:1– 3 The next allotment does not go to a tribe, as such. Rather it goes to the sons of Joseph. This is a very careful formulation, seeking to maintain both the tradition that Joseph was the original son of Jacob and the tradition that the tribe of Joseph had been divided into two parts, named after his two sons.370 The boundary marked in these verses is that between Ephraim and Benjamin and has parallels in Josh 16:5; 18:11–13.371 Na’aman uses the following road description to separate northern kingdom Ephraim and southern kingdom Judah: The southern boundary of the biblical allotment of Ephraim (Jos 16, 1– 5) roughly corresponds with the southern border of the kingdom of Israel with Judah. The kingdom of Israel dominated the two major roads that rose from the northern Shephelah to the area of Bethel, and descended eastwards to the area of Jericho. The territory of Judah was located south of these roads and encompassed most of the district of Benjamin, except for the JerichoGilgal, and possibly the Michmash, areas.372 That the list is a replacement for the Judean list in Josh 15:5b–11 from the time of Rehoboam is quite doubtful.373 These two are the only tribes west of the Jordan without city lists.374 Hess gives two reasons for their absence: (1) the difficulty of settling the area dominated by strong cities and thick forests and (2) their presence in Josh 17:2– 6.375 2 Luz is identified as the original name of Bethel in Gen 28:19; 35:6 (cf. 48:3); Judg 1:23; Josh 18:13. Knauf finds that three different names (Beth- aven, Beth- el, and Luz) have become three different places through scribal erudition in study of Scripture (Schriftgelehrsamkeit).376

370 Cf. the detailed review of research and evidence by C. H. J. de Geus, Tribes of Israel, 70– 96; E. Otto, Jakob in Sichem, 253– 54; Z. Kallai, “The Twelve- tribe Systems of Israel,” VT 47 (1997) 53– 90; idem, “A Note on the Twelve- tribe Systems of Israel,” VT 49 (1999) 125–27. Consult “Studies on Tribal Society” in the Introduction. 371 Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 235– 36. 372 Na’aman, “Saul, Benjamin, and the Emergence of ‘Biblical Israel’ (Part 1),” ZAW 121 (2009) 219. 373 Against K.- D. Schunck, Benjamin, 147. 374 Howard, 345. 375 Hess (1996) 258. 376 Knauf, 150.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 141

9/18/14 9:20 AM

142

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

An Archite (see Gen 10:17) was David’s friend and counselor, who proved instrumental in defeating the revolt of Absalom (2 Sam 15:21–37; 16:15–17:23). The Archites may have been a clan of Benjamin377 or, more likely, remnants of ancient inhabitants of the land (Soggin, Hertzberg). Hess locates them along with the Japhletites as northerners who wandered south. They lived in Ataroth, distinct from the town east of the Jordan (Num 32:3, 34), and probably from Ataroth Addar of Josh 16:5 and 18:13.378 3 The Japhletites are mentioned only here and in the genealogical list of 1 Chr 7:30– 40, where they are included as descendants of Asher. Gezer was not conquered by Ephraim (Josh 16:10 = Judg 1:29), but only came into Israel’s possession when the Egyptian pharaoh gave it to Solomon as a wedding present (1 Kgs 9:15–17; cf. 2 Sam 5:25). Howard, based on the Danite city list in Josh 19:40– 48, views the boundary as turning sharply from Gezer northwestward to the sea.379 4– 5 The note that the Josephites received (‫ )נחל‬their inheritance parallels the statement in Josh 14:1 concerning the people of Israel and the tribes east of the Jordan in 13:8 (‫)לקח‬. Interestingly, no such summary is given for Judah (cf. 15:20) or for the tribes listed in chaps. 18 and 19. Knauf maintains that the territory of the province of Samaria was divided in the ninth century BCE, the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in the eighth century, and Ephraim and Machir in the tenth, thereby providing a measure of credibility for v 4. For Knauf, Joseph was a rather late construction to give a name to the people of Samaria prior to the founding of Samaria by Omri. 6– 8 For topographical problems here, see A. Kuschke.380 8 Elliger makes much of the observation that Tappuah is only fully discussed at Josh 17:7– 8.381 9 The border irregularities, placing cities of one tribe within the boundaries of another, point to the early date and historical soundness of the border descriptions.382 Knauf insists this verse shows the impossibility of drawing any boundary at all.383 The central role of Ephraim and Manasseh in the conquest and settlement of the central hill country resulted in the Israelites disregarding strict heritage rights, traditions, and responsibilities to live in welcome places outside the strict borderlines. One sees the text’s irregularities as a proof of its origin in real life rather than in scribal invention. 10 Knauf points to this verse as evidence against any theory of an allencompassing conquest and settlement.384 Howard states that the conquest of Josh 10:33 “was not a complete conquest, or else it had been repopulated in the interim.”385 377 378 379 380

381 382 383 384 385

S. Cohen, “Archite,” IDB, 1:209. Hess (1996) 256. Howard, 346. Kuschke, “Historisch- topographische Beiträge,” 102– 6; E. Otto, Jakob in Sichem, 238– 42. For Michmethath, see K. Elliger, “Lokalisierung von ‘Michmethath,’” 91–100. For Janoah, see E. Otto, ZDPV 94 (1978) 108. “Die Grenze zwischen Ephraim und Manasse,” ZDPV 53 (1930) 267; cf. C. H. J. de Geus, Tribes of Israel, 78– 81; E. Otto, Jakob in Sichem, 231– 32. For the translation and topographical discussion of the text, cf. C. H. J. de Geus, Tribes of Israel, 76–77. Knauf, 150. Ibid. Howard, 348.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 142

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

143

This verse suggests a time of writing during the reign of Solomon, when Israel gained control of Gezer and put the foreign population to work on building projects for the monarchy (1 Kgs 9:15–22).386 This points to progress beyond the point of Josh 15:63, where the Jebusites simply dwell in the land. Here we begin to see the structure of the present section, pointing toward Josh 17:18 and then to 1 Kgs 9:20. Mitchell maintains that enslavement and pressing into corvée labor marked victory in ancient Near Eastern military campaigns, but here in 16:10 reducing Canaanites to slavery rather than reducing them to the ban marks at least partial failure for Israel. “Survival, even as slaves, marks a major departure from the original plan.”387 17:1 The present text underlines the unusual order of the allotment. Manasseh, the firstborn, received his allotment after his younger brother Ephraim (cf. Deut 21:15–17). This follows the pattern set in Gen 48. It also represents the leadership exercised by Ephraim during the period of the Judges. Machir appears as an independent tribe in Judg 5:14 and Manasseh is not mentioned. This has given rise to a long history of scholarly debate over the relationship of Manasseh and Machir, which R. de Vaux surveyed.388 In our context, Machir is mentioned as the representative of Manasseh east of the Jordan (cf. Num 32:39– 40; Deut 3:15; Josh 13:31). Howard maintains that the focus of v 1b is on Machir, pointing to Machir’s reputation as a “man of war” based on Num 32:39.389 Hawk states that “the reference to Gilead links tribal identity with geographical identity. . . . The short introduction, therefore, diverts the focus away from defining geography and calls attention to the patriarchal social structure of Israel.”390 2– 3 The genealogical relationships given here are complicated. Hepher appears to be a son of Manasseh in v 2, but a son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, in v 3. Such genealogical information is related to that of Num 26:29– 33; 27:1, 36:1, 10.391 Several of the names also appear as geographical locations: Shechem (e.g., Josh 24:1), Hepher (1 Kgs 4:10; Josh 12:17), Gilead (e.g., Josh 13:11, 25), and Tirzah (Josh 12:24; 1 Kgs 14:17; 2 Kgs 15:14). The Samarian ostraca have places named Abiezer, Helek, Shechem, Shemida, Noah, and Hoglah.392 They apparently are centers of oil supply. Knauf sees Asriel as forming the remainder of Israel after Pharaoh Merenptah defeated and to a large extent destroyed Israel before 1208 BCE.393 The verses are included here to stress again that Joshua carried out all the commands of Moses and Yahweh (Num 27:1–11; cf. 36:1–13). As with Achsah (Josh 15:18–19), so here we find women rewarded for their assertiveness.394 5– 6 Manasseh received ten shares, one each for the clans of Manasseh except for Hepher, and one each for the five daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher,

386 Cf. 5:27; 2 Sam 20:24; T. N. D. Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials, 128– 39. 387 Together in the Land, 160. 388 Histoire ancienne, 538– 41, 589– 98 = Early History, 58– 487, 642– 53; cf. S. Mittmann, Beiträge, 213–14, n. 15. 389 Howard, 350. 390 Hawk (2010) 158. 391 Cf. Hertzberg; J. Liver, “Israelite Tribes,” 207– 8. 392 DOTT, 205. 393 Knauf, 151. 394 Pressler, 97.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 143

9/18/14 9:20 AM

144

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

who appear to have inherited just as much as each of the sons of Manasseh. It is interesting that the ten parts are set over against Gilead and Bashan, making a total of twelve. Gray suggests, “The debate seems to concern not so much land as status in a sacral confederacy of the clans of Manasseh, perhaps the reorganization of an originally smaller confederacy at Shechem.”395 Whatever the historical background, for the present editor, the point remains the obedience of Joshua and the allotment to Manasseh. Howard notes the stress on providing inheritance, even for individuals, especially women.396 8–11 Compare Comments on Josh 16:9. 12–13 Dor, Megiddo, Taanach, Ibleam, and Beth- Shean represent a string of Canaanite strongholds in the Valley, which Israel did not control until the period of the monarchy, when under David and Solomon they became Israelite centers whose inhabitants were forced to work for the king (cf. Comments on Josh 16:10). Nelson notes that the archaic place names and Anakim giants “add an exotic and heroic touch” to the narrative.397 Howard points to the use of ‫יאל‬, unique in the book of Joshua, to describe the Canaanites as a people with “stubborn determination.”398 Here the writer seeks to show that the Israelites gained control, but they did not do what God commanded, namely, drive out all the inhabitants. Here is a sign of Israel’s disobedience, which accounts for the problems described in Judges, climaxing in the withdrawal of the divine promise in Judg 2:21–23. 14 The term “blessing” continues to play an important role in the section (cf. Josh 14:13; 15:19). The tribe of Joseph is connected to the ancestral blessings of numerous offspring. But Joseph states that the blessing of land does not equal the blessing of offspring. Howard maintains that the Joseph tribes depend only on their own subjective evaluation and not on precedent and promise as had Caleb and the daughters of Zelophehad. 399 Indeed, Howard claims they “challenged the outcome of the lot.” Harris notes: “Only in complaining do the tribes of Joseph find unity. . . . Unfortunately, the people have learned little from their failure to enter the land forty years earlier. They continue to want a convenient allotment that is easy to settle. Driving out enemies and clearing forests do not fit their plans or gifts.”400 15 Joshua sets a test before the Josephites— if they are so great, and thus so blessed by God, let them show that God is with them. Let them create for themselves a place to live in the midst of the powerful inhabitants of the land. This is especially true since they are in such a hurry to get outside the confines of Mount Ephraim.401 Hess points out evidence of three hundred new villages in the hill country of Manasseh with some in Ephraim to illustrate Israelite settlement and growth in this period.402 395 Grey, 148. 396 Howard, 351. For vv 7– 8, see A. Kuschke, “Historisch- topographische Beiträge,” 102–7; E. Otto, Jakob in Sichem, 234– 38. 397 Nelson, 188. 398 Howard, 354. 399 Ibid., 356. 400 Ibid., 94. 401 For the restricted geographical sense of the term, see G. Schmitt, Du sollst, 91– 92. 402 Hess (2009) 70.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 144

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Explanation

145

16 The Josephites plead their case further. The hill country is too small, in their opinion. Their description implies that they understand the “hill country” to be confined to Mount Ephraim. The valley is not available because the Canaanites with their iron weapons protect it. The old tradition points out, with Josh 17:11, that the Israelites could not control the string of cities near the Jezreel Valley. The Josephites have not answered Joshua’s challenge; rather, they avoid the issue. They express the same kind of fear as the spies Moses sent out in Num 13 (Num 13:26–33).403 17 Joshua replies with an answer that is at the same time conciliatory and challenging. He accepts the fact that they are a great and thus blessed people. He emphasizes their great power and their great potential. He concedes the necessity to grant their request, that is, that they have more than one lot. This explains how the house of Joseph came to be viewed as comprising two tribes— Manasseh and Ephraim. 18 Knauf attributes the use of iron on war chariots to the Persians.404 Nelson suggests that the form here is a land- grant narrative as in Josh 14:6–15; 17:3– 6, 14– 18: confrontation, case and request, flashback to Moses, land grant, reference to Yahweh’s command, and summary of results.405 The gaining of the second lot is set forth in a challenge and a promise. The challenge is the one put forward in v 15. The Josephites must create their “second lot”— a place in the wooded hill country. Thus they will extend beyond the hill country of Ephraim to control the entire hill country. The challenge is modified with a promise. Howard maintains, though, that “God did not sanction their request.”406 Joseph received a promise from Yahweh, however, through the divine agent Joshua. Joseph, unlike Judah, and unlike Ephraim and Manasseh, will defeat the Canaanites despite the great power of the enemy. Thus even the promise of victory is a challenge to fight. All in all, the Josephites, according to Hawk, “unlike Caleb” request land “not as an expression of faith in a divine promise.” The Josephites “express reluctance to take the good land possessed by the Canaanites and their iron chariots.”407

Explanation Long lists of boundaries and cities tempt us to skip on to the next section. We do so only at the cost of missing a central part of the message of the book. Here we find finally the fulfillment of the command to Joshua in 13:6–7. The land west of the Jordan was given out to the tribes. Such distribution of the land was not a simple process, however. It involved the responsibility to carry out the promises of Moses (15:13–19; 17:3– 6). It involved the necessity to accept the land given out (16:4). It also involved the necessity to solve tribal dissatisfaction (15:19; 17:14–18). It involved the challenge to create a living space for some of the tribes (17:14–18). It also involved the challenge to fight for territory possessed by other peoples (15:16; 403 404 405 406 407

Note Howard, 357. Knauf, 153; cf. Drews, JSOT 45 (1989) 15–23, who speaks of 700 BCE. Nelson, 188. Howard, 157. Hawk (2010) 161.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 145

9/18/14 9:20 AM

146

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1–17:18)

17:18), a challenge that Israel did not always meet successfully (15:63; 16:10; 17:12; cf. Judg 1–3). Israel thus knew that she had experienced the blessing of God, but she also knew that her failure to meet the challenge threatened to cost her the blessing (Judg 2). “Fullness of life in the land cannot be exerienced apart from devotion to God.”408 Earl can thus point us forward: “The land’s possession and settlement is an uncompleted task, which is again suggestive of a latent eschatological picture, with rest being something for Israel to work towards in ways that are explored by the book as a whole (cf. Josh 23–24).”409 “Although scholarship has tended to focus on the historical origin of this geographical material, its function in the final shape of the book of Joshua should not be ignored. Judah’s district system has been transformed from the realm of bureaucracy to that of theology and from pre- exilic reality to post- exilic aspiration.”410 Josh 15–17 provides the basis for the remainder of the ultimate history and its problem. It sets up the problem that confronted Israel for the rest of its history. Could it again be the obedient child of God, as she had been under Joshua (cf. Judg 2:6–10)? Or would Israel always be the people faced with the challenge of God but seeking ways to avoid that challenge? Would Israel always be the people who wanted another lot from God without fulfilling the conditions set out by God? God set Israel’s boundaries. He showed each tribe what territory they could expect to control under God’s leadership. But he also showed each tribe that the allotment was not a guaranteed gift. With the allotment of the land went the allotment of the Torah. The rest of the history through 2 Kings demonstrates to Israel this close connection between Torah and the gift of the land. The people of Israel chose to go their own way rather than God’s way. They chose to live in Yahweh’s land while serving the gods of other peoples and other lands. When this happened, God raised up prophets and historians to warn Israel. They would not learn from their preachers or their historians. Thus God took back the land, gave it to foreign rulers, and led Israel back across the wilderness into exile. Ultimately, the land had to be taken away from the people of God. They had to lose the gift to appreciate it. A deeper study of the text reveals yet another level of meaning. The seemingly endless lists of hard-to-pronounce cities and topographical features began life as political documents. As such, they served as the basis for arbitration between tribes and as the basis for administering political districts. Israel’s historians took up the political documents to teach Israel religious truth. This religious truth, in turn, had great relevance for everyday life in the political arena. Here we see the close connection in Israel between political reality and divine Word.

408 Ibid., 164. 409 Earl, 176. 410 Nelson, 193.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 146

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Bibliography

147

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51) Bibliography Aharoni, Y. “Anaharath.” JNES 6 (1967) 212–15. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Trans. Anson Rainey. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. ———. “The Negeb of Judah.” IEJ 8 (1958) 26–38. ———. “The Province List of Judah.” VT 9 (1959) 225–46. Albright, W. F. “Egypt and the Early History of the Negeb.” JPOS 4 (1924) 149–61. ———. “The Topography of the Tribe of Issachar.” ZAW 44 (1926) 225–36. Alt, A. “Beiträge zur historischen Geographie und Topographie des Negeb III: Saruhen, Ziklag, Horma, Gerar.” JPOS 15 (1935) 294–324. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichten des Volkes Israel. Vol. 3. Munich: Beck, 1959. 409–35. ———. “Bemerkungen zur Ortsliste von Benjamin (Jos 18, 21–28).” ZDPV 78 (1962) 143–58. ———. “Eine galiläische Ortsliste in Jos. 19.” ZAW 45 (1927) 59–81. ———. “Judas Gaue unter Josia.” PJ 21 (1925) 100–116. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichten des Volkes Israel. Vol. 2. Munich: Beck, 1953. 276–88. ———. “Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Josua.” In Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte und Archaeologie Palästinas. Leipzig: Deichert, 1927. 13–24. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichten des Volkes Israel. Vol. 1. Munich: Beck, 1953. 193–202. Assis, E. “‘How long are you slack to go to possess the land?’ (Jos. xviii 3): Ideal and Reality in the Distribution Descriptions in Joshua xiii–xix.” VT 53 (2003) 1–25. Augustin, M. “Die Simeoniten: Untersuchung zur Enstehung und Geschichte eines israelitischen Stammes.” Habilitationschrift, Rostock, 1989. Auld, A. G. “Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts.” In Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Ed. J. A. Emerton. VTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979. 1–14. ———. “Judges I and History: A Reconsideration.” VT 25 (1975) 261–85. Bächli, O. “Von der Liste zur Beschreibung, Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zu Jos. 13–19.” ZDPV 89 (1973) 1–14. Bartusch, M. W. Understanding Dan: An Exegetical Study of a Biblical City, Tribe and Ancestor. JSOTSup 309. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003. 98– 108. Biran, A. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. ———. “The Collar-rimmed Jars and the Settlement of the Tribe of Dan.” In Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989. 71–96. Conder, C. R. “The North Border of Zebulun.” PEFQS 15 (1883) 134–38. Cross, F. M., and G. E. Wright. “The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah.” JBL 75 (1956) 202– 26. Davies, P. R. “The Trouble with Benjamin.” In Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honor of A. Graeme Auld. Ed R. Rezetko, T. H. Lim, and B. Aucker. VTSup 113. Leiden: Brill, 2007. 93–111. Day, J. “The Destruction of the Shiloh Sanctuary and Jeremiah VII 12,14.” In Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Ed. J. A. Emerton. VTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979. 87–94. Demsky, A. “The Boundary of the Tribe of Dan (Joshua 19:41–46).” In Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume—Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. 261–84. Diringer, D. “Mizpah (Jos 18,26. 1 Reg 15,22).” In Archaeology and Old Testament Study. Ed. D. W. Thomas. Leiden: Brill, 1967. 329–42. Eissfeldt, O. “Jehud Jos 19,45 und ἡ ᾽Ιουδαία 1: Makk 4:15 = el-jehudije.” ZDPV 54 (1931) 271–78. ———. “Monopolansprüche des Heiligtums von Silo.” OLZ 68 (1973) 327–33. Fernández Truyols, A. “El límite septentrional de Benjamín: a) Jos. 18,12–13; b) Jos. 16,1–2.” Bib 13 (1932) 49–60. Finkelstein, I., S. Bunimovitz, and Z. Lederman. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph Series 10. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 1993. Fritz, V. “Erwägungen zur Siedlungsgeschichte des Negeb in der Eisen I-Zeit (1200–1000 v. Chr.) im Lichte der Ausgrabungen auf der Khirbet el-Mašaš.” ZDPV 91 (1975) 30–45. Gal, Z. “Cabul, Jiphthah-El and the Boundary between Asher and Zebulun in the Light of Archaeological Evidence.” ZDPV 101 (1985) 114–27. ———. “The Historical Context of

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 147

9/18/14 9:20 AM

148

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

Joshua 19:40–48.” BN 104 (2000) 11–15. ———. “Khirbet Rosh Zayit—Biblical Cabul: A Historical-Geographical Case.” BA 53 (1990) 88–97. ———. “The Settlement of Issachar: Some New Observations.” TA 9 (1982) 79–86. Galil, G. “The Land of Dan.” Tarbiz 54 (1984–1985) 1–19 (Heb.). Geus, C. H. J. de. The Tribes of Israel: An Investigation into Some of the Presuppositions of Martin Noth’s Amphictyony Hypothesis. SSN 18. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976. Görg, M. “Gruppenschreibung und Morphologie zur Bedeutung ausserbiblischer Nebenüberlieferungen für die Strukturanalyse biblischer Ortsnamen am Beispiel von ‘Scharuhen.’” BN 71 (1994) 65–77. Gottwald, N. K. The Tribes of Yahweh. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979. Hess, R. S. “Asking Questions of Joshua 13–19: Recent Discussion concerning the Date of the Boundary Lists.” In Faith, Tradition, and History. Ed. A. Millard et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. 191–205. Holmes, S. Joshua, the Hebrew and Greek Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1914. Kallai, Z. “Simeon’s Town List: Scribal Rules and Geographical Patterns.” VT 53 (2003) 81–96. Kallai-Kleinmann, Z. “Note on the Town Lists of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan.” VT 11 (1961) 223–27. ———. “Notes on the Topography of Benjamin.” IEJ 6 (1956) 180–87. ———. “The Town Lists of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan.” VT 8 (1958) 134–60. Kellermann, D. “Midgal-El—Magdiel.” ZDPV 98 (1982) 63–69. Knohl, I. “Two Aspects of the ‘Tent of Meeting.’” In Tehillah lemoshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Ed. M. Cogan, B. L. Eichler, and J. H. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. 73–79. Koorevaar, H. “The Book of Joshua and the Hypothesis of the Deuteronomistic History: Indications for an Open Serial Model.” In The Book of Joshua. Ed. Ed Noort. Leuven: Peeters [2012] 219–32. Kuschke, A. “Historisch-topographische Beiträge zum Buche Josue.” In Gottes Wort und Gottes Land. Ed. H. G. Reventlow. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. 106–9. ———. “Kleine Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte der Stämme Asser und Juda.” HTR 64 (1971) 291–313. Kutscher, E. Y. “Where Did the Tribe of Issachar Settle?” In Hebrew and Aramaic Studies. Jerusalem, 1977. 325–30 (Heb.). Lemaire, A. “Asher et la royaume de Tyr.” In Phoenicia and the Bible. Ed. E. Lipin´ski. OLA 44. Leuven: Peeters, 1991. 135–52. Lipin´ski, E. “The Territory of Tyre and the Tribe of Asher.” In Phoenicia and the Bible. Ed. E. Lipin´ski. OLA 44. Leuven: Peeters, 1991. 153–66. Lipschits, O. “The History of the Benjamin Region under Babylonian Rule.” TA 26 (1999) 171–172. Luria, B. Z. “The New Settlement of the Tribe of Dan.” DD 3 (1974) 10–14 (Heb.). Mazar, B. “The Cities of Dan.” In Cities and Districts of Eretz Israel. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1975. ———. “The Cities of the Territory of Dan.” IEJ 10 (1960) 65–77. ———. “The Cities of the Territory of Dan.” In The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies. Ed. S. Ahituv and B. A. Levine. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 1986. 104–12. McDonald, B. “The Biblical Tribe of Benjamin: Its Origins and Its History during the Period of the Judges of Israel.” PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 1974. Merling, D., Sr. The Book of Joshua: Its Theme and Role in Archaeological Discussions. Andrews University Doctoral Dissertation Series 23. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews UP, 1997. Mettinger, T. N. D. Solomonic State Officials: A Study of the Civil Government Officials of the Israelite Monarchy. ConBOT 5. Lund: Gleerup, 1971. 124– 26. Miller, J. M. “Geba/Gibeah of Benjamin.” VT 25 (1975) 145–66. Na’aman, N. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. JBS 4. Jerusalem: Simor, 1986. ———. “The Inheritance of the Sons of Simeon.” ZDPV 96 (1980) 136–52. ———. “The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah.” TA 18 (1991) 5–33. Revised in Good Kings and Bad Kings, ed. L. L. Grabbe, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies. JSOTSup 393. London: Clark, 2005. 191–210. ———. “Saul, Benjamin, and the Emergence of ‘Biblical Israel.’” ZAW 121 (2009) 211–24, 335–49. ———. “Two Notes on Ashkelon and Ekron.” TA 25 (1998) 223– 24. Neef, H.-D. Ephraim: Studien zur Geschichte des Stammes Ephraim von der Landnahme bis zur frühen Königszeit. BZAW 238. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995. Neumann-Gorsolke, U. “‘And the Land Was Subdued before Them . . .’? Some Remarks on the Meaning of ‫ כבשׁ‬in Joshua 18:1 and Related Texts.” In The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 148

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Translation

149

in Honour of Ed Noort. Ed. J. van Ruiten and J. C. de Vos. VTSup 124. Leiden: Brill, 2009. 73–86. Niemann, H. M. Die Daniten: Studien zur Geschichte eines altisraelitischen Stammes. FRLANT 135. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Noth, M. “Der alttestamentliche Name der Siedlung auf Chirbet Qumran.” ZDPV 71 (1955) 111–23. Reprinted in Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde. Vol. 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. 332–43. ———. “Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches.” ZDPV 58 (1935) 185–255. Reprinted in Aufsätze zur biblischen Landesund Altertumskunde. Vol. 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. 229–54. Rainey, A. F. “Tel Garisa and the Danite Inheritance.” ErIsr Museum Yearbook: Israel—People and Land 5–6 (1987) 59–72 (Heb.). Saarisalo, A. The Boundary between Issachar and Naphtali: An Archaeological and Literary Study of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia, 1927. ———. Sites and Roads in Asher and Western Judah. StudOr 28. Helsinki: Societas orientalis fennica, 1962. 3–29. Schley, D. G. Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History. JSOTSup 63. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Schmitt, G. Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes. BWANT 91. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970. 106–9. Schunck, K. D. “Bemerkungen zur Ortsliste von Benjamin (Jos. 18,21– 28).” ZDPV 78 (1962) 143–58. ———. Benjamin: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Geschichte eines israelitischen Stammes. BZAW 86. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1963. 149–69. Seebass, H. “Versuch zu Josua xviii 1–10.” VT 56 (2006) 370–85. Séjourné, P. M. “ThimnathSerach et Thimnath-Heres: Ou le lieu de la sépulture de Josué.” RB 2 (1883) 608–26. Spina, F. A. “The Dan Story Historically Reconsidered.” JSOT 2 (1977) 60–71. Strange, J. “The Inheritance of Dan.” ST 20 (1966) 120–39. Talmon, S. “The Town Lists of Simeon.” IEJ 15 (1965) 235–41. Vink, J. G. “The Date and Origin of the Priestly Code in the Old Testament.” OtSt 15 (1969) 63–73. Vos, J. C. de. “‘Holy Land’ in Joshua 18:1–10.” In The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort. Ed. J. van Ruiten and J. C. de Vos. VTSup 124. Leiden: Brill, 2009. 61–72. Yeivin, S. “The Benjaminite Settlement in the Western Part of Their Territory.” IEJ 21 (1971) 141–54.

Translation 1aAll the congregation of the sons of Israel assembled together at Shiloh. They pitched the tent of meeting there, b the land lying under control c before them. 2There remained among a the sons of Israel seven tribes who had not obtained their inheritance. b 3Joshua said to the sons of Israel, “How long will you (pl.) prove yourselves to be lazy cowards a in regard to entering b to possess the land which Yahweh the God of your fathers has given you (pl.)? 4Provide for yourselves three men of each tribe so that I may send a them, so they may get about the business of exploring the land to write it up in view of their inheritances and so they may come to me. 5They will apportion it into seven portions. Judah will remain on its territory to the south, while the house a of Joseph remains on their territory b to the north. 6But you will write up seven portions for the land and bring them to me here, so that I may cast for you (pl.) the lot here a before Yahweh our God.

7“But

there will be no portion for the Levites a in your midst because the priesthood of Yahweh is his inheritance. Gad, Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh have taken their inheritance beyond the Jordan to the east, which Moses, the servant of Yahweh, gave to them.” 8The men rose and went. Joshua commanded the ones going to write up a the land, saying, “Go, explore b in the land, and write it up. Then return to me. Here c I will cast the lot for you (pl.) before Yahweh in Shiloh.” 9Then the men a went and passed over the land. b They wrote it up in a book according to the cities for seven portions. Then they came c to Joshua to the camp of Shiloh. d 10Joshua cast the lot for them in Shiloh before Yahweh, a and Joshua apportioned b there the land to the sons of Israel in accordance with their portions.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 149

9/18/14 9:20 AM

150

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

11The

lot came up for the tribe of the sons a of Benjamin according to their clans. The territory of their lot was between the sons of Judah and the sons of Joseph. 12The territory belonged to them on the north side from the Jordan. The border goes up to the shoulder north of Jericho. It goes up into the hill country to the west. Its limits are toward the wilderness of Beth-Aven. a 13The border goes up from there to Luz, to the shoulder of Luz to the south (that is, Bethel). a The border goes down to Ataroth Adar b over the hill country which is south of lower Beth Horon. 14The border bends and turns round on the west side southward from the mountain which is opposite of Beth Horon to the south. Its limits are at Kiriath-Baal (that is, Kiriath-Jearim, the city of the sons of Judah). This is the western side. 15The south side begins at the edge of Kiriath-Jearim. a The border goes out westward b and then goes out to the spring of the waters of Nephtoah. 16The border goes down to the edge of the mountain that is opposite the vale of Ben Hinnom, which is in the Valley a of the Rephaim to the north. It goes down the vale of Hinnom to the shoulder of the Jebusites to the south. It goes down En Rogel. 17It turns northward a and goes out En Shemesh and goes out to Geliloth, b which is opposite the ascent of Adummim. It goes down to the stone of Bohan, the son of Reuben. 18It crosses over to the shoulder opposite the Arabah a to the north. It goes down to the Arabah. b 19The border passes over to the shoulder of Beth Hoglah to the north. Its limits are the border a at the tongue of the Salt Sea northward to the southern end of the Jordan. This is the southern border. 20The Jordan bounds it a on the eastern side. This is the inheritance of the sons of Benjamin according to its borders all around for their b clans. 21These cities belonged to the tribe a of the sons of Benjamin for their clans: Jericho, Beth Hoglab, Emek Keziz; 22Beth Haarabah, Zemarayim, Bethel; 23 Avvim, Parah, Ophrah; 24Chephar-ha- ammonai, Ophni, a Geba— twelve cities and their villages. 25Gibon, Ramah, Beeroth; 26Mizpeh, a Chephirah, Mozah; 27Rekem, Yirpeel, Taralah; 28Zela-ha- eleph, a and the Jebusite (that is, Jerusalem), b Gibeath-Kiriath—fourteen cities and their suburbs. This is the inheritance of the sons of Benjamin for their clans. 19:1The second lot came out for Simeon, for the tribe a of the sons of Simeon for their clans. Their inheritance was in the midst of the inheritance of the sons of Judah. 2There belonged to them in their inheritance: Beersheba, Sheba, a Moladah; 3Hazaro- Shual, Balah, a Azem; 4 Eltolad, Bethul, a Hormah; 5Ziklag, Beth- ham- markaboth, Hazar- Susah; a 6BethLebaoth, and Sharuhen, a— thirteen cities and their suburbs. 7Ayin Rimmon, a Ether, and Ashan—four cities and their suburbs, 8and all the suburbs which a surrounded these cities unto Baalath-Beer, Ramath of the Negev. b This is the inheritance of the tribe of the sons of Simeon for their clans. 9Out of the district of the sons a of Judah was the inheritance of the sons of Simeon. Because the allotment of the sons of Judah was too large for them, the sons of Simeon received an inheritance in the midst of their inheritance. 10The third lot came up for the sons a of Zebulun for their clans. The border of their inheritance reached unto Sarid. b 11Their border goes up to the west and a Maralah. It reaches Dabbasheth b and reaches to the river valley which is opposite Yokneʿam. 12It turns from Sarid eastward to the sunrise a on b the border of Kisloth- tabor. It goes out to Dabrath and goes up to Japhiaʿ. 13From there it passes over eastward to the sunrise to Gath- Hepher, Eth-Kazin. a It goes out to Rimmon, being bent to Neah. b 14The border turns itself a about northward to Hannathon. Its limits are the Vale of Yiphtah El. 15And Kattath, a Nahalal, Shimron, Yidalah, b and Bethlehem— twelve cities and their suburbs. c 16This is the inheritance of the sons of Zebulun for their clans, these a cities and their suburbs. 17For Issachar the fourth lot came out for the sons of Issachar and their clans. a 18Their territory was: Jezreel, a Chesuloth, Shunem; 19Hapharayim, Shion, a Anahaorath; 20Rabbith, a

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 150

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

151

Kishyon, Ebez; 21Remeth, a En- Gannim, En- Haddah, Beth Pazzez. 22The border reached Tabor, Shahazumah, a and Beth Shemesh. The limits of their territory were the Jordan— sixteen cities and their suburbs. 23This is the inheritance of the tribe of the sons of Issachar for their clans, the cities and their suburbs. 24The fifth lot went out to the tribe of the sons of a Asher for their clans. 25Their territory was: Helkath, a Hali, Beten, Achshaph; 26Alammelech, Amad, and Mishal. It reached Carmel to the west and Shihor-Libnath. 27It turned eastward to Beth Dagon and reaches Zebulun and the Vale of Yiphtah- El to the north, a Beth Emek and Neiel. It goes out to Cabul-Missemol; b 28Ebron, a Rehob, Hammon, Kanah unto Sidon the Great. b 29The border turns to Ramah and unto the city a of the Fortress of Tyre. b The border turns to Hosah. Its limits are the sea, from the district of Achzib, c 30Umah, a Aphek, and Rehob, twenty-two cities and their suburbs. 31This is the inheritance of the tribe of the sons of Asher for their clans, these a cities and their suburbs. 32 For the sons a of Naphtali, the sixth lot went out to the sons of Naphtali for their clans. 33Their territory was from Heleph, from Elon (= the oak) in Zaanannim, Adamihan- nekeb, and Yabneel unto Lakkum. Its limit was the Jordan. 34The border turned westward to Aznoth-Tabor. It went out from there to Hukok. It reaches Zebulun on the south and Asher on the west and Judah of the Jordan a on the east. 35The fortified cities are: Ziddim, Zer, a Hammath, Rakkath, Chinnereth; 36Adamah, a Ramah, Hazor; 37Kedesh, Edrei, EnHazor; 38Yiron, Midgal- El, Horem, Beth Anath, and Beth Shemesh,— nineteen cities and their suburbs. a 39This is the inheritance of the tribe of the sons of Naphtali for their clans, the cities and their villages. a 40For the tribe of the sons of a Dan for their clans came out the seventh lot. 41The territory of their inheritance a was Zorah, Eshtaol, the city of Shemesh; b 42Shaalabbin, a Ayyalon, Yithlah; 43Elon, a Timnatha, b Ekron; 44 Eltekeh, Gibbethon, Baalath; 45Yehud, a BeneBerak, Gath- Rimmon; 46the waters of Yarkon, and Rakkon, a with b the territory opposite Joppa. 47aThe territory of the sons of Dan went away from them. The sons of Dan moved up and did battle with Leshem. b They captured it and smote it with the sword. They dispossessed it and settled down in it. They called Leshem “Dan,” after the name of Dan, their father. 48This is the inheritance of the tribe of the sons of Dan for their clans, these cities and their suburbs. a 49They finished distributing as an inheritance the land according to its boundaries. Then the sons of Israel gave an inheritance to Joshua, the son of Nun, in their midst. 50According to the word of Yahweh, a they gave him the city which he requested: Timnath- Serah in the hill country of Ephraim. He built up the city and settled down in it. 51These are the inheritances which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of Israel distributed as an inheritance a by lot in Shiloh before Yahweh at the entrance of the tent of meeting. They finished apportioning the land.

Notes 18:1.a. Text- critical work on chap. 19 works off a presupposition regarding the relationship of Josh 15, 19, and 1 Chr 4, as well as an understanding of how precisely the text should mirror the various formulas appearing repeatedly. Noth sees chap. 19 as a scribal invention on the basis of chap. 15. Kallai (VT 53 [2003] 88) argues that Josh 15 and 19 are independent versions from a common source. The lateness of Chronicles as a source and the importance of the allotment lists for ongoing Judaism would favor Joshua as the source of Chronicles in the same way that Chronicles used various sources. The dependence of Simeon on Judah for land and life seemingly gives priority to Josh 15 over Josh 19, though Kallai may well be correct in seeking a common source.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 151

9/18/14 9:20 AM

152

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

1.b. De Vos (“Holy Land,” 63) reads ‫ ָשׁם‬, “there,” as ‫ ֵשׁם‬, “name,” thus “they let the name, namely, the name of God dwell.” De Vos admits this reading is speculative but not impossible. 1.c. Neumann- Gorsolke, U. “‘And the Land Was Subdued before Them . . .’?” uses Akkadian texts to relate Heb. ‫ כבשׁ‬to the practice of stepping on the land to show possession or control of it. Here Israel has defeated the enemy and must ceremonially step on the territories to have them under control. This involves taking an explanation of the nipʿal meaning to allow something to be done that Gorsolke then transfers to this passage as “the land could be stepped upon,” citing IBHS 23.1.d, which is actually a quote from Bergsträsser. The usage here comes closest to IBHS 23.2.1.b and its discussion of the ergative using ‫את‬. ‫ כבשׁ‬may give the sense of stepping on to take possession, but one must not eliminate the background meaning of “subdue” that has made it possible to step on in a legal act of claiming or possessing. 2.a. The preposition appears to be missing in the Tg. and Gk. traditions, but is necessary in the Heb. construction. 2.b. Note IBHS 24.3.1a for the distinction between qal and simple resultative piʿel. The qal here means “who had not yet apportioned their possession.” Compare piʿel in Josh 18:10. 3.a. The Heb. hitpaʿel participle occurs only here and in Prov 18:9. The pf. appears in Prov 24:10. The basic meaning of the root ‫ רפה‬is “to become slack, quit working.” It can also refer to the loss of courage (2 Sam 4:1; Isa. 13:7). 3.b. LXX does not reflect the idiomatic “to enter” of the Heb. but also omits “to you (pl.)” and simplifies “God of your fathers” to “our God.” The latter appears in the Heb. of v 6 and may reflect the fluidity of tradition in using various traditional divine epithets (cf. Auld, “Joshua,” 12–13 and see Comments below). Nelson (206) sees no way to choose between the divine epithets. 4.a. The Heb. text has an opening impv. followed by a series of impfs. joined by simple waws. This expresses purpose or result (compare, e.g., T. O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, 119). LXX has gone its own way in reproducing this verse, omitting any reference to “I may send them,” reading ‫לפי‬, “in view of, according to,” as ‫לפני‬, “before, in the presence of me,” interpreting ‫נחלתם‬, “their inheritances,” as “ just as it ought to be divided,” and writing the final phrase of v 4 and the opening one of v 5 as if they were impf. consecs., describing past actions: “They came to him, and he divided to them seven portions.” This strengthens the role of Joshua but stands in contradiction to v 6 in both MT and LXX. Nelson (204) sees “I may send them” as a MT plus providing an “explanatory detail.” 5.a. LXX reads “sons,” rather than “house,” repeating its reading in Josh 17:17. 5.b. Nelson notes (206) that OG does not have the second “on their territory” and labels the omission “translational.” 6.a. LXX and Syr. omit the second “here,” which is redundant. Nelson (206) sees MT adding this to emphasize the Shiloh location and point to vv 9–10. 7.a. LXX adds “sons- of” before “Levites.” The sg. suffix on inheritance referring back to the pl. “Levites” has caused scribes in Heb., Gk., Aram., and Syr. traditions to use the pl. suffix. 8.a. LXX ignores ‫כתב‬, “to write up,” in this verse, interpreting it as “to explore, pass through the land,” in both instances. Still, the LXX in the following verse and v 4 expresses the theme of writing. 8.b. Nelson notices that OG omitted a verb through haplography. 8.c. LXX A and Syr. place “here” with the preceding sentence, followed by the JB, but rejected correctly by the Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:46. 9.a. LXX does not reflect a specific subject for the sentence. 9.b. LXX adds “and they saw it,” taking up the idiom of Josh 2:1. 9.c. LXX reflects the hipʿil of ‫בוא‬, “they brought,” but has no object. The confusion arose because the MT reflects the command “to come to me” in v 4 as well as “to bring them to me” in v 6. Fritz simply reads hipʿil. 9.d. LXX omits reference to the camp at Shiloh here. Scribes could have added this to the textual tradition in light of v 1. Nelson (206) finds emphasis on Shiloh by MT. 10.a. LXX omits the second half of v 10, beginning with “and Joshua . . .” This may represent a later scribal insertion underlining obedience to the command of Josh 13:6–7. Compare Nelson, 206.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 152

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

153

10.b. On simple resultative piʿel, “Joshua apportioned,” see IBHS 24.3.1a. Compare Josh 18:2. 11.a. LXX omits “sons” before “Benjamin” and “Judah,” while using it before “Joseph.” LXX also adds “the first” to “lot” in analogy to the remainder of chaps. 18–19. 12.a. Fritz notes that “Beth- Aven” is a distortion of “Beth- el.” 13.a. Fritz sees “that is, Bethel” is a clarifying gloss to “Luz.” 13.b. “Ataroth Adar” appears also in Josh 16:5. The Preliminary and Interim Report (2:47), later editions of the JB, and Soggin prefer to read “Ataroth- Orech” here, based on Josh 16:2, seeing MT as assimilation to 16:5. LXX gives support for the change. Our verse certainly parallels 16:2 rather than 16:5, so that “Ataroth- Orech” may be original here. Nelson follows MT. 15.a. LXX reads the older name Kiriath- Baal here (cf. Josh 15:60; 18:14) and may preserve the older reading. 15.b. LXX reads, “goes across to Gasin (or ruins), to the spring.” The opinion of scholars is quite divided here, as a comparison of modern translations quickly reveals. Noth, Hertzberg, and NIV follow MT, the first two with questions. Holzinger (1901) and Steuernagel are content to point out that the text is corrupt. NEB simply omits the section. RSV here follows Josh 15:9 (MT) in reading “from there to Ephron, to.” Soggin and JB follow LXX in reading “Gazin.” The Preliminary and Interim Report (2:47– 48) interprets LXX in another manner (cf. Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek) and reads “towards ‫ ִעיִּ י‬the ruins and goes.” Gray says the MT is absurd and goes his own way in reconstructing from the LXX, “and the border went out west of Moza to the spring” or “and the border went out to Moza and went out to the spring.” Here we are dealing with a text that has been misunderstood at a very early stage and probably can never be properly restored, though Nelson is content to read MT, apparently as more difficult text. This is the best decision at this point. 16.a. LXX B apparently reads, “The border goes down to the end; this is in front of the Vale of Sonnam, which is at the end of the Valley of Rephaim to the north.” Margolis (Book of Joshua in Greek) explains this as an inner- Gk. corruption, but Hertzberg uses it to reconstruct “at the end of the Valley.” Syr. and Tg. evidence is often used (cf. Hertzberg, Noth) to restore “Ben” before the second “Hinnom.” Haplography with the preceding ‫גֵ י‬, “vale,” is possible, but total consistency is not necessary. 17.a. The opening “it turns northward” does not appear in LXX. We “remain in the dark” concerning its meaning (Noth), so that it may not be original. Nelson sees MT as “geographic gloss.” LXX also reads the more frequent “Beth Shemesh” for “ʿEn Shemesh.” 17.b. Geliloth means “regions” and may be the same as Gilgal here (Howard, 364). 18.a. LXX reads Beth-ha-ʿarabah with Josh 15:6, 61; 18:22 over against MT, which can be understood either as a proper name, “Mul-ha-ʿarabah,” or as a preposition, “opposite, facing the ʿArabah.” The Preliminary and Interim Report (2:48) is probably correct in retaining MT over against Soggin, RSV, JB, NIV, Noth, BHS, Hertzberg, Fritz, and Nelson. The latter speaks of “graphic similarity.” Fritz reads ‫בית ערבה‬. 18.b. LXX B reads, “They shall go down to the borders on the shoulder of the sea to the north. This is the limit of the border on the tongue of the sea of Salt on the north unto the end of the Jordan to the south.” This omits the reference to the Arabah (v 18b) and to Beth Hoglah, for which is substituted a second reference to the sea. Margolis (Book of Joshua in Greek) explains LXX B as homoioteleuton and corruption, whereas BHS and Fritz suggest that MT represents dittography, thus explaining the omission of “to the Arabah and it passes over.” Both traditions thus represent corruption, the original text probably reading: “the border went down to the shoulder of Beth Hoglah” (cf. Steuernagel; Nelson). 19.a. Fritz sees “border” as superfluous and to be deleted. 20.a. Fritz emends ‫ יִ גְ בֹּל־ אֹתוֹ‬to ‫ וגבול‬on the pattern of Josh 13:23, 27; 15:47. This creates a nominal clause with only an understood verb. 20.b. LXX omits the pronomial suffix. 21.a. LXX omits “tribe.” 24.a. LXX lacks an equivalent for Ophni, which may be explained as dittography for the preceding name. Unable to throw light on the textual tradition at this point; Fritz retains Ophni. Nelson (212) leaves open the possibility of homoioteleuton in the Gk. 26.a. The LXX reads vv 26–28 quite differently than does MT as illustrated in Table 18.1 at the end of the Notes section.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 153

9/18/14 9:20 AM

154

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

28.a. “Zelaʿ-ha-ʾeleph” appears to represent one town in MT since there is no conjunction separating the elements. The same can be said for “Gibeʿath- Kiriath.” The final note lists fourteen cities, understanding each of the compounds as two cities. LXX appears to have read the final two as Gibeath and Kiriath- Jearim (cf. Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek, vv 14–15; Fritz, who sees construct state of Gibeath as originating because of later changes in the text). Preliminary and Interim Report (2:49; cf. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 1:49– 50) reads Kiriath- Jearim, seeing an accidental omission here. LXX’s summary (v 28) reads: “thirteen cities,” apparently understanding “Zelaʿ-ha-ʾeleph” as one name. “Jearim” may have fallen from the text due to haplography or homoioteleuton (Fritz). 28.b. Fritz finds “that is, Jerusalem” as a secondary identification and reads “Jebus” as the town name rather than breaking the form and listing the inhabitants as Jebusites. Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:49– 50) shows that “Jebusites” frequently appears in place of the more natural “city of the Jebusites.” 19:1.a. LXX simplifies the text, omitting “for Simeon, for the tribe of,” and “for their clans.” Fritz deletes “for Simeon” as superfluous gloss. Nelson finds that MT “conflates the short reading of OG with a longer alternative found in S and V (‘for the tribe of the children of Simeon’) into a doublet ‘for Simeon for the tribe of the children of Simeon.’” So Nelson leaves only “the lot went out second for Simeon.” This is a pattern followed by LXX in each of these formulaic introductions (cf. Josh 18:11; 19:10, 17, 24, 32, 40), but the only point of consistency which even LXX has achieved is the use of the same verb and the use of the number of the lot in every case. Here again is evidence that the copying tradition was somewhat free in reproducing formulaic materials. MT is actually more consistent in including “sons of” and “for their clans” in every instance. Such consistency could be the work of the later copying tradition. 2.a. LXX is to be followed in reading “Shemaʿ,” MT reflecting dittography of the preceding word (cf. Josh 15:26). Preliminary and Interim Report (2:49– 50) and Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:51) adopt the conjectural reading “and Shema.” The word may not have appeared in the original list at all, since vv 1– 6 include fourteen names, while the summary in v 6b has only thirteen cities (cf. Steuernagel; Fritz). Nelson suggests the MT adds the dittography lacking in the parallel list in 1 Chr 4:28. Nelson offers a second suggestion that MT reflects two Iron Age sites— located a few kilometers apart: Tell es- Sebaʿ and Khirbet Bir es- Sebaʿ. Kallai (VT 53 [2003] 88– 89) reviews previous study and then unexpectedly concludes, “considering all the evidence, it is quite obvious that Shema is the superior version.” 3.a. Fritz reads ‫ בעלה‬for MT’s ‫ בלה‬in line with Josh 15:29. 4.a. Josh 15:30 witnesses “Chesil” here, whereas 1 Chr 4:30 has “Bethuʾel.” Kallai (VT 53 [2003] 86) notes that LXX B reads βαιθἠλ, pointing to an original “Beth- el,” MT being corrupt (cf. 1 Sam 30:27). 5.a. The final two names are quite differently witnessed in Josh 15:31 (cf. 1 Chr 4:31; Neh 11:28) so that Fritz, perhaps correctly, replaces MT with 15:31 forms here as the more difficult reading. 6.a. Josh 15:32 shows different readings, but our chapter preserves the preferred readings. 7.a. ʿAyin Rimmon appears to be considered two cities in the concluding summary (cf. 1 Chr 4:32), making four cities listed. Howard (367) follows Kallai and the MT in reading two separate cities here. Fritz and Preliminary and Interim Report (2:50) read “Enrimmon.” LXX adds “Thalcha” (LXX B) or “Tachan” (Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek; Nelson; Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:50; cf. 1 Chr 4:32), which may have fallen from MT tradition in confusion with ‫עתר‬, which follows. The proper spelling of the latter may be ‫( עתך‬cf. 1 Sam 30:30; Josh 15:42 LXX; cf. Fritz). Its loss may have led to division of En- Rimmon into two cities. 8.a. The syntax of v 8 is difficult in MT, but the omission of the opening “all the suburbs which” by LXX only makes it more difficult. Nelson sees this as a dittography from v 7. LXX also apparently understands ‫ בעך‬as a verb form (see Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek). 8.b. Baalath Beer appears to be identical with Ramah in the desert. Kallai (VT 53 [2003] 90) finds “the underlying text . . . is ‘until Baalath (Baalath- beer?) as far as Ramath-negeb.’” 9.a. In moves typical of the copying tradition, LXX omits “sons” before Judah, then

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 154

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

155

adds “tribe of” before the first “sons of Simeon.” Within the boundary lists, the term ‫חבל‬, “district,” appears only here and Josh 17:5, 14. This verse also contains the primary terms ‫ נחלה‬and ‫ חלק‬for the “inheritance” or “allotment.” 10.a. LXX omits “sons” (cf. Note 19:1.a). Fritz thus reads the normal formula with ‫מטה‬, “tribe,” while BHS suggests ‫מטה בני‬, “the tribe of the sons of.” 10.b. LXX reads the final place as “Shadud.” This is usually accepted following Alt (“Das Institute in Jahre 1925,” PJ 22 [1926] 59– 60; cf. Nelson, who sees copyist’s confusion of resh and dalet), but Preliminary and Interim Report (2:50– 51) retains MT, as does Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:52), citing Judg 5:13. The same problem appears in v 12. 11.a. Fritz says LXX already presupposes ‫לימה‬, “towards the sea” or “westward,” so that Noth’s explanation of a corrupt place name cannot be accepted. Fritz simply strikes the waw and reads “towards Maaralah.” 11.b. LXX understood the first verb form as a noun, “Gola.” Margolis (Book of Joshua in Greek) sees the middle part of the verse as too corrupt for translation in the LXX, but the LXX B reads έπι Βαιθαραβα, “to Bethʿaraba,” for MT “Dabbasheth and reaches.” The final part of Dabbasheth represents the consonants for the Heb. word “shame,” used sometimes to replace “unholy elements” (e.g., Ish- bosheth in 2 Sam 2:8 for Esh- baal in 1 Chr 8:33; 9:39). LXX appears to have a text that omits the “shameful element” entirely and combines the first part of the word with the following verb form. Despite great scholarly comment, there is no reason to emend “to the west” (cf. Soggin). 12.a. The effect of familiar language is witnessed by LXX, which inserts “Beth” before “Shemesh,” forming the familiar “Beth Shemesh” (cf. Josh 18:17) rather than the directional “rising of the sun.” 12.b. Fritz changes the preposition from ‫על‬, “on,” to ‫אל‬, “to.” 13.a. LXX reads “ʿItrah- Kazin,” thus “to the city of Kazin,” which may be correct. Neither of the terms appears elsewhere in the OT (cf. A. van Selms, “The Origin of the Name Tyropoean in Jerusalem,” ZAW 91 [1979] 173). 13.b. Soggin calls MT here incomprehensible. Scholarship is almost unanimous in seeing the article on ‫המתאר‬, “being bent,” as belonging to the preceding “Rimmon” as a directive ‫( ה‬Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:51– 52) and then reading a form of ‫תאר‬, “it turns” or “turning.” Fritz suggests ‫ותאר‬, while Nelson, Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:52– 54), and Preliminary and Interim Report (2:51– 52) have the participle ‫מתאר‬, “being bent toward Neah.” This may well be correct, though it remains a conjecture without solid textual basis. 14.a. LXX does not witness the accusative pronoun that most commentators delete as incomprehensible (Soggin, Fritz). Nelson translates, “the border turns itself,” then offers an alternate translation taking “Neah” as a landmark rather than a town. 15.a. Fritz reads “Kitron” with Judg 1:30. 15.b. Judg 1:30 gives variants of “Kattath” and “Nahalal,” while LXX gives its consistent variant “Sumoon” for “Shimron” (cf. Josh 11:1; 12:20). Nelson and Preliminary and Interim Report (2:52– 53) accept Shimʾon or Shimeon. LXX B reads “Jericho” instead of Yidʾalah, other Gk., Heb., Syr., and Vg. texts reading Yirʾelah (see Nelson). Preliminary and Interim Report (2:53) and Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:53– 54) adopt scribal error for “Jiralah.” 15.c. LXX omits the summary statement totaling the number of cities here and in vv 22b, 30b, 38b, perhaps because of the difficulty of finding the precise number of cities in each section (but cf. Steuernagel). Nelson sees an MT expansion here. 16.a. There is strong Heb., Gk., Aram., and Latin support for the addition of “tribe” before “sons of,” while LXX omits “these,” as redundant after v 15. 17.a. LXX omits the repetitive “for the sons of Issachar for their clans,” but this is the normal formula. Nelson sees MT filling out the formula from v 16. The surprising feature here is the opening “for Issachar,” which Fritz deletes as a marginal note that found its way into the text (cf. Note 19:l.a). Fritz also substitutes “tribe” for “sons of,” to bring consistency to the introductory formulas. 18.a. Fritz deletes the ‫ ה‬locale from “Jezreel” with the versions. 19.a. Albright (ZAW 44 [1926] 229) saw a copyist’s error in writing an original resh as an alef so that Fritz reads “Shiron.” LXX adds a city, possibly to be restored as “Beʾeroth” (BHS; Fritz) or “Deberoth” (Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek), since this makes the arithmetic of v 22 easier, but the LXX may simply have repeated ‫ הרבית‬from v 20 (Margolis, Book of Joshua in Greek), which appears in Josh 21:28 and 1 Chr 6:57 as “Dabrith.”

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 155

9/18/14 9:20 AM

156

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

20.a. Starting from LXX, Fritz and Nelson read “Rabbith” as “Daberath”; cf. Josh 19:12; 21:28; 1 Chr 6:72 (Heb. 6:57). Preliminary and Interim Report (2:53– 54) reads “and the Debirath,” seeing assimilation and historical confusion, but Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:55– 56) retains MT “Rabbith.” 21.a. “Remeth” appears in Josh 21:29 as “Yarmuth” and in 1 Chr 6:58 as “Raʾmoth.” 22.a. The various traditions have transmitted “Shahazumah” in different ways. LXX reads the last part as a separate word, ‫ימה‬, “westwards.” LXX did not transmit v 22b (cf. Note 19:15.a). 24.a. LXX omits “to the tribe of the sons of” and “for their clans” (cf. Note 19:1.a). 25.a. LXX (followed by Nelson) added “from” to turn the list of cities into the expected border description (but see Soggin). 27.a. LXX again makes the border description explicit, adding “and the border went to Zephath,” which Fritz adopts as original, having fallen out through homoioteleuton. Nelson accepts the haplography of MT without adding “Zephath.” 27.b. Fritz reads ‫ ָכּבוּל ִמ ְשּׂמ ֹאל‬as a town name “Mishal,” pointing to Josh 21:30. Nelson agrees that “Mishal” is a possible reading, but so is “on the north” or “left of Cabul.” 28.a. For ʿEbron, Josh 21:30, 1 Chr 6:39, and many MSS here read ʿAbdon, which may be original (cf. Fritz; Nelson; Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:54; and Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 1:56– 57). 28.b. Fritz dismisses “unto Sidon the Great” as a gloss, the Sea first being reached in v 29. 29.a. For ‫עיר‬, “city,” LXX reads ‫ ֵﬠין‬, “spring.” 29.b. Fritz deletes “of the Fortress of Tyre” as a later addition that disturbs the context. 29.c. The final two words of the verse are usually corrected following Judg 1:31, LXX, and the annals of Sennacherib (ANET, 287) to “Mahalab and ʾAchzib,” or a similar vocalization (cf. Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:54; Fritz; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 1:57– 58). Nelson notes that Na’aman (Borders and Districts, 60) does not accept this evidence for change. 30.a. LXX may have read ʿakko, “Acco,” for “Umah” (cf. Judg 1:31; Fritz; Nelson). Preliminary and Interim Report (2:55) adopts “Acco,” seeing scribal error and historical misunderstanding. Again, LXX omits the final section (cf. Note 19:15.a). 31.a. LXX omits “these” (cf. Note 19:16.a). 32.a. LXX omits “the sons of” and “to the sons of Naphtali for their clans” (cf. Note 19:1.a). Fritz deletes the opening “for the sons of Naphtali” as a marginal note incorporated later into the text and inserts ‫מטה‬, “tribe,” before “to the sons of Naphtali.” Nelson thinks MT has a doublet in regard to “the children of Naphtali,” conflating the variant word order of OG and Syr. while filling out the formula. 34.a. “Judah of the Jordan” is a strange and inexplicable name for an unknown locality (Soggin). LXX does not reflect “Judah.” NEB takes it to mean “lowlands,” while the Preliminary and Interim Report (2:55– 56) considers it “the corrupt form of a place name which at present cannot be reconstructed,” suggesting the translation “Jehuda at/on the Jordan.” Soggin may be more nearly correct when he suggests that Judah arose through dittography from Jordan (cf. Bright). Fritz looks for an unknown technical term for the mouth of the river flowing from the Sea of Gennesaret. Nelson says it is difficult to explain as an addition to the text, so he retains as a town otherwise unknown. Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:59) points to Wadi el-Yehudiyeh less than ten kilometers northeast of the mouth of the Jordan on the Sea of Tiberias. 35.a. Fritz eliminates “the fortified cities Ziddim, Zer” as having been added on the basis of the naming of Tyre and Sidon in vv 28–29, names he sees as additions to those verses. Nelson says the corruption here “cannot be convincingly unraveled.” 36.a. LXX apparently read the cities as Hazzorim, Hamath, Deketh, Chinereth, and ʾArmay. Alt (ZAW 45 [1927] 72, n. 2) explained the opening words of the verse as dependent upon similar phrases in vv 28, 29, which he considered to be later additions there. He is followed by Noth, Hertzberg, and BHS. The texts provide little evidence for such a radical solution. 38.a. LXX omits the final summary (cf. Note 19:15.a). 39.a. LXX omits the final “for their clans . . .” This is the only instance where LXX does not attest this stereotyped formulaic ending. Nelson is probably right when he sees a MT harmonization to the standard pattern.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 156

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

157

40.a. LXX omits “the tribe of the sons of” and “for their clans” (cf. Note 19:7.a). 41.a. LXX does not witness “inheritance.” 41.b. The textual tradition witnesses confusion between ‫ ִﬠיר‬and ‫ ֵﬠין‬with “Beth Shemesh” (BHS) as often. See Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 91. 42.a. Judg 1:35, 1 Kgs 4:39, and some Heb. MSS provide the basis for reading “Shaʿalebim” (see Fritz). 43.a. Fritz strikes out “Elon” as a result of dittography from “Ajalon” with reference to Strange (ST 20 [1966] 122). Bartusch (Understanding Dan, 91) points out the lack of any textual support for Strange’s proposal and suggests that it would break the pattern of listing three cities together in the Dan list. 43.b. Fritz follows the versions in reading “Timnah” without the locative he. 45.a. For “Yehud,” LXX B offers “Azor,” “a real variant” (Soggin), which leads the Preliminary and Interim Report (2:56– 57) to include both names in the text (cf. O. Eissfeldt, ZDPV 54 [1931] 271–78). Fritz refuses to follow Noth in equating the Gk. reading with “Azura” (modern Yazur) from the Taylor Cylinder. Fritz finds that the assumed simultaneous textual loss in LXX and MT is too improbable for one to decide that “Azuru” belongs to the original text. Nelson thinks MT lost “Azor” and OG lost “Jehud” through homoioteleuton. Preliminary and Interim Report (2:56– 57) and Barthélemy (Critique textuelle, 1:60) see this double scribal error and read “and Jehud and Azor.” 46.a. LXX reads “and on the west of Yarkon, the border opposite Joppa,” thus reading ‫ יָ מּיִ ם‬for ‫ מי‬and not witnessing “Rakkon,” which appears nowhere else in the OT. This has led to a wide variety of translations (cf. Preliminary and Interim Report, 2:57; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, 1:60– 61) who ultimately retained MT: “the waters of the Jarkon and the Rakkon.” “Rakkon” may well represent dittography from “Yarkon,” the LXX representing the original text here (see Fritz; Nelson). 46.b. Fritz replaces the preposition ‫ עם‬with ‫עד‬. See Bartusch (Understanding Dan, 91). 47.a– 48.a. The textual tradition in these verses is quite complex. LXX has introduced much of the language of Judg 1:34– 36 but in a distinctive interpretation and order: 19:48 καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ιουδα καὶ ἐπολέμησαν τὴν Λαχις, καὶ κατελάβοντο αὐτὴν καὶ ἐπάταξαν αὐτὴν ἐν στόματι μαχαίρας, καὶ κατῴκησαν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐκάλεσαν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Λασενδακ. [48a]καὶ ὁ Αμορραῖος ὑπέμεινεν τοῦ κατοικεῖν ἐν Ελωμ καὶ ἐν Σαλαμιν· καὶ ἐβαρύνθη ἡ χεὶρ τοῦ Εφραιμ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἐγένοντο αὐτοῖς εἰς φόρον. 19:47αὕτη ἡ κληρονομία φυλῆς υἱῶν Δαν κατὰ δήμους αὐτῶν, αἱ πόλεις αὐτῶν καὶ αἱ κῶμαι αὐτῶν. [47a]καὶ οὐκ ἐξέθλιψαν οἱ υἱοὶ Δαν τὸν Αμορραῖον τὸν θλίβοντα αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὄρει· καὶ οὐκ εἴων αὐτοὺς οἱ Αμορραῖοι καταβῆναι εἰς τὴν κοιλάδα, καὶ ἔθλιψαν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ ὅροιν τῆς μερίδος αὐτῶν. 19:48 And the sons of Ioudas proceeded and fought against Lachis, and they took it and smote it with the edge of the dagger, and they inhabited it and called its name Lasendak. [48a]And the Amorite continued to dwell in Elom and in Salamin, and the hand of Ephraim was heavy upon them, and they became as tribute to them. 19:47 This is the inheritance of the tribe of the sons of Dan according to their districts, their cities, and their villages. [47a]And the sons of Dan did not force out the Amorite who was oppressing them in the mountain, and the Amorites did not permit them to go down into the valley, and they reduced from them the boundary of their portion. See Bartusch (Understanding Dan, 94– 97 with footnotes 56– 58) for further history of research and for another translation of LXX vv 47– 48. If nothing else, this shows clearly how the text continued to be open to interpretation and addition among the copyists and how the Gk. may well have used a different Heb. text than is apparent in MT. Auld (VT 25 [1975] 277–78) buttresses the argument of Holmes (Joshua) that LXX represents the original text here. Nelson opts for MT, explaining: “there are strong reasons for believing that this little plot line was secondarily constructed out of Josh 19:47 (in a form close to MT) and Judg 1:34– 35” (225–26). Bartusch (Understanding Dan, 92– 93, n. 45) argues on the basis of distinct narrative form and the lack of a final numerical summary that v 47 represents an interpolation. Bartusch finally concludes (93– 94) that emendation of MT is unnecessary. 47.b. Fritz refers to Judg 18:7, 27, 29 to read “Lajisch.” 50.a. LXX has “God” for “Yahweh” (cf. Auld, “Joshua,” 12–13). LXX records Joshua’s lands as “Timnath-heres” (cf. Note 24:30.a; Nelson, 226). 51.a. IBHS 24.3.1 points here to a simple resultative piʿel, translating, “they completed apportioning the land.”

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 157

9/18/14 9:20 AM

158

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51) Table 18.1. Text Comparison Between 18:26–28 in LXX and MT Josh 18

v 26

v 27

LXX

NETS

MT

Author

καὶ Μασσημα

and Massema

‫ וְ ַה ִמּ ְצ ֶפה‬Mizpeh

καὶ Μιρων

and Miron

‫ וְ ַה ְכּ ִפ ָירה‬Chephirah

καὶ Αμωκη

and Hamoke

καὶ Φιρα

and Phira

καὶ Καφαν

and Kaphan

καὶ Νακαν

and Nakan

καὶ Σεληκαν

and Selekan

καὶ Θαρεηλα

and Thareela

‫ וְ ַהמּ ָֹצה‬Mozah ‫ וְ ֶר ֶקם‬Rekem ‫ וְ יִ ְר ְפ ֵאל‬Yirpeʾel

‫ וְ ַת ְר ֲא ָלה‬Tarʾalah ‫ וְ ֵצ ַלע ָה ֶא ֶלף‬Zelaʿ-ha-ʾeleph

v 28

καὶ Ιεβους (αὕτη ἐστὶν Ιερουσαλημ) καὶ πόλεις

and (this is Ierousalem) and cities

καὶ Γαβαωθιαριμ,

and Gabaothiarim—

‫יְבוּסי ִהיא‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַה‬and the Jebusite ‫רוּשׁ ַליִ ם‬ ָ ְ‫( י‬that is, Jerusalem)

‫ גְּ ְב ַﬠת‬Gibeʿath‫ ִק ְריַ ת‬Kiriath

πόλεις τρεῖς καὶ δέκα καὶ αἱ κῶμαι αὐτῶν.

thirteen cities and their villages

αὑτη ἡ κληρονομία υἱῶν Βενιαμιν κατὰ δήμους αὐτῶν.

This is the inheritance of the sons of Beniamin according to their districts.

‫ע־ﬠ ְשׂ ֵרה‬ ֶ ‫ ָﬠ ִרים ַא ְר ַבּ‬fourteen cities ‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַח ְצ ֵר‬and their suburbs.

‫ זֹאת נַ ֲח ַלת ְבּנֵ י־‬This is the ‫יָמן ְל ִמ ְשׁ ְפח ָֹתם׃‬ ִ ְ‫ ִבנ‬inheritance of the sons of Benjamin for their clans.

Form/Structure/Setting The two chapters clearly form a separate unit with the change of location (Josh 18:1) and the concern for the seven remaining tribes (v 2). The section actually concludes with 19:48, the final verses representing a conclusion to chaps. 13–19 as a whole, though 19:51 also points back to 18:1 and serves as a concluding formula for both the smaller and the larger unit.

Tradition Schmitt has shown that the section does not fit the Priestly understanding of the lot given out by Eleazer and the heads of the tribes along with Joshua.411 The appointment of a commission to divide the land represents the origin, not the

411 Du sollst, 10– 69.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 158

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

159

conclusion or middle point of a tradition. Thus Schmitt concludes that a second land- distribution tradition lies behind the present narrative. Gray, though holding to the theory of Priestly influence, also posits an original tradition behind the section, namely, that of Joshua as land arbitrator and a boundary commission to settle boundary disputes on the basis of written records. He also notes the distinction that in chaps. 14–17 Judah and Joseph were shown taking the initiative to gain their allotment, while here “the formality of the transaction is surprising.” Bächli, too, underlines the age of the commission tradition.412 Whatever the setting that produced the land distribution tradition, the interesting item is the nature of the tradition itself. First, it deals with seven tribes, which seem to have little relationship at first glance. This is particularly true of Simeon, settled so far to the south. Simeon has no border descriptions and the city list is most heavily dependent on lists witnessed independently elsewhere. If anywhere, it is with Simeon that an original list has given place to later historical conditions. The earliest Simeonite tradition places Simeon in the area of Manasseh, near Shechem, in the days when Levi was a secular tribe (Gen 34:25– 31). Here, again may be a clue to the antiquity of the tradition. A further clue may rest in the territory allotted to Dan, for here the allotment is at the far western edge of the country, which the tradition itself has then explained with the note that Dan lost this territory (Josh 19:47). Judg 1:35 notes that the house of Joseph eventually controlled this territory. Another interesting element is the use of the verb ‫כּתב‬, “to write,” five times (Josh 18:4, 6, 8 [2x], 9), climaxing with a reference to the book (v 9). The story is not simply an editorial introduction to the following land allotment. It is a traditionally unique account centering not so much on the allotment as on the book to be written. Certainly it is difficult to imagine the later editors totally rewriting the land distribution narratives in the distinct form and setting of chaps. 15–17 and 18–19 without a basis in tradition itself. It is equally difficult to imagine that the Ortsgebundenheit of tradition history would be so totally contradicted by this one tradition, where the name Shiloh appears not once but four times within ten verses. The most important argument against the originality of Shiloh here is a geographical one. How can the tradition speak of Shiloh originally and describe Judah as being south and Joseph being north (Josh 18:5)? This may be answered in either of two ways. First, Josh 18:5b finds its context outside the present narrative and can be suspected of being an editorial link to chaps. 15–17. Second, Shiloh stands quite near the northern boundary of Ephraim and perhaps even near the northeastern corner of its territory. Such a standpoint could represent a time in the tradition when the house of Joseph was limited to the territory of Manasseh. This would explain to some degree the extensive interest in Benjamin, evident both in chaps. 15–17 and in chaps. 18–19, Benjamin being precisely the point of contention between the house of Joseph and the house of Judah, with the basically unsettled Ephraimite hill country between. Kallai offers a different approach. He compares Josh 15:21– 32, 42; 19:2– 8; 1 Chr 4:28– 33, and Neh 11:5– 30 to show that such geographical descriptions are 412 ZDPV 89 (1973) 1–14.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 159

9/18/14 9:20 AM

160

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

compiled according to “fixed patterns,” the basic scribal rule being “the retention of accepted basic frameworks.”413 The tradition deals with only seven tribes. The assumption that seven belongs to the earliest tradition may be debated. Chap. 13 reports the two-and- a-half-tribe tradition east of the Jordan. Chap. 14 appears to introduce a parallel nine-and- ahalf-tribe tradition west of the Jordan. To do this, however, the ultimate writer had to combine various traditions. The Judah tradition in chaps. 14–15 combines Caleb traditions, city lists, and geographically structured boundary lists. The geographical structuring of the various regions must lie in the tradition since the writer did not structure all the traditions in this way. Chap. 16 is built on a Joseph boundary list that the writer then explains as the overall structure for the two kindred tribes of Ephraim and one-half Manasseh. The Ephraim tradition is quite limited, including only a boundary list with a rather close relationship to the Joseph list. The editorial framework then mentions cities without preserving names of any such towns. Manasseh’s “boundary list” tells more about possible boundary disputes than it does actual boundary points. Again, no real city lists appear. Tied to Manasseh is the narrative of Zelophehad’s daughters, which reflects pentateuchal traditions. Almost as an epilogue, the descendants of Joseph appear complaining that they have insufficient land. Chaps. 13–17 combine traditions built on differing structural formats and include various types of narratives. Chaps. 18–19 reveal structures and components that are much more alike than those of the preceding chapters. This apparently isolates chaps. 17–19 as a seven-tribe tradition. It moves Simeon away from Manasseh and moves Dan to the far north, though the latter may be a part of the editorial framework. Here is an ancient tradition that appears to have its home in Shiloh and that accounts for the preservation of a book containing tribal allotments. It accounts for the preservation of premonarchic border lists for the tribes. Such a tradition is tied to the person of Joshua, the one who ultimately uses the book not only to give out land allotments but also to justify a second allotment for the house of Joseph (cf. Josh 17:14–18) and settle other such tribal disputes.

Source and Redaction The section has generally been analyzed as the work of a redactor using the latest materials of the Pentateuch, as well as some older traditions. De Vos posits a late phase in Israelite literary history because God does not take a more active role.414 He also says that both Josh 13–19 and Num 6– 36 “do not belong to the Priestly Document because essential themes are absent or not P-like. . . . In Joshua 18:1 . . . the presence of Yahweh seems to be bound to the land (the Cisjordanian), and Yahweh converts, by his presence, the land into a holy land.”415 Bartusch sees v 47 formulated on the basis of Judg 18 and thus representing one of the latest texts in Joshua.416 413 414 415 416

VT 53 (2003) 82. “Holy Land,” 61. Ibid., 69. Understanding Dan, 93.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 160

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

161

Auld finds in these two chapters a new edition of land allocation combining Ephraim and Manasseh into a single tribal allotment.417 This edition has “two stages, at two places, at two times— and by two methods. The first shorter draft appears in 16:5– 8 and 17:7– 9. The second edition emphasizes lot, the unity of Joseph, and the contrast between Judah, Joseph, and the rest.” Nelson chooses “scribal scholarship” based on “inherited documents” as the explanation of the origin of these materials.418 Vink attempts to show that the tradition here is to be understood as sophisticated etiology developed by the Priestly writers in the later Persian period seeking to arbitrate between groups at Samaria and in Jerusalem by developing a program of resettlement for the rich Diaspora Jews.419 Shiloh is chosen because of its location halfway between Samaria and Jerusalem. Fritz carries out traditional source critical work: Basic material of Deuteronomistic History—18:2–3, 11–28; 19:1– 6, 10–29a, 30b– 49a Deuteronomistic redaction Redactional additions in Priestly style—18:1; 19:51 Redactional insertions of various kinds—18:4, 5, 7– 8, 10a; 19:7– 8a, 9, 29b– 30a, 49b– 50 Our viewpoint sees a final editor of chaps. 18–19. At the editor’s disposal were brief narratives dealing with land possession, boundary lists organized in different ways, and city lists of various lengths and styles. These were set in different locations, at least Shiloh and Gilgal. The editor has compressed these source materials into the theme of land distribution. How the framework materials such as land not possessed or areas not taken fit into this editorial framework is still open to question. They may represent more ancient traditions or may reflect the editor’s understanding and thus be placed in the frameworks. Our method looks for signs of unity and for frameworks used by editors to tie the ancient traditions together. Under these presuppositions, authorship can be pushed back much nearer the origin of the material though still generations apart. Literary study can look for styles and differing traditions a skilled editor used.

Form Despite the present common framework, the lists themselves reveal different forms. Simeon and Dan have no borders at all, only city lists. Issachar is also reduced basically to a city list, except for the border fragment in Josh 19:22a. Naphtali has only the extensive southern border followed by the city list. Zebulun, on the other hand, has extensive border descriptions with only a fragmentary city list (19:15). Only Benjamin and Asher have extensive border and city lists, both having more than one of the latter. Merling decides, “The remaining tribes were not able to acquire any land on their own and were therefore given some land from Judah, 417 Auld, 99. 418 Nelson, 220. 419 OtSt 15 (1969) 63–73.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 161

9/18/14 9:20 AM

162

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

Ephraim, and Manasseh [chaps. 18–22].”420 Nelson concludes from the mixture of forms that “the source material used here was a roster of peripheral towns that was subsequently converted into a loose boundary description.”421 The mixture of form and the repetition of form and content show the historical nature of the material before us. The great debate about dating each of the components may never be solved. The point is clear: each of the components has its own history within the political life of Israel prior to being incorporated into the present text. The present text then has its own history of interpretation prior to reaching its final form, as the Notes demonstrate. This indicates that the material served Israel as a living political and religious instrument for many generations before it was finally put into its present form. The final section (19:49– 51) rests upon the tradition that Joshua lived in the city of Timnath Serah in the hill country of Ephraim. Such a tradition would be preserved by his descendants before it entered into the written record.

Structure De Vos maintains that Josh 18:1–10 is “the core of the chapters about the distribution of the land. It is the compositional, geographical, ritual, and theological centre.”422 Shiloh stands between Joseph and Judah. God is mentioned six times here and seldom elsewhere in chaps. 13–19. Howard takes up a similar stance from Koorevaar’s dissertation, creating a chiasm with 18:1–10 in the center.423 Howard writes, “The literary unity reflects the historical unity that was to be the standard for the entire nation.”424 Kallai contends that lists retained their basic form even as they were transmitted and updated.425 Kitz ties Akkadian inheritance texts to Joshua, creating a five- part form:426 1. Settling legal barriers hindering division of the state, e.g. removing illegal occupants and claiming the gifted land (Josh 1–12). 2. Heirs inventory property (Josh 18:8). 3. Divide property into required number of portions (Josh 18:9). 4. Each heir casts lots to determine inherited portion. Joshua casts lots for Israel (Josh 18:8b, 10) with results recorded (Josh 18:11–19:48). Babylonians affix family seal to register. 5. Family units take up their portion to live on it (Josh 21:43). Kitz concludes that “the institution of undivided inheritance defines the book of Joshua,”427 thus explaining tribal conquest, the book’s structure, allocation of property, the legal dissolution of the house of Israel as a collective tribal unity, the apportioning of tribal property, and the elimination of tribal border disputes. If the comparisons prove apt, then they may help explain Israelite practice, but they do not completely define it. 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427

Book of Joshua, 170. Nelson, 219. “Holy Land,” 61. Howard, 294. Ibid., 357. VT 53 (2003) 85. “Undivided Inheritance and Lot Casting,” JBL 119 (2000) 617–18. Ibid., 618.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 162

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

163

Israel places God in the forefront of these actions, claiming they follow his directions, not simply those of a cultural pattern. To work out the comparison fully, Kitz would have to show how the earlier distribution in chaps. 14–15 merges into the pattern.428 The introductory section gives the general setting (18:1), the task that remains (v 2), exhortation and plans for fulfilling the task (vv 3–7), recapitulation of the instructions (v 8), and obedient carrying out of the instructions (vv 9–10). This is followed by the listing of the allotments to each of the remaining seven tribes. The section on Benjamin stands out from the others. “The allotment of Benjamin communicates fullness, order, and coherence. The reader is therefore not prepared for the disordered and fragmented presentation of the last six allotments.”429 1. Benjamin (18:11–28) a. Northern border (12–13; cf. 16:1–3) b. Western border (14) c. Southern border (15–19; cf. 15:6–11) d. Eastern border and summary (20) e. Lists of cities (21–28) 2. Simeon (19:1– 9) a. City list (2–7; cf. 1 Chr 4:28–33; Josh 15:26–32, 42) b. Border extension and summary (8) c. Explanation (9) 3. Zebulun (10–16) a. Southern border to the west (10b–11) b. Southern border to the east (12) c. Eastern border (13) d. Northern border (14) e. City list (15; cf. Judg 1:30) f. Summary (16) 4. Issachar (17–23) a. City list (18–21; cf. 21:28–29) b. Northern border (22a) c. City list summary (22b) d. Summary (23) 5. Asher (24–31) a. City list (25–26a) b. Western border (26b) c. Southern border (27a) d. Eastern border (27b) e. City list (28a; cf. 21:30–31) f. Northern border (28b) g. Western border in the north (29) h. City list (30; cf. Judg 1:31) i. Summary (31) 428 For further critique of Kitz, see Hess, “The Book of Joshua as a Land Grant,” CBQ 83 (2002) n. 11. 429 Hawk (2000) 216–26.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 163

9/18/14 9:20 AM

164

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

6. Naphtali (32–39) a. Southern border to the east (33) b. Southern border to the west (34abA) c. City list (35–38; cf. 21:32; Judg 1:33) d. Summary (39) 7. Dan (40– 48) a. City list (41– 45; cf. 15:10–11, 33, 45– 46, 57; 21:23–25; Judg 1:35) b. Historical reflection (46– 47; cf. Judg 1:34–36). c. Summary (48). The conclusion shows that Joshua, the faithful leader, was not neglected in accordance with divine command (19:49– 50). The final verse then ties the introductions in Josh 14:1 and 18:1 into a summary conclusion for both chaps. 14–19 and chaps. 18–19.

Table 18.2. Boundary Towns of Tribe of Benjamin with Cities of Tribe of Benjamin (18:11–28) Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Distance

v 12 Jericho

Tell es-Sultan

192142

9.9 mi. NW of N shore of Dead Sea

Beth-Aven

Tell Maryam

175141

v 13 Luz (Bethel)

Beitin

172148

Ataroth-Addar (Hazar-addar)

Tel-Mazar (es Simadi)

196171/ 169147/ 179143

Lower Beth Horon

Beit ʿUr et-Tahta

158144

v 14 KiriathBaal (KiriathJearim)

Deir el-Azhar/ Tell Ziryat Yeʿarim

159135

v 15 Water of Nephtoah

Lifta/Me Neftoah

168133

v 16 Valley of Ben Hinnom

Wadi er- Rababeh (Rababi)

Jebusite city (Jerusalem)

El-Quds/ʿIr Dawid

172131

En Rogel

Bir-Ayyub/En Rogel

173130

v 17 En Shemesh

ʿAin el-Hod

175131

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 164

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

Yes

Burqa

Khirbet ʿAttara; Khirbet Raddana, just N of Ramallah, 8 mi. NW of Jerusalem

8 mi. N of Jerusalem

Soba; Abu Gosh 9 mi. N of Jerusalem

2150 ft. S of the Spring Gihon

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Distance

165 Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location Khirbet Mefjir, 1 mi. E of Jericho; Khirbet en-Nitleh, 2 mi. SE of Jericho; Khan el-Ahmar, 6 mi. from Jerusalem

Geliloth (= Gilgal)

Araq ed-Deir

180133/ 193143

Pass of Adummim

Tal ʿat ed-Damm/ Maʿale ʾadummim

178132

6 mi. SW of Jericho

Beth-Arabah

ʿAin elGharabeh

197139

3 mi. SE of Jericho; 3 mi. W of Jordan

Beth-Hoglah

Deir Hajlah

197136

4 mi. SE of Jericho

v 21 Jericho

Tell es Sultan

192142

Beth Hoglah

Deir Hajlah

197136

v 22 BethArabah

ʿAin elGharabeh

197139

No

3 mi. SE of Jericho

Zemaraim

Ras et-Tahuneh

170147

Ras ex-Zeimara, 5 mi. NE of Bethel; 13 mi. NNE of Jerusalem

Bethel

Beitin

172148

el-Bireh

v 23 Avvim

Kh. Abu Musarrah; Kh. Haiyan

177137/ 175145

Ai; Aiath Aiatha

Parah

Khirbet ʿAin Farah

179137

6 mi. N of Jerusalem

Ophrah

Et-Tayibeh

178151

14 mi. NNE of Jerusalem; 4 mi. NE of Bethel

v 24 ChepharAmmoni

Khirbet Kafr ʿAna

173153

3 mi. N of Bethel

Ophni

Jifna

170152

3 mi. NW of Bethel

Geba

Jabaʿ

175140/ 174158

6.5 mi. NE of Jerusalem

No

v 25 Gibeon

El-Jib

167139

5.5 mi. NNW of Jerusalem

Yes

Ramah

Er-Ram

172140

5 mi. N of Jerusalem

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 165

Khirbet et-Tell

9/18/14 9:20 AM

166

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Beeroth

El-Bireh

170146/ 170143

v 26 Mizpeh

Tell en-Nasbeh

170143

Chephirah

Khirbet el-Kefireh

160138

Mozah

Qalunyah/ Mevvasseret Siyyon

165135/ 165134

4.7 mi. W of Jerusalem

Irpeel

Khirbet Rafat

170142

N of Gibeon; 6.5 mi. NW of Jerusalem

Taralah

Khirbet Irha

near Gibeah

Khirbet Salah

164132

between Jerusalem and Gibeon

Jebusite city (Jerusalem)

El-Qods/ʿIr Dawid

172131

Gibeah

Tell el-Ful

172136

3.4 mi. N of Jerusalem

Kiriath (= Jearim)

Deir el-Azar/ Tel Qiryat Yeʿarim

159135/ 160134

9 mi. W of Jerusalem

Distance 7 mi. N of Jerusalem 7.5 mi. N of Jerusalem 1.5 mi. N of Kiriath-Jearim; 5 mi. WSW of Gibeon

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

Yes

Tell-en-Nasbeh

Yes

Yes

Khirbet Beit Mizza

v 27 Rekem

v 28 Zelah (Zela-Haeleph)

Khirbet Tililiya

Haeleph Shaʿfat Yes

Jabaʿ Abu Ghosh

Setting Scholars date the different segments of these boundary and city lists to different periods. See the brief historical review by Demsky.430 Aharoni accepts the premonarchic date and the historicity of the boundary lists with some later modifications.431 He finds a logic to the order in which towns are listed. The original setting was a tribal league covenant. Cross and Wright found a premonarchic source including all the tribes except Judah and Benjamin, whose list came from Josiah’s time. Dan’s borders were artificially created from Ephraim’s southern and Judah’s northern border.432 Nelson finds two divisions:433 (1) Josh 19:2– 6 and (2) 2:7, and surmises that this formula points back to an administrative background of some unknown date and purpose. First, Simeon’s property is all outside of Jewish control in the Second Temple

430 431 432 433

“Boundary of the Tribe of Dan,” 262– 64. Land of the Bible, 248– 62. JBL 75 (1956) 210–26. Nelson, 220.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 166

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

167

Period. For Nelson, this means the text is making a historical and theological claim to territory controlled by foreigners. It may also point back to a much earlier period of history for this material’s origin. Nelson points to correspondence between these allotments and Solomon’s adminstrative districts in 1 Kgs 4.434 This applies to Issachar, district 10; Naphtali, 8; Benjamin, 11; East Jordan, 6, 7, and 12; and perhaps Dan, 2. Kallai dates the list to David’s census, on the basis of internal material and its reflection of historical circumstances, not on the basis of the literary framework.435 He assumes that “many lists retained their basic, primary formulation even when adapted to accommodate the changes of later periods.” Kallai states that the boundary lists fit David’s census and Solomon’s districting with a complete border system leaving no holes. The system has no room for Dan and Simeon. Hess notes that Kallai assumes that Israel at one time occupied all this territory. Hess notes, however, that no biblical record credits Israel with occupying all the territory, only allotting it.436 Na’aman finds no function for these lists prior to the monarchy since the tribes had no central authority and had no need for tribal boundaries.437 He sees only one list standing behind city lists and boundary lists and traces the tribal borders to the Davidic period. He also identifies Dan’s inheritance with the city- state of Gezer. De Vos sets Josh 18:1–10 in a time when Torah and Moses were interconnected and God’s direct actions and speeches were viewed as over.438 The latest stage of these verses shows a combination of Priestly and Deuteronomistic elements, added after Joshua already had canonical status. Hess finds no period in Israel’s history when land descriptions fit the border lists better than the period of the El-Amarna letters.439 Hess suggests that Israel was spread across the country in small camps without central administration centers. Boundaries could be described only by villages and natural landmarks. Laborintense, long- term farming required total village cooperation and clear understandings of land holdings. Boundary lists “served to minimize intertribal strife and to maximize cooperation necessary for economic well-being.”440 Finally, Hess points to boundary lists from the Hittites, Carchemish, and Ugarit.441 Idealistic Israelites used Canaanite precedents to draw their history map. Expanding agriculture led to the need for more territory and wider borders. Stories in Judges show various war threats and fights between one tribe of Israel and another, leading to the need for agreements on land ownership, land usage, and land lying dormant. Joshua had to solve such problems before the kingdom split. Ahituv separates the lists into separate texts to be studied and dated by internal data of the individual texts. The clarity of Simeon, Judah, and Benjamin point to an origin under Josiah. Northern lists relate to Solomon and Jeroboam. For Ahituv, Dan’s inheritance is a scribal invention without historical reality. Spina sees 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441

Nelson, 222 with n. 7. VT 53 (2003) 84– 85. Hess, “Asking Historical Questions,” 194. In Borders and Districts. “Holy Land,” 69. “Asking Historical Questions,” 197. Ibid., 200. Ibid., 201.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 167

9/18/14 9:20 AM

168

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

Dan composed of the seven nations of indigenous Palestinians, elements of the Sea People, and possibly some who had fled from Egypt. Its unifying force was a covenant with Yahweh.442 Demsky maintains that Dan settled near the coast for a very brief time and only in the eastern part of the territory in Zorah and Eshtaol.443 B. Mazar finds four districts in the Dan list under the united monarchy. Solomon annexed areas south and west of Gezer. Rainey discovered a fifth Danite district around Lod.444 Na’aman then divides Dan into six groups and speaks of “artificial tribal territory,” lending credence to a Josianic date.445 Demsky decides that previous studies have “unduly complicated the simple list and blurred its intent.”446 Allowing the text to speak for itself, he describes the list in Josh 19:41– 46 as towns following west along the two parallel wadis—Nahal Sorek (Wadi Serar) to the south and Nahal Aijalon (Wadi Musrara) to the north.447 The latter joins the Yarkon. Demsky thus transforms the list of cities into a boundary list following “two alternating progressive lines.” This produces an eastern border of Dan through Zorah, Eshtaol, Beth Shemesh, and Aijalon. The western border found blockage from the city- state of Jaffa that may have reached from Tell Qasile to Yavneh. The southernmost town here is Baalah (Khirbet Mughrar). Bartusch shows recent anthropological studies on the tribe and tribal society and finds “a date in the period of the United Monarchy in Israel is supported by other pieces of evidence.”448 Such evidence included the lack of a purpose or function of the tribe prior to the monarchy but a strong function in recruiting militia, collecting taxes, and implementing corvée labor. Normal tribal boundaries did not interlock but allowed for peripheral space or transition zones where persons only loosely connected to tribes communicated with people of nearby tribes. This can occur because loyalties and functions of the tribe represented the weakest bond, with stronger loyalties to clans and especially to extended families. Bartusch thus sees Josh 13–19 reflecting only poorly what anthropolgists know about tribal habits. Rather, the twelve- tribe system reflects the administration of the united monarchy.449 Bartusch devotes an extensive note450 to denying Hess’s evidence as not applicable since the parallels are not tribal. The parallels do represent what occurred in Israel’s geographical and historical context, not an ideal model drawn up from cultures around the world. The model Bartusch follows may not at all fit Israel. The people of Israel see themselves as a bonded group of tribes related by covenant long before they function in tribal capacities on separate pieces of land. The unity of Israel appears to be as old or older than the separation of Israel represented by stories in Judges and narratives about Saul and David. Hess has shown the need for common agricultural

442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450

JSOT 2 (1977) 68. “Boundary of the Tribe of Dan,” 265. ErIsr Museum Yearbook (1987) 59–72. TA 25 (1998) 223–24. “Boundary of the Tribe of Dan,” 258. Ibid., 269. Understanding Dan, 83– 85; cf. de Geus, Tribes of Israel; Gottwald, Tribes of Yahweh. Understanding Dan, 95. Ibid., 86, n. 35.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 168

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

169

agreements and practices and for administering justice for the united tribes. The tribes may not have been as strongly united as church curricula so often suppose, but the tribes’ existence as a loose confederation joined for military, legal, and agricultural purposes need not be questioned.

Table 18.3. Joshua 18–19 Form and Narrative Elements Narrative: Series of announcements without narrative tension Element

Passage

Marker

Genre: Allotment narrative with boundary lists and city lists Element

Passage

Marker

Exposition (pf. or disjunctive)

18:1

Impf. consec.; presupposes chaps. 15–17

League gathering

18:1a

Congregation assembled

Complication (impf. consec.)

v2

Impf. consec.: land not divided

Situation

v 1b

Land subdued

Change or crisis (speech or dialogue)

vv 3–8

Speech in imperative

Purpose

v2

7 tribes without allotment

Resolution (impf. consec.)

vv 9–10

Impf. consec.: cast lots

Call to action

vv 3–6

Joshua said

Ending/ denouement (formulaic)

v 11

Formulaic: lot fell on Benjamin

Exception

v7

Levites no portion

Execution of plan

v9

Men scout land

Boundary list

vv 12–20

Topographical description

Land allotted

v 10

Cast lots, apportioned

Town list intro

v 21a

Summary intro

Allotments listed

18:11– 19:46

Territories of tribes

Town list

v 21b– 24a

List of towns

Battle report

v 47a–c

Dan lost, fought, settled

Numerical summary

v 24b

Sum total

Etiology

v 47d

Naming city Dan

Town list

vv 25– 28a

List of towns

Allotment listed

v 48

Dan territory described

Numerical summary

v 28b

Sum total

Gift report

v 49

Israelites gave Joshua

Concluding summary

v 28c

Summary of preceding list

Building report

v 50

Rebuilt and settled

Exception

19:1b

Within Judah

Completion summary

v 51

Inheritances finished

List intro

v 2a

List intro

City list

vv 2b–6a

List of towns

Numerical summary

v 6b

Sum total

City list

v 7a

List of towns

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 169

9/18/14 9:20 AM

170

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51) Narrative: Series of announcements without narrative tension Element

Closing summary Special case Boundary list intro Boundary list Numerical summary Closing summary Town extensions Boundary list intro Town list in boundary list frame Numerical summary Closing summary Boundary list intro Boundary list Numerical summary Closing summary Boundary list intro Boundary list City list Numerical summary Closing summary Boundary list intro Town list in boundary list frame Battle report

Passage v 8b v9 v 10a vv 10b– 15a v 15b v 16a v 16b v 17 vv 18– 22a

Marker

Closing tribal summary Formulaic lot on Asher Topographical description Sum total

v 32 v 33– 34 vv 35– 38a v 38b v 39 v 40 vv 41–46

v 47

Marker

Formulaic lot on Issachar Town list

v 23

v 31

Passage

Closing tribal summary Villages added

Sum total

vv 25– 30a v 30b

Element

Closing tribal summary Explanation of Simeon in Judah Formulaic lot on Zebulun Topographical description Sum total

v 22b

v 24

Genre: Allotment narrative with boundary lists and city lists

Closing tribal summary Formulaic lot on Naphtali Topographical description List of towns Sum total Closing tribal summary Formulaic lot on Dan Town list

Battle lost, battle won

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 170

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments Narrative: Series of announcements without narrative tension Element

Passage

Marker

Closing summary

v 48

Closing tribal summary

Gift and settlement/ retirement report

vv 49–50

Land for Joshua

Summary of allotments

v 51

Formulaic summary

171 Genre: Allotment narrative with boundary lists and city lists Element

Passage

Marker

Comments 18:1 “This opening verse is one of the most theologically pregnant in the book of Joshua.”451 The goal of creation—for God’s human creatures to subdue (‫)כּבשׁ‬ the land (see Gen 1:28; Num 32:22, 29)—is complete, at least in one sense.452 This verse ties into the summaries of Josh 11:23, 14:15, and 21:43– 45, giving an explanation for the other summaries. Israel had the land under control to the point they could claim God had done his part and given them the land. Pitkänen reminds us that “the required condition of peace . . . should undoubtedly be taken as a general and relatively approximate statement.”453 The tent of meeting can now be set up, following the directions of Deut 12. The unified Canaanite forces were defeated and no longer capable of action to defeat Israel. Pockets of Canaanites might still fight individual battles, but ruling power now belonged in Israelite hands.454 Israel had sufficient control of the land that it felt free to send out a commission to map out the land and to meet as a tribal league of some variety to allot the remaining land. Still Harris reminds us that “control over an area is not the same as settlement.”455 See Harstad for a distinction between the two phases of conquest and occupation.456 The ‫עדה‬, “congregation,” is almost unanimously taken as a linguistic clue to late Priestly editing.457 Some studies have rejected or strongly modified this consensus. J. Milgrom has shown that ‫“ עדה‬can only be conceived as an ad hoc emergency body called together by the tribal chieftains whenever a national transtribal issue arose. . . . Once the monarchy was firmly established, there was no further use for the ‫עדה‬, and it disappears.”458 Waldemar Janzen finally concludes: “All source- critically achieved dating of the tabernacle texts (or of more extensive literary layers, like P) and the interpretive proposals—historical, sociological, or 451 McConville and Williams, 73. 452 See ibid., 75; cf. Knauf, 154, who again relates this to the division of Judah and Samaria in the Persian period. 453 Pitkänen, 312. 454 See Hess (1996) 262– 63. 455 Harris, 97. 456 Harstad, 582– 83. 457 The most extensive study is that of L. Rost, Die Vorstufen von Kirche und Synagoge im Alten Testament, BWANT 76 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938). 458 “Priestly Terminology and Social Structure of Pre- monarchic Israel,” JQR 69 (1978) 66–76.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 171

9/18/14 9:20 AM

172

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

theological— dependent on such dating remain of necessity hypothetical in nature and are challenged in almost every respect by significant alternative hypotheses.”459 The congregation may be composed of the entire nation, including women and children; of adult males; or of national representatives. It must be noted that Milgrom does not try to show that ‫ עדה‬was never used by later editors, only that its basic setting was the ancient Israelite institution. The tent of meeting occurs only in this section in the book of Joshua and only in the opening and closing verses of the section (18:1; 19:51). Deut 31:14 is the only appearance in that book. Koch represents the scholarly consensus in saying that the term cannot be demonstrated in use prior to the Priestly writer.460 Without a literary source/redaction theory, however, we have no sound evidence to deny the motif to the early tradition. The tent is established outside the camp by Moses and guarded by Joshua (Exod 33:7–11; cf. Num 11:16–29), though this may be a separate, temporary tent.461 The tent was the place where Moses brought Joshua to be commissioned by God (Deut 31:14). What is interesting is the close tie in each of the ancient narratives between Joshua and the tent, as well as the close tie between Shiloh and the tent (1 Sam 2:22; Ps 78:60). Shiloh is located at Khirbet Seilun, ten miles northeast of Bethel. The tent was “originally related to the prophetic aspect of Yahwism. . . . It constituted a spatial vehicle for oracular communication. The tent was an empty shelter which at times could be filled with the presence, but only the presence of a God in dialogue with man. . . . It sought to answer the human quest for the disclosure of the divine will on specific occasions.”462 In this passage the use of the tent of meeting is explicitly theological. The tradition itself may have been used to explain how the tent came to be in Shiloh. In the present literary context of the Bible, the tent shows that Israel completely obeyed the will of God and that the division of the land to the seven tribes took place in the divine presence. It is also striking that the setting up of the symbol of access to Yahweh is done only when the land had rest from war. Joining tent and Shiloh “focuses attention on the name of Israel as a worshipping community in covenantal relationship with Yahweh. . . . The assembly at Shiloh . . . affirms that the presence of God with Israel in covenant relationship has now been realized in the land.”463 Here is the picture the writers want Israel to remember. They receive their land when they provide a place for Yahweh to speak to them. Such is done in an atmosphere of peace, not of war. Obedience to God does not bring renewed fighting and conquest. Obedience to God brings peace and life in the land he has given (cf. Judges, where the saviors bring peace to Israel until they rebel). 2 Knauf ties the emphasis on Galilee to the infrequent times when an Israelite monarch controlled Galilee—for Knauf from Ahab to Joram and from either Joash NIDB, 5:442. TDOT, 1:118– 30 (esp. 124). Howard, 360. S. Terrien, The Elusive Presence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978) 175– 86; see M. Haran, Temples and Temple- service in Ancient Israel (1977; repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985) 260–75; B. S. Childs, The Book of Exodus, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974) 590– 93; W. H. Schmidt, Alttestamentlicher Glaube, 10th ed. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2007) 107– 9; J. Lewis, “The Ark and the Tent,” RevExp 74 (1977) 537– 41. 463 McConville and Williams, 74. 459 460 461 462

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 172

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

173

or Jereboam II to 733 BCE. He finds Jews settling Galilee in the fifth century and later and so dates the D redaction, which for him also appears in Judg 17–18.464 V 2 connects explicitly with the previous theme of the land already given to the tribes beyond Jordan and to Ephraim, Manasseh, and Judah, leaving seven tribes still landless. In context with v 1, this says that even though land had been given to many of the tribes, all Israel continued to gather together until the task was completed. 3 V 3 continues this thought by addressing all Israel, not just the seven tribes. The first words of the address are totally unexpected. They lament the laziness and lack of courage displayed by Israel. Assis insists this verse assumes that Joshua had already alloted the land to the seven tribes previously, i.e., in the first allotment of chaps. 14–17.465 This second allotment, according to Assis narrows the territory to land already conquered, omitting the land remaining in the north. Assis sees Joshua’s sending out a delegation to survey the land as a continuation of the spy narrative of Num 13–14: “In Numbers xiii–xiv. the spying led to slackness; in the narrative in Joshua the sending of the delegation is the solution to the problem of slackness.”466 Hubbard reduces this statement to “merely motivational rhetoric to get them moving on his plan.”467 The statement has much greater importance than simple rhetoric. The position at the beginning of the context and the unexpected content show that this is central to the message of the section. Israel is told that possession of land depends on their activity and courage (cf. chap. 1). No one can blame Yahweh if the people of Israel do not have their land. Yahweh has given it to them. Assis claims his view is unique and obvious: “After Joshua allotted each tribe its portion, but only two and a half took possession of their portions, he criticizes the seven tribes for their inactivity.”468 Israel must learn that “the nation will possess just as much of the gift of the land as it cares to traverse.”469 Here the traditional language must refer back to the conquest narratives of chaps. 1–12. Israel simply has not shown the necessary faith and courage to take the gift given by God. It is noteworthy that only here in the book of Joshua is reference made to “the God of your ancestors.” This phrase refers to the patriarchal tradition of Genesis and the appearance of God to each of the patriarchs.470 Here it almost separates the current generation from claim to the title people of Yahweh. Yahweh is the God of their ancestors, not the God of a disobedient people unwilling to take what he has offered them. 4 Lamentation and rebuke are not the final words. Even to a disobedient, reluctant people, God gives new marching orders. A commission is chosen to survey the land, write their findings in a book, and divide the land into seven parts. The work of this commission and its successors continually brought the lists up to date 464 465 466 467 468 469 470

Knauf, 156. VT 53 (2003) 7– 8. Ibid., 188. Hubbard, 414. VT 53 (2003) 9. Hawk (2000) 215. Cf. A. Alt, “Der Gott der Väter,” in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichten des Volkes Israel, vol. 1 (Munich: Beck, 1953) 1–78; translated in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, trans. R. A. Wilson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966) 1–77; F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1973) 1–75; C. Westermann, Genesis 12–50 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975) 94–123

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 173

9/18/14 9:20 AM

174

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

according to contemporary political conditions, which ensured the preservation of the material. The commission showed that Israel could not be condemned totally. These representatives of all the tribes of Israel listened to Joshua’s instructions from God and set out immediately to accomplish their task. 5 V 5 ties back clearly to v 2 and through it to chaps. 15–17 to show why only seven portions need to be made despite the tradition of twelve tribes of Israel. Tradition of a seven-tribe league may lie behind this notice. 6 Joshua’s assignment is reduced to casting the lot. De Vos explains that Judah and Joseph do not have lots thrown for them but are designated as lots or allotments.471 Lots had to be cast on holy ground such as the cultic place at Shiloh. Thus Judah and Joseph are set up as holy allotments, while the other tribes have lots indirectly connected to the will of God. The tent of meeting is set up in the middle of holy ground or on the even holier area. This places subsequent responsibility for the division of the land itself upon the tribal representatives. Joshua has only to give out what has already been divided. The tribal representatives have already agreed on the distribution of the land as being fair and equitable. God could not be criticized for making an unfair division of the land. God’s part was simply to show which tribe received the parts already divided and designated by the commission. Now that the tribes have indicated their readiness to obey, the reference to God changes. He is no longer the “God of your fathers” (v 3). He is “our God.” 7 The role of the Levites is again underlined (cf. Josh 13:14, 33; 14:3– 4). This continues to prepare the way for chap. 21, but also adds a piece of information. In Josh 13:14 we saw that the sacrificial fires were the inheritance of Levi. In 13:33, it was God himself. Now it is the priestly office. Within the canonical context, this ties back to Exod 29:9; 40:15; Num 25:13; and particularly Num 18:1–7. Joshua again shows himself obedient to the Mosaic tradition in setting apart the Levites for their role as priests. Similarly, the writer is careful to include the tradition of the tribes east of the Jordan (chap. 13). Every care is taken to show that all the people of Yahweh, all twelve tribes, are cared for and involved. 8– 9 The commission has a different function from that of the “military” spies in Num 13 and Josh 2. The commission does not scout the opposition. Rather they seek information about the land and the cities to be allotted and settled.472 In this, the commission obeys their instructions. The interesting note comments that the land is written up by cities, thus connecting the tradition to the lists of cities which follow as well as the pure border descriptions. The ‫( ספר‬sepher or book) is a written document, which did not necessarily take “book” form.473 The need for the commission shows “that Canaan remains a land that requires careful study if one is to settle there.”474 The camp appears for the first time in chaps. 13–19, though even here it does not appear in LXX. In chaps. 5–10, the Israelite camp is normally at Gilgal, so that many scholars wish to connect this passage with Gilgal also. However, the book of

471 472 473 474

“Holy Land,” 67. See Hess (1996) 264. Bächli, ZDPV 89 (1973) 11. Hubbard, 415.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 174

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

175

Joshua knows several other places where Israel’s camp stood (1:11; 3:2; 8:13; 10:21), as did the pentateuchal narrative with its wandering in the wilderness. Shiloh is here made the final camp for Israel, again an indication of the concern to legitimize the worship of Shiloh. Koorevaar argues “The Book of Joshua must have been written before the fall of Shiloh, and before Jerusalem as the new place chosen by God. . . . In Joshua, however, Shiloh has positive connotations. Writing the book of Joshua after Shiloh’s downfall would have been pyschologically difficult and theologically contradictory.”475 10 As the theme of the tent of meeting has already indicated, all the action took place before Yahweh. Here Joshua and Israel showed their obedience to God. They divided the land according to his plans and will, not human pride and selfishness. We hear no complaints as we did among the Joseph tribes. 18:11–19:48 The extended lists of different form, extent, and probably date are included here to lay claim to all of Palestine for the people of Yahweh. I will not try to settle the extended debate over the original setting, extent, and date of each of the component parts. The significant point to make in a commentary is this: the people of Israel recognized that their God had provided all the land needed by each tribe. This is significant in view of later stories of tribal dispute and warfare (Josh 22; Judg 17–21). God created the conditions for peace in Israel. Their own leaders had outlined the conditions and judged them to be fair. God, through the ceremony of the lots, had shown divine approval. Still, elements of Israel were never satisfied. 11 In accord with the plan of chaps. 15–17, Benjamin is placed between Judah and Joseph. This and the placing of Benjamin first in the list show the important role Benjamin played in the tradition. On genealogical grounds (e.g., Gen 35:16– 20; 49:1–27), Benjamin would be last. Knauf refers to Benjamin’s domination centered in Mizpah for a hundred years after the Judean exile of 586 BCE.476 Na’aman explains that Benjamin “is described as an in-between tribe, unrelated to either of its two territorially larger neighbours.” Na’aman offers several lines of evidence, a main one being that Solomon’s “different attitude towards the Josephites and Benjaminites, respectively (2 Kgs 11–12), prefigures the outlines of the politicalterritorial division that took place in the 9th– 8th centuries.”477 McConville and Williams note that Benjamin’s western border leaves room for Dan’s original allotment, whereas Ephraim’s western boundary does not.478 18:12–28 Both Bethel and Jerusalem, the major cult sites of Israel and Judah, respectively, are attributed to Benjamin (cf. 18:13, 16, 22, 28). For Knauf, only the Benjamin/Judah border is complete because it is of interest to the redactors of the fifth and fourth centuries BCE.479 15 Howard points out that the boundary line is described from one point, moving first westward and then eastward from Kiriath- Jearim.480 Harris points out that Benjamin’s “northern boundary coincides with that of Ephraim and its southern one with that of Judah.”481 475 476 477 478 479 480 481

“The Hypothesis of the Deuteronomistic History,” 229. Knauf, 158– 59. ZAW 121 (2009) 335. McConville and Williams, 77. Knauf, 160. Howard, 364. Harris, 99.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 175

9/18/14 9:20 AM

176

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

22 Beth Arabah is part of Judah in Josh 15:5, 61. Howard explains this as a border town or a slight adjustment between the time of assignment to Judah and that of the assignment here to Benjamin.482 The same type of problem comes with Jerusalem being assigned to both tribes. Na’aman uses the town lists to support a different understanding of Saul and Benjamin: “through most of the monarchical period the bulk of the tribal territory of Benjamin was a Judahite district. Saul was born in Gibeah/Gibeath Saul (Tell el- Fûl) and buried in Zelah (2 Sam 23,14; see Jos 18,28), which makes it likely that he was a Judahite rather than Israelite hero.”483 24–25 Miller argues that Geba, Geba of Benjamin, Gibeah, Gibeah of Benjamin, and Gibeah of Saul were essentially identical and that archaeology apparently rules out Tel el- Ful.484

Table 18.4. Cities of Tribe of Simeon (18:2–6) Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Distance

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

v 2 Beersheba

Tell es Sebaʿ or Bir es-Sebaʿ/Tel Beer Shevaʿ or Beʾer-Shevaʿ

134072/ 130072

47.8 mi. SW of Jerusalem

Yes

Bir es Sheba/ Tel Beʾer Shevaʿ

Sheba (= Shem)

Moladah

Khirbet el-Waten/ Khirbet Yittan

142074/ 152069

7.5 mi. E of Beersheba

v 3 Hazar Shual

Khirbet el-Watan

137071

2.5 mi. E of Beersheba

Balah (Baalah; Bilhah)

Tulul elMedbah

Ezem

Umm el-ʿAzam

140055

20 mi. SE of Beersheba

v 4 Eltolad (Tolad)

Khirbet Erqa Saqra,

Bethul (= Kesil; Bethuel)

Tell el-Umm Beten

Khirbet Kuseifeh, 12 mi. E of Beersheba; Tel Malhata/Tell el-Milh between Arad and Beersheba

Umm el-‘Azem

12.5 mi. SE of Beersheba

138076

Khirbet el-Qarjeten, 3 mi. N of Tell Arad; Khirbet er-Ras

482 Howard, 365; compare Hubbard, 416–17. 483 ZAW 121 (2009) 345. 484 VT 25 (1975) 146, 165.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 176

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

177 Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Distance

Hormah

Khirbet el-Me-shash/ Tell Masos

146069/ 137087/ 152069

7 mi. E of Beersheba

Tell esh-Shari ʿah /Tell Seraʿ

119088/ 134072/ 137087

9 mi. NNW of Beersheba; halfway between Beersheba and Gaza; 15.5 mi. SE of Gaza

yes

Yes

v 5 Ziklag

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location Tell Khuwelifeh/Tell Halif; Tell Sheriʿah. 12 mi. W of Beersheba; Tell el-Milh, 7 mi. NE of Beersheba; Tel Ira Tell es-Sebaʿ/ Tell BeerShevaʿ; Tell el-Khuweilifeh, 10 mi. NNE of Beersheba; Khirbet el-Mashash

Beth Marcaboth (Madmannah) Hazar-Susah (= Susannah) v. 6 BethLebaoth (Lebaoth)

Khirbet Tatrit

143084

11.5 mi. NE of Beersheba

Khirbet es-Shamsaniyat

140083/ 103074

9.9 mi. NW of Beersheba

Sbalat Abu Susein

Sharuhen

Tell-Farah(s)/ Tell Sharuhen

100076/ 093097/ 088113

12.4 mi. SE of Gaza

Tell ʿAjjul; 3.7 mi. SE of Gaza; Tell Abu Hureirah/Tel Haror

v 7 Ain

Khirbet Asan

Rimmon (En Rimmon)

Tell Khuwelifeh/Tell Halif

137087/ 137086

1.9 mi. N of Beersheba 1 mi. NW of Horvat Rimmon

Yes

Khirbet Umm ed-Deimneh

Khirbet er-Ramamin 2 mi. S of Lahav

Tochan Ether

Ashan Baalath Beer (Ramah in the Negev) = Kinah

Khirbet el-ʿater/Tell ʿEter Tell Beit Mirsim/Tell Bet Mirsham Khirbet Ghazzah/ Khirbet ʿUzza

138113

8.1 mi. N of Beersheba

142096

Khirbet ʿAsan, 2 mi. NW of Beersheba

165068

Khirbet el-Garra

19:1– 9 The tribe of Simeon apparently experienced disaster early in its history (Gen 49:7; the notable absence in Deut 33; Judg 5). Howard sees the lack of independent land portions as the punishment given Levi and Simeon for the early violence (see Gen 34:24–30).485 Hess finds that “the variety of peoples in this 485 Howard, 366.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 177

9/18/14 9:20 AM

178

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

region . . . would create a need for a group such as Simeon to provide tribal and national identity and to represent the official theology, thus resembling to some extent the functions of the Levites.”486 Knauf, in his attempts to push everything into the exilic/postexilic periods, finds Simeon simply to be a diminutive form of Ishmael and the preexilic counterpart to postexilic Caleb.487 Kallai finds three lists of Simeon’s territory: Josh 15:21– 32, 42; 19:2– 8; and 1 Chr 4:28–33. He also looks at Neh 11:25–30. He dates all the town lists except those of Benjamin, Dan, and Judah to the united monarchy.488 Simeon’s territory is simply part of Judah. This is explained by the extraordinary statement that Judah’s territory was too large for them (v 9). Such a statement stands in stark contrast to the narrative of Joseph in Josh 17:14–18.

Table 19.1. Boundary Towns of Tribe of Zebulun with Cities of Tribe of Zebulun (19:10–16) Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Distance

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

v 10 Sarid

Tell Shadud

172229

6 mi. NE of Megiddo; 5 mi. S of Nazareth

yes

v 11 Maralah

Tell Ghalta in Jezreel Valley N of Megiddo

166228

Dabbesheth

Tell eshShammam/Tel Shem

164230

NW of Jokneam

180232

4 mi. S of Nazareth; 3.1 mi. W of Mt. Tabor; 11 mi. NE of Megiddo

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

Gola Tell Thorah

v 12 Chisloth Tabor (Chesulloth)

Iksal

Daberath

Daburiyeh/ Khirbet Dabbura

185233

14 mi. NE of Megiddo

Japhia

Yafa

176232/ 181238

1.5 mi. SW of Nazareth; 9 mi. NNE of Megiddo

v 13 Gath Hepher

Khirbet ez Zurraʿ/Tell Gat Hefer

180238

Between Nazareth and Capernaum; 2.5 mi. E of Sepphoris

No

Yes

Tell eshShammam, 6 mi. NE of Megiddo

Mishad

Yes

486 Hess (1996) 267– 68. 487 Knauf, 162– 63. 488 VT 53 (2003) 81– 82.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 178

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Eth-Kazin

Lubiyeh

192244

Rimmon (= Merom)

Rummanah/ Horvat Rimona

179243/ 183245

Distance

179 Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Between Nazareth and Capernaum; 2.5 mi. E of Sepphoris; 14 mi. NNE of Megiddo 6 mi. N of Nazareth; 16 mi. NNE of Megiddo

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

Qarn Hattin/ Khirbet Qarnei Hittin

Amathar Neah v 14 Hannathon

Bet Netofa Valley/Sahl el-Battof Valley Tell elBedeiwiyeh/ Tell Hannaton

Nimrin W of Kurn Hattin 174243

6 mi. N of Nazareth

Valley of Yiphtah-El (Yiftahel; Jiphtah-el; Iphtah)

Wadi el-Malik/ Nahal Sippori NW of Nazareth

v 15 Kattah (= Kitron)

Khirbet Qutteneh, 5 mi. SW of Tell Qeimun (biblical Jokneam)

153226

Nahalal (Nahalol)

Maʿlul

173234/ 168231

Shimron (Shimʿon)

Khirbet Sammuniyeh/ Tel Shimron

170234

5 mi. W of Nazareth

Idalah

Khirbet el-Hawarah

167236

9.5 mi. N of Megiddo; .6 mi. S of Bethlehem in Zebulun

Bethlehem

Beit Lahm/ Beth Lehem Hagellit

168238

7 mi. NW of Nazareth

Yes

Nahal ʿEvlayim (Wadi ʿAbbelin)

NW of Nazareth

5 mi. SW of Jokneam

Yes

Tell el-Beida; Tell en-Nahl, 9 mi. NNE of Megiddo Marun er-Ras, 10 mi. NW of Safed

10–16 Judg 1:30– 33 notes cities that Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali could not conquer. These notices are not referred to here, however. Here we see how the biblical writer used information for a specific purpose. The task here is to underline the obedience of the tribes in carrying out God’s directions and to emphasize the greatness of God’s gift to his people. Judges then steps back to show how Israel failed to obey totally and thus had to suffer repeatedly through her history.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 179

9/18/14 9:20 AM

180

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

Howard finds that Zebulun’s descriptions differ from the preceding in that border cities are named rather than boundary points.489 The totals in v 15 do not equal the cities named. Howard thinks some cities have dropped from the list.

Table 19.2. Cities of Tribe of Issachar (19:17–23) Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

v 18 Jezreel

Zarʿin/Tel Yizreʿel

181218

Chesulloth

Iksal

180232

Shunem

Sulem/Shunem

181223

v 19 Hapharaim

Et-Taiyibeh

192223/ 177224

Shion (Shihon)

Sirim

Beeroth

El-Bireh

197224

Anaharath

Tell Mukharkhash/ Tel Rekhesh

194228

v 20 Rabbith (Daberath)

Hirbet Dabura/ Daburiyeh

185233

Distance 50 mi. N of Jerusalem near foot of Mount Gilboa 4 mi. SE of Nazareth 5 mi. S of Mount Tabor; 9 mi. N of Jenin

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

Yes

Yes ʿAffuleh, 11 mi. E of Megiddo Ayun es-Shain, 3 mi. E of Nazareth

9 mi. NW of Beth-shean 13 mi. SE of Mount Tabor Yes 4 mi. SE of Mount Tabor; 17 mi. ENE of Megiddo 2 mi. NW of Kishion

Yes

Tell el-Ajjul, 4.3 mi. SSW of Mount Tabor; Tell elMuqarqash, 4.3 mi. SE of Mt. Tabor

Kishion

Khirbet Qasyun/Tel Qishyon

187229/ 185225/ 194228

Ebez

En Hayadid/ Tel Remet

199221

ʿAin el-Hbus

v 21 Remeth (= Jarmuth; Ramoth)

Khirbet ed Dir

200229/ 199221

Kokhab el-Hawa

En-Gannin

Khirbet Beit Jann

196235/ 195232/ 197230

4.3 mi. W of Sea of Galilee; 65 mi. N of Jerusalem

En-Haddah

El-Hadatheh/ Tel en-Hadda

196232

6 mi. E of Mount Tabor; 19 mi. ENE of Megiddo

1.2 mi. S of Mount Tabor

Yes

Yes

El-Hadetheh/ Tell ʿen Hadda; En-onam

489 Howard, 369; compare Hess (1996) 269.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 180

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Distance

Beth-Pazzez

Kerm elHaditeh

196232

E of Mount Tabor

v 22 Tabor

Khirbet Dabura

Shahazumah (Shahazimah)

Khirbet Sheikh esh-Shamsawi/ Khirbet Shemesh

199232/ 194228

Beth Shemesh

El-ʿAbeidiyeh

202232/ 199232

181 Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

Tell Mukharkhash, 5 mi. SE of Tabor; Tell el-Hadatah; el-Karm 21 mi. ENE of Megiddo

Khirbet Sheikh esh-Shamsawi

17–23 Issachar received the important Jezreel Valley. Knauf calls v 22 a caricature of a border description.490 He sees Issachar as overwhelmingly a Canaanite tribe made to look like an Israelite one. The least one can say in return is that a significant number of Israelites, even Israelite tribes, eventually came to live more like the Canaanites than they did like Yahweh commanded. It is quite possible that Israelite tribes entering and settling in the land of Canaan expanded by absorbing Canaanites such as Rahab and the Gibeonites, who were only samples of other Canaanite groups Israel absorbed. Too frequently the political absorption had a reverse side of Canaanite religious absorption of the Israelite group.

Table 19.3. Boundary of Tribe of Asher (19:24–31) Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

v 25 Helkath (Hukok)

Tel ʿAmar

159237/ 158240/ 160232

Hali

Khirbet Ras ‘Ali/Tel ‘Alil Hammaʿarabi

164242

Beten

Tell el-Far

160242/ 160241

Acshaph

Tell Kisan/Tel Keisan

164253/ 158240

v 26 Allammelech

Tell en-Nahal

157245

Passage/City

Distance

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location Tell el-Harbaj, 6.2 mi. SE of Haifa; Tell el-Qasis

11 mi. SSE of Acco

Yes Khirbet Abtun/ Ibtin, 11 mi. S of Acco

5 mi. SE of Acco

Yes

Khirbet el-Harbaj/Tel Regev

Amad

490 Knauf, 163.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 181

9/18/14 9:20 AM

182

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51) Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Mishal (Misheal; Mashal)

Tell el-Nahal

157245/ 164253

Carmel, Mount

Khirbet el-Kirmil

162092

Passage/City

Distance

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location Tell Kisan/Tel Kison (Asher), 6 mi. SE of Acco

Tell Abu Huwam (= Libnath)

152245

Nahr ez-Zerqa (River); Wadi Muqattaʿ; Kishon River; Nahal Dayah; Nahal Tanninim

v 27 BethDagon

Beth Sheʿarim

162234/ 163238/ 159240

Khirbet Bussin; Tell Regeb; Tell Tabun/Beʾer Tivʿon; Jelamet el-Atiqa

Valley of Iphtah-El

Wadi el-Malik/ Nahal Sippori

Beth-Emek

Tell Mimas/ Tel ʿemeq

164263/ 169250

Neiel

Khirbet Yaʿnin/ Khirbet Yaʿanin

171255

18 mi. SE of Acco; 2 mi. N of Cabul

Cabul

Khirbet Roʾsh Zayit

172254/ 170252

10 mi. SE of Acco

v 28 Abdon (Ebdon)

Khirbet ʿAbdeh/Tel ʿAvdon

165272

10 mi. NNE of Acco; 3.7 mi. E of the coastal city, Tell ʾAchzib

Rehob (Beth Rehob) North

Tell el-Balat

177280/ 180275

10 mi. E of Rosh Haniqra

Tell er-Rahb 4 mi. SE of Tell el-Balat

Rehob (Beth Rehob) South

Tell el-Bir el-Gharbi

166256/ 197207

7 mi. ESE of Acco

Tell es-Sarem

Hammon (HammothDor; Hammon)

Umm el ʿAwamid

164281/ 201241

Kanah

Qana

178290

7 mi. SE of Tyre

Greater Sidon

Saida

184329

25 mi. N of Tyre

v 29 Ramah of Asher

Ramieh

180280

Shihor-Libnath

Nahal ʿI ʿblin; Nahal ʿEvlayim (Wadi ʿAbbelin)

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 182

Yes

Khirbet Abu Mudawer Tamra

Yes

Kabul

Yes

No

Hammam Tabariyeh 1.9 mi. S of Tiberias

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

183 Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Fortified city of Tyre

Es-Sur

168297

Hosah (= Usu)

Tell Rashidiyeh

170293/ 172293

2.5 mi. S of Tyre

el-Hos

Ahlab (= Mahalab or Mehebel)

Ras al-Abyad

166285/ 172303

7.4 mi. S of Tyre

Khirbet el-Mahalib, 3.7 mi. NE of Tyre

Achzib

Ez-Zib/ Tel Akhziv

159272

9 mi. N of Acco

Yes

(Acco)

el-Fukhkhar

158258

Modern Acco/ Akko NE of the Naaman River

Yes

Aphek

Tell Kurdaneh/ Tel Afek

160250/ 164268

5.6 mi. SE of Acco

Rehob

Tell el-Bir el-Gharbi/Tel Birwe

166256/ 197207

Distance

Tell Rashidiyeh

v 30 Ummah

Tel Kabri 2.5 mi. E of Nahariya Tell es-Sarem; Khirbet Dauk, 4.9 mi. SE of Accho

24– 31 Asher’s territory lies far to the north. Knauf concludes that the territory of Asher corresponds to that of the Phoenician province of Kabul and was always in culture and speech Phoenician.491 He then points to Egyptian Papyrus Anastasi I, in which “Asher” here corresponds to Canaanite topography of the second millennium and is called Upper Galilee (cf. 2 Sam 2:9). Thus, for Knauf, this territory may have belonged to Israel under the Omrides or Jeroboam II. The list for Asher combines city lists and boundary lists, leading Nelson to conclude that the two lists have similar function in laying national claim to territories.492 Elsewhere he points out that both Asher and Naphtali start with a central town and draw the border in one direction and then return to the central town to draw the line in the opposite direction.493 Coote notes the Phoenician towns in Asher’s allotment and labels such an idea as “another case of utopian dreaming.”494 The stated total of twenty-two cities stands over against the twenty-three cities listed. Hubbard explains this as counting only one Rehob and omitting Tyre and Sidon. The problem is accentuated by the presence of natural formations such as the valley of Iphtah- el and Carmel as well as tribal names such as Zebulun. How many of the entries on the list represent cities of Asher? How many represent checkpoints in other tribal territory? How many represent non-urban entities? How many represent simple growth in the list prior to its final preserved form? 491 492 493 494

Knauf, 166. Nelson, 223–24. Ibid., 219. Coote, 694.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 183

9/18/14 9:20 AM

184

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51) Table 19.4. Boundary Towns of Tribe of Naphtali with Cities of Tribe of Naphtali (19:33–38)

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

19:33 Heleph (Heleph)

Adami-Nekeb

Jabneel (Jabneh)

Lakkum v 34 AznothTabor

Hukkok

v 35 Ziddim and Zer Hammath (HammothDor) Rakkath (Kartan) Chinnereth

Map Reference

Distance

Khirbet ʿIrbadeh/ Khirbet ʿArpad

189236

2.5 mi. NW of Mount Tabor

Khirbet et-Tell (ed- Damiyeh)/ Tel Adami

193239

30 feet W of Sea of Galilee; 19 mi. NE of Megiddo

Tell en-Naʿam/ Tel Yin‘am Khirbet el-Mansurah Khirbet el-Jebeil/Tel Gobel Yaquq/Khirbet Gamom Hattin el-Qadim Hammam Tabariyeh/ Hame Teveriyeh Khirbet el-Quneitireh/ Tel Raqqat Khirbet el-ʿOreimeh/ Tel Chinnereth

198235 198233

NE of Mount Tabor

202233

11 mi. NW of Tiberias

186237

2.5 mi. N of Mount Tabor

195254 175252

3 mi. W of Chinnereth

192245

8 mi. WNW of Tiberias

201241

2 mi. S of Tiberias

199245

15 mi. N of Tiberias

200252

v 36 Adamah

Tel-QarneyHittin

193244

Ramah

Khirbet Zeitun er-Rameh/ Khirbet Jul

187259

Hazor

Tell el-Qedah/ Tel Hasor

203269

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 184

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location Khirbet Arbathah just NE of Mount Tabor

Yes

Yes

Khirbet Yemma/Kfar Yamma, 21 mi. ENE of Megiddo

Khirbet el-Jemeijmeh/ Khirbet Gamon, 3 mi. E of Cabul

No

Tell Raqqat, just N of Tiberias Tell Eqlatiyeh, 1.5 mi. N of Tiberias

No

4.3 mi. W of the Sea of Galilee

12 mi. SW of Hazor; 8 mi. SW of Safed 10 mi. N of the Sea of Galilee; 5 mi. SW of Lake Huleh

Yes

Hagar ed-Damm where Sea of Galilee meets Jordan; Khirbet Madyan

Yes

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

185

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Distance

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

v 37 Kedesh

Tell Qades/Tel Qedesh

199279

7 mi. NNW of Hazor

Yes

En-Hazor

ʿAinatha

191281

v 38 Iron (Yiron)

Yarun

189276

3.1 mi. S of Bint Jibel; 9 mi. SW of Lake Huleh

Migdal-el

Majdel Islim

194292 184293

16 mi. ESE of Tyre

Khirbet el-Megdel

Horem

Haris

185286

Beth-Anath

Safed elBattiikh

190289

15 mi. E of Tyre

Hîneh

Beth Shemesh

Khirbet Tell el-Ruweis/Tel Rosh

181271

Edrei

32– 39 Naphtali received Upper Galilee. Knauf dates the list to the eighth century BCE. because only then were Kinnereth and Hazor fortified cities at the same time.495 Knauf also denies that Tabor could ever be the border point for three tribes. Hess (273) finds that the borders and town list predate David’s incorporation of Ijon and Abel Beth Maacah into the territory of Israel.496

Table 19.5. Cities of Tribe of Dan (19:40–46) Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Map Reference

Distance

19:41 Zorah

Sarʿah/Tel Sorʿ

148131

13 mi. W of Jerusalem; 1.9 mi. N of Beth Shemesh

Eshtaol

Deir Abu Qabus

151132/ 148134

Irtuf, 1 mi. S of Ishwa

Ir-Shemesh (Beth Shemesh)

Tell erRumeileh/Tel Bet Shemesh

147128

24 mi. W of Jerusalem

v 42 Shaalabbin (Shaalbim)

Selbit/Tel Shaʿalevim

148141

3 mi. NW of Aijalon; 16 mi. WNW of Jerusalem

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

Khirbet Deir Shubeib; 13 mi. W of Jerusalem Yes

495 Knauf, 167. 496 Hess (1996) 273.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 185

9/18/14 9:20 AM

186

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

Passage/City

Modern Location = Arabic/Israeli

Aijalon (= Ammon)

Yalo

Ithlah

Shilta (Silta)

v 43 Elon

Khirbet Wadi ʿAlin

Timnah

Tell el-Batashi

Ekron

v 44 Eltekeh

Khirbet el-Muqannaʿ/ Tel Miqne Tell eshShallaf/Tel Shalaf

Map Reference

152138

141132

9.9 mi. NW of Mukennaʿ

Yes

23 mi. WNW of Jerusalem

el Mughar

129138

v 46 Me Yarkon

el-Yehudiyeh/ Yehud

139159

133160 132166/ 134167 131168

Tell Melat, NW of Gezer Ras Abu Hamid; Agor

Yes 28 mi. NW of Jerusalem; 8 mi. N of Joppa 31 mi. NW of Jerusalem; 4 mi. SE of Joppa N of Joppa; 2 mi. E of Mediterranean Yarkon River

El-Kheiriyeh

Yes

Tell Abu Zeitun in northern Tel Aviv Tell er-Reqqeit Tell er-Reqqeit 1.6 mi. N of the mouth of the Nahar el-Auja; Nahar el-Barideh

Nahr el-Barideh (river)

129168

Joppa

Yafa/Yafo

126162

S of Tel Aviv

Leshem (Dan)

Tell el-Qadi/Tel Dan

211294

20 mi. NNW of Hazor

Rakkon (river?)

Tell Qoqa

128144/ 137140

Baalath

Gath Rimmon

Yes

Yes

137140/ 139145

Ibn-ibraq/ Khirbet Bene beraq Tell elJerisheh/Tel Gerisa Nahr-el-Auja (river)

Destruction Level Date/Alternate Location

35 mi. SW of Jerusalem

Tell Melat

Bene-Berak

1.9 mi. E of Imwas; 14 mi. WNW of Jerusalem; 6.2 mi. ESE of Gezer 4 mi. NW of Beth-horon 1.2 mi. E of Beth Shemesh 5.6 mi. WNW of Beth Shemesh; 3.4 mi. E of Ekron; 5.6 mi. S of Gezer

Late Bronze/ Early Iron

136131

Gibbethon

v 45 Jehud

Distance

40– 48 Dan lacks a border description. Knauf suggests this is because Dan’s territory has already been assigned to Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh.497 This leads to the conclusion that Dan was never anything but an important city on the northern 497 Knauf, 168.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 186

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

187

border of Israel. This conclusion, however, denies any historicity behind the Samson narratives of Judg 13–16, which Knauf dates in the sixth or fifth century with reference to Mahaneh Dan, which originates with the Dannu tribe of the Sea People. Knauf also explains away the Dan sanctuary and northern trek in Judg 17–18.498 Hess dates the Dan town list to the time of Dan’s conquest of Leshem, which was renamed Dan.499 McConville and Williams observe that “the case of Dan posits a sharp discrepancy between the notion of legitimate possession and the actuality of Israel’s occupation,” claiming the Judg 18 narrative “mimics the duly authorized conquest of the promised land.”500 In his Berit Olam commentary, Hawk observes: “Dan thus represents both failure and initiative taken to the extreme. . . . Dan succeeds in securing a tribal possession but does so apart from the system that legitimates its claim to land.”501 Bartusch claims that by rights Dan had an indisputable and ongoing claim to the southern inheritance or allotment, where some tribal members stayed.502 This leaves the northern territory Dan “conquered” as not a part of divine entitlement. Hawk maintains that the people of Dan attacked the northern city entirely on their own initiative, with God not included in the action at all. Their act is one of “raw aggression born out of unrealized expectations.”503 47– 48 The style of corvee labor described above is shown clearly in vv 47– 48. Here information is shared with Judg 1, but the emphasis is changed. In Judges the emphasis is on the power of the Amorites to press Dan back, thus punishing Dan. Here the emphasis is on the subsequent victory of Dan (cf. Judg 18), given a setting with the simple note that their territory went away from them. Hubbard makes the interesting note that “the text implies sympathy—in modern terms, ‘it was just one of those things.’”504 Bartusch suggests that negative depictions of Dan can be attributed to the Deuteronomist and that Judg 13–18 originally painted optimistic, positive portraits of Dan and Danites.505 Our passage thus seeks to show that even under the conditions of lost property, God was able to give his people an inheritance in the land. Even when a tribe lost its original lot, God replaced it. This was of particular importance to the readers of the ultimate history in exile. They had lost all their inheritance. They had no more lot. 49– 50 The narrative of the gift of land ends on a special note. The people of Israel take the initiative away from Joshua. They give him land. This is written, however, to glorify neither the unselfishness of Israel nor the greatness of Joshua. Rather, it is another example that Israel did what God commanded (v 50). It implies that God blessed the individual leader as well as the nation for faithful obedience. This is a blessing of Yahweh, not a royal right of a human ruler. Joshua did not enjoy extra privileges due a ruler at any time during the conquest or land distribution. He 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505

See T. C. Butler, Judges, WBC 8 (Nashville: Nelson, 2009) 330– 31. Hess (1996) 275. McConville and Williams, 77–78. Hawk (2000) 219. Understanding Dan, 90. Hawk (2010) 137. Hubbard, 421. Understanding Dan, 260– 69.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 187

9/18/14 9:20 AM

188

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1–19:51)

took his one share of land and went back home. Joshua’s relationship to a tribe is not even stated. That occurs only in 1 Chr 7:20–29. Joshua settled at Timnath Serah (or Timnath Heres, Judg 2:9) at grid 160157, sixteen miles southwest of Shechem. 51 The concluding summary ties back to Josh 14:1 (cf. 17:4) to show that the total task of distributing the land west of the Jordan was done precisely as Moses had outlined it. This verse pictures the whole process from 14:1 on as occurring in Shiloh (cf. 14:6). The important note, introduced in v 49 and taken up again here, is that Israel completed her task.

Explanation Once again long lists of names may discourage us from digging into the theological understanding that this section seeks to convey. Scholarship has virtually exhausted itself seeking to recover the historical setting of the various lists. It has tended to ignore the theological structure and understanding that the biblical writer has created. First, the writer sets seven lazy tribes who lack courage over against the two most powerful tribes, whose representatives demand their territory and more— immediately. In so doing the biblical writer has seemed to promise success to the powerful ones in their fight against the strong Canaanites (Josh 17:18). In contrast the writer provides the example of the tribe of Dan, who lost their territory to the Canaanites, yet were able to fight and gain another territory. Neither group, the seven lazy tribes or Dan, is ultimately cursed. Rather, both represent the needs of the people of God. Facing a strong enemy, the powerless people of God are promised victory. Even after defeat and loss of land, the way is laid out for new hope, new land, and new victory. We see Israel on its land and wanting more just as Israel is pushed off its land and needing desperately a new foothold—in either case Israel can look to past examples and find that God is able to provide the needs of the people. Interestingly, God’s provision for Dan appears to be made through human initiative and human sinful action (Judg 17–18). Canaan had fallen to the Israelites. However, Israel failed to take all the land intended for them, since the Lord in Joshua 13 shows there is much land to be possessed and divided. The land is divided by lot beforehand, but the nations remain to be dispossessed. It was left up to the individual tribes to possess their portions by putting out the enemy. In the book of Judges we read of the incomplete victories on the part of the several tribes. Idolatry and compromise on the side of Israel with the nations marked Israel in the land but led to the failure to drive out the nations. The nations, therefore, are allowed to remain to prove the obedience of Israel to the Lord. They become snares, traps, scourges, thorns to the covenant people (Josh 23:13). Soon Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites and mingled freely with them. Hardly could it be said that Israel possessed their possessions. “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).506

506 B. C. Kreller, “Palestine and the Jew,” BSac 105 (1948) 200–201.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 188

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Explanation

189

Chaps. 18–19 make one item clear. Success is conditioned on obedience and faithfulness to the word of God. The Israel who is not willing to march forward at God’s command finds talk of the God of your ancestors. Only the Israel who shows it is ready for immediate obedience can hear of “our God.” A number of perspectives on such obedience are given. First, this kind of obedience involves action at the place where God has shown himself ready to meet his people. Israel must come to the tent of meeting and find the divine will. There the people must find the lots which God has given them. The first divine word is not that of the lot for the tribes. Rather, the first divine word is one of warning and direction. Israel cannot simply receive the gifts directly from the hand of God. The people of Israel must do their part. Having done their part and received the gift, they can blame neither their leader nor their God, for Israel’s representatives have marked off the equal parts. Israel’s representatives have accepted as fair the division of the land. The division has been recorded as a guide to all future generations. The tribes can no longer fight over territory. They must come to the divine representative and seek the answer in the book. Contemporary wishes and egotistical demands do not decide the case. God has already provided for guidelines to be set out. He has placed his decision in a book. On the basis of the book, the people can know what the divine will is. Having received the land, Israel is now called to a life in the land. The opening verse characterizes the nature of that life, one of peace in a land under control. This is God’s desire and God’s provision. When the people of Israel lose control of the land, they cannot blame God. They must look back to the tradition that tells how they received the land. There Israel will see that the land was given to an obedient people. Then the people must measure their lives against the standard set up in the beginning. The gift of the land brought blessings not only to the nation as a whole and to the individual tribes. It also brought blessing to the faithful leader. God commanded Israel to reward the individual for his faithfulness. Thus the Deuteronomic understanding of blessing and curse is expressed not only on the corporate but also on the individual level. This, too, stands as a source of encouragement to Israel through the years as many of the people become dispersed from the main body of the people of God.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 189

9/18/14 9:20 AM

III. Identifying Israel (20:1–24:33) A. Setting Up Sanctuaries (20:1–9) Bibliography Auld, A. G. “Cities of Refuge in Israelite Tradition.” JSOT 10 (1978) 26–40. Barmash, P. Homicide in the Biblical World. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. Bird, P. A. “Translating Sexist Language as a Theological and Cultural Problem.” USQR 42 (1988) 89–95. Burnside, J. P. “Exodus and Asylum: Uncovering the Relationship between Biblical Law and Narrative.” JSOT 34 (2010) 243–66. David, M. “Die Bestimmungen über die Asylstädte in Josua XX: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des biblischen Asylrechts.” OtSt 9 (1951) 30–48. Delekat, L. Asylie und Schutzorakel am Zionheiligtum. Leiden: Brill, 1967. 290–320. Dinur, B. “The Religious Character of the Cities of Refuge and the Ceremonies of Admission into Them.” ErIsr 3 (1954) 135–46 (Heb.). Feinberg, C. L. “The Cities of Refuge.” BSac 103 no. 412 (1946) 411–17; 104 no. 413 (1947) 35–48. Fishbane, M. “Biblical Colophons, Textual Criticism, and Legal Analogies.” CBQ 42 (1980) 438–49. González, J. L. “Sanctuary: Historical, Legal and Biblical Considerations.” Engage/Social Action 14 (1986) 12–20. Greenberg, M. “The Biblical Conception of Asylum.” JBL 78 (1959) 125–32. ———. “City of Refuge.” IDB, 1:638–39. Holmes, S. Joshua, the Hebrew and Greek Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1914. Hubbard, R. L., Jr. “The Go’el in Ancient Israel: Theological Reflections on an Israelite Institution.” BBR 1 (1991) 3–19. Kooij, A. van der. “Zum Verhältnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik: Überlegungen anhand einiger Beispiele.” In Congress Volume, Cambridge 1995. Ed. J. A. Emerton. VTSup 66. Leiden: Brill, 1997. 185–202. Loewenstamm, S. E. “Law.” The World History of the Jewish People. First Series, vol. 3, Judges. Ed. B. Mazar. Jerusalem: Masada Press, 1971. 258–62. Löhr, M. Das Asylwesen im Alten Testament. Schriften der Königsberger gelehrten Gesellschaft 7. Halle: Niemeyer, 1930. Milgrom, J. “Sancta Contagion and Altar/City Asylum.” In Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980. Ed. J. A. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. 278–310. Nicolsky, N. M. “Das Asylrecht in Israel.” ZAW 48 (1930) 146–75. Oyen, H. van. Ethik des Alten Testaments. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1967. Pfandl, G. “The Soteriological Implications of the Cities of Refuge.” In Inicios, paradigmas y fundamentos. Entre Ríos, Argentina: River Plate Adventist University, 2004. 229–42. Phillips, A. Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970. 99–109. Rofé, A. “The History of the Cities of Refuge in Biblical Law.” In Studies in Bible. Ed. S. Japhet. ScrHier 31. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. 205–39. ———. “Joshua 20: Historico-Literary Criticism Illustrated.” In Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Ed. J. Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. 131–47. “Die Asylstädte im Alten Testament: Realität und Fiktivität eines Rechtsinstituts.” Sänchez-Moreno, Joseph. “Las ciudades de refugio: un studio de Josue´20:1–3. Theologika 27 (2012) 42–65. Schmidt, L. “Levitenund Asylstädte in Num. xxxv und Jos. xx; xxi 1–42.” VT 52 (2002) 103–21. Seitz, G. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium. BWANT 93. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971. 111–13. Stackert, J. “Why Does Deuteronomy Legislate Cities of Refuge? Asylum in the Covenant Collection (Exodus 21:12–14 and Deuteronomy 19:1–13).” JBL 125 (2006) 23–49. Staszak, M. “Die Asylstädte im Alten Testament: Realität und Fiktivität eines Rechtsinstituts.” Ägypten und Altes Testament 65. Wiesbaden: Harrassowittz, 2006. Tov, E. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Vasholz, R. I. “Israel’s Cities of Refuge.” Presbyterian 19 (1993) 116–18. Weinfeld, M. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. 236–39.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 190

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

191

Translation 1,2aYahweh spoke to Joshua, “Speak to the sons of Israel, ‘Set up for yourselves the cities of refuge which I spoke about to you (pl.) by the hand of Moses, 3to which the killer may flee, who has struck down a person inadvertently without knowing. a They b will become for you (pl.) for refuge c from the avenger of blood. 4“‘He may flee to one of these cities. He shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city and shall speak in the ears of the elders of that city about his case. They shall take him into the city unto themselves and give him a place. He shall live there with them. 5But if the avenger of blood should pursue after him, they shall not deliver the killer into his hand, since without knowledge he smote his neighbor, not having hated him in the past. 6He shall dwell in that city until he can stand before the assembly for judgment, until the death of the one who will be high priest in those days. Then the killer will return and enter his own city and his own house, to the city a from which he fled.’” 7Then they sanctified a Kedesh in Galilee in the hill country of Naphtali, and Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and Kiriath Arba (that is Hebron) in the hill country of Judah. 8Beyond the Jordan, east of Jericho, a they set up Bezer in the wilderness in the plain b of the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead of the tribe of Gad and Tolan in Bashan from the tribe of Manasseh. 9These were the cities appointed for all a the sons of Israel and for the sojourner who sojourns in their midst to flee there— anyone smiting a person inadvertently— so that he may not die by the hand of the avenger of blood until he has stood before the assembly. b

Notes 1,2.a. Tov (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 329– 30) devotes a special section to Josh 20:1– 6, incorporating the work of Rofé (“Joshua 20”) and Auld (JSOT 10 [1978] 26– 40). He finds a shorter text in both OG and the Samaritan text of Joshua and some kind of relationship to Num 35:9– 34; Deut 4:41– 43; 19:1–13. The greater part of vv 4– 6 along with the phrase “unintentionally” in v 3 are related to Deuteronomistic language while the rest of the chapter has the Priestly language of Num 35. Tov concludes that the long text developed from the short one, using Priestly language. Tov emphasizes the “internal contradiction” between vv 4– 5 and v 6 as supporting the theory of MT expansion. Van der Kooij (“Zum Verhältnis,” 190) sees here a late editor who knew both P and D, a scribal expert in Scripture for whom there was no longer a P or a D. Nelson concludes that “the differences between the short OG and long MT forms of this chapter are best explained as evidence of further recensional development in the MT tradition. . . . The MT additions are an intertextual development intended to coordinate Joshua’s act with the particulars of Deut 19:1–13 and Num 35:25” (228). Schmidt (VT 52 [2002] 108) pares the original text down to vv 1– 3 (without “without knowing” and “who has struck down a person inadvertently”), 4– 5, 6 (without “until he can stand before the assembly for judgment”), 7, and 8 (without mention of the tribes). An editor then inserted the other materials with v 9 to bring the text parallel to Num 35. 3.a. LXX reads φυγαδευτήριον τῷ φονευτῇ τῷ πατάξαντι ψυχὴν ἀκουσίως, καὶ ἔσονται ὑμῖν αἱ πόλεις φυγαδευτήριον, καὶ οὐκ ἀποθανεῖται ὁ φονευτὴς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγχιστεύοντος τὸ αἷμα, ἕως ἂν καταστῇ ἐναντίον τῆς συναγωγῆς εἰς κρίσιν, “a place of refuge for the killer, the one who struck a soul inadvertently, and the cities will be a refuge for you (pl.). And the killer will not die by the blood relative until he should stand before the community (or synagogue) for judgment.” LXX does not mention “fleeing there” but inserted “cities” as an obvious subject and added a promise that the unwilling killer would not die without a day before the court. LXX uses a form of ἀκουσίως or ἄγνοια—“not hearing” or “not knowing”—to translate Heb. ‫שׁגגה‬, “inadvertently” or “by mistake.” In v 3 MT has both ‫שׁגגה‬, “inadvertently,” ָ ‫ ִבּ ְב ִל‬, “without knowledge,” so that LXX translates only one of the Heb. terms. and ‫י־ד ַﬠת‬

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 191

9/18/14 9:20 AM

192

A. Setting Up Sanctuaries (20:1–9)

‫י־ד ַﬠת‬ ָ ‫ ִבּ ְב ִל‬is apparently taken from Deut 19:4, where it is translated in LXX as ἀκουσίως— “not hearing” or “inadvertently.” The parallel section in Num 35:11 does not contain “without knowing.” Fritz sees it as a gloss here. Nelson finds a “deuteronomistic supplement.” Schmidt (VT 52 [2002] 106–7) finds no reason for an editor supplementing the text to create the difficult transition from v 3b to v 4. For Schmidt, LXX has made LXX parallel to Num 35. Schmidt can find no reasonable explanation for the formulation of the MT out of the LXX. Eventually, LXX created an “Ausführungsbericht” in Joshua showing how precisely the commands in Numbers were carried out in Joshua. Schmidt then turns to show how at a later stage mt was expanded on the basis of Num 35. 3.b. LXX gives an explicit subject “the cities,” as in Num 35:12, but Nelson still follows MT. Schmidt (VT 52 [2002] 106) sees LXX supplementing MT in light of Num 35. 3.c. LXX has inserted Num 35:12b at this point: “and the killer shall not die [from the avenger of blood— Josh 20:3, not Num 35:12] until he should stand before the assembly in judgment.” The “until” clause appears in MT in 20:6. Nelson sees the LXX pluses as original, a casuality of the supplementary process, but Schmidt (VT 52 [2002] 106) is more consistent in seeing a LXX insertion making the text parallel with Num 35. All the remainder of vv 4– 6 is not transmitted by LXXB. LXX A corresponds to MT with minor variants. Holmes (Joshua, 71) can simply note that it is generally admitted that LXX gives the more original text.” Soggin sees the addition as an “interpretative interpolation.” Parts of vv 4– 6 can be explained as language taken up from the parallel passages in Num 35; Deut 4:41– 43; 19:1–13: v 4a//Deut 4:42b; 19:11b; cf. 19:5b v 5aα//19:6aα v 5aβ//19:12 v 5b//19:4b v 6//Num 35:28 Even so, v 4aβb, the unique language of v 5aβ, and v 6 are not adequately explained. The most extensive attempt appears to be that of Holzinger. See Nelson’s translation of a MT revision and the original unrevised text. He sees a descriptive narrative of Joshua’s obedience supplemented by “prescriptive commands detailing how the law is to be carried out” with material taken to “coordinate Joshua’s act with the particulars of Deut 19:1–13 and Num 35:25” (228). Coote (697) finds MT original featuring Priestly and Deuteronomistic language with LXX representing a scribe’s alteration seeking consistency, but Schmidt (VT 52 [2002] 105–7) shows that no one has provided an adequate explanation of how the MT could be formulated from the LXX. He shows that v 4 originally attached to v 3a with attention to the blood avenger. Vv 3b– 6 are later insertions to complete obedience. 6.a. Fritz sees “to the city” as superfluous, lacking in Syr. and thus to be deleted. 7.a. LXX διέστειλεν, “he separated,” appears only here for Heb. ‫ ֶק ֶד שׁ‬, “sanctify.” It translates ‫ הקרה‬hipʿil, “cause to happen, direct, select,” in Num 35:11. Hollenberg (“Die deuteronomischen Bestandtheile des Buches Josua,” TSK 1 [1874] 462– 506) suggested that ‫ ביַ ְקרו‬was the proper reading here. Even Holmes (Joshua) rejected this, but Auld, Nelson, and Fritz have taken it up again. LXX is again here assimilating the text to Num 35. 8.a. “Jericho” is difficult syntactically here and is omitted by the LXX. It may reflect scribal use of Josh 13:32. Fritz places an article on “the Jordan” and strikes “east of the Jordan” as a gloss, perhaps taken over from 13:32. 8.b. Fritz sees ‫במישׁר‬, “in the plain,” as a gloss. 9.a. LXX does not translate “all,” which may be the emphasis of later tradition. 9.b. LXX adds “in judgment” in conformity with v 6 (= LXX v 3) and Num 35:12. The textual issues in this brief chapter prove to be complex and debatable. One cannot simply take the Greek or the MT as fully original. Nor can one go back to Numbers or to Deuteronomy to discover an original text. Rather we learn in this span of nine verses how the earliest scribes and translators sought to bring texts into agreement.

Form/Structure/Setting The previous section is marked by the closing formula of Josh 19:51. The new section opens at 20:1 even though the syntax with its imperfect consecutive seems to mark continuity. The new address from Yahweh on a new subject sets this chapter

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 192

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

193

off from the previous one. Thus we have a new unit tied closely to the previous one. Hess notes a second phase of the land grants in which Israel gives back some of the land to Yahweh for special purposes: cities of refuge and Levitical cities.1 Again, 20:9 forms a concluding statement marked by a disjunctive clause and summarizing the contents of the chapter. The imperfect consecutive of 21:1, though, gives a syntactical connection to the two chapters.

Tradition No known ancient Near Eastern practices paralleled the cities of refuge.2 The tradition behind the cities of refuge can be studied only through comparison with the parallel accounts in Exod 21:12–14; Num 35; Deut 4, 19. Scholars debate which of the passages depends on the others. Knauf believes Num 35 is dependent on Josh 20, since Joshua is the book of land, portraying Joshua as a faithful prophet.3 Rofé traces the history of research beginning with Wellhausen, who thought every sanctuary could accept accidental murderers.4 Deuteronomic law then closed down all but one sanctuary for each of the eastern tribes (cf. Deut 4:41– 43; 19:1–13). “Secular” law then chose some of the former sanctuaries as refuge for the accidental murderers. Albright and others placed the origin of the practice under David and Solomon, since it was the only time Israel controlled all six cities. Greenberg places the practice in the United Monarchy and emphasizes the role of the high priest’s death in providing atonement. Kaufmann looks to the period of the conquest for the start of the practice demanded by priests seeking to keep the holiness of the altar.5 Rofé attributes the law to a second Deuteronomist, who formulated a three-part law for murderers based on inherited material. The Covenant Code (Exod 20:22–23:33) opens a section on cases concerning injury to persons (Exod 21:12–36) with the general regulation: “Whoever smites a man resulting in death shall die.” This is immediately modified for the case when one did not lie in wait but God was the one who let the victim fall into his hand. Then God will set up a place where he can flee. This in turn is modified to say that if the man was boiling mad (or arrogant) with his neighbor so as to murder him with scheming and cunning, he is to be taken away from God’s altar to die. Exodus thus presupposes either only one or an indefinite number of places where the man who only did what God permitted to happen, himself not being involved emotionally or intellectually, can flee. This place appears to be connected with the sanctuary and its altar by the further modification. Further evidence for an original connection with an altar appears in 1 Kgs 1:50– 53; 2:28–34, though Pitkänen, following Barmash, sees these as political asylum, a tradition distinct from that of homicide refuge.6 These decisions leave Pitkänen and Barmash free to say that homicide is so heinous that one could even be arrested at the altar. “The perceived sanctity of an altar in itself would not protect the offender.”7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hess (1996) 277. Pitkänen, 334. Knauf, 170. Rofé, “History of the Cities.” Kaufmann, Biblical Account of the Conquest of Canaan. Pitkänen, 335. Ibid.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 193

9/18/14 9:20 AM

194

A. Setting Up Sanctuaries (20:1–9)

Num 35 is concerned to set up cities for the Levites (cf. Josh 21) and places of refuge, the latter being part of the former (Num 35:6). The actual command to set aside cities of refuge begins only in Num 35:9. Here the number six (cf. v 6) appears only in 35:13, whereas 35:9–11 may be interpreted as seeing an indefinite number of cities set up west of the Jordan. The cities are called “cities of refuge” (‫)מקלט‬. The killer who smites a person inadvertently (‫ )בשׁגגה‬can flee there from before the avenger (‫ )גאל‬and is not to die before he stands before the assembly (‫ )עדה‬for judgment. The note is then made that three of the cities shall be beyond the Jordan and three in the land of Canaan (35:14). The cities are not confined to Israelites but also allow the sojourner (‫ )גר‬and alien (‫ )תושׁב‬to take refuge in them. A long list of cases is given for which the city of refuge is not open, so that the avenger of blood can kill the murderer (Num 35:16–21). Included here are mention of hatred and lying in wait (35:20). A list of applicable cases follows (35:22–23) including not lying in wait and not having been an enemy or having sought his evil (35:22–23). The court procedure is then spelled out (35:24–28). The assembly (‫ )עדה‬shall judge between the killer and the avenger of blood, rescuing the killer from the avenger of blood and returning him to the city of refuge to which he fled. This seems to imply that the jurisdiction lies not with the assembly in the city of refuge but with the assembly in the killer’s hometown or in the town where the crime was committed. This assembly returns the killer to the city of refuge. There the killer remains “until the death of the high priest who anointed him with holy oil” (Num 35:25). The killer is not permitted to leave the territory of the city of refuge. Should he do so, the avenger of blood may kill him without guilt. When the priest dies, the killer may return to his land and his possessions. The following legislation then notes that ransom may not be paid to allow the killer to return to the land until the death of the priest. The entire law is related to the belief that blood pollutes the land, which can only be redeemed by the blood of one who shed blood. Harstad explains: “The death of the high priest, the intercessor for all Israel, evidently restored harmony between all of God’s people and God himself. It also removed from the land itself the defilement caused by the bloodshed in the land.”8 Coote contends that more often than not a money settlement ended the process rather than a series of attempted murders and avenged murders.9 Coote sees more idealistic central government planning and Deuteronomistic creation than ancient tradition and practice since he can find no stories in which the law was taken into account or implemented. Deut 4:41– 44 notes that Moses divided out three cities beyond the Jordan for the killer who killed his neighbor without knowledge (‫)בבלי דעת‬, not hating him in the past. The three cities are then named. Deut 19 commands Israel to divide out three cities in the land (that is, west of the Jordan). The territory is to be divided into thirds for ease of access for every killer to one of them. The killer is defined as the one “who smote his neighbor without knowledge [‫ ]בבלי דעת‬not hating him in the past” (19:4). A specific example is given 8 9

Harstead, 647. Coote, 696.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 194

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

195

of one who may “flee to one of these cities and live, lest the avenger of blood should pursue after the killer” (19:5– 6). A possibility is then mentioned in case Yahweh should multiply the Israelites’ land. Then they may add three more cities, presumably within the land of Canaan. This is connected with the commandment not to shed innocent blood in the midst of the land so that blood (guilt) will not be upon the people. “The right of asylum helped to limit the social damage of unrestrained blood.”10 Attention turns to the case of the man not eligible for refuge because he hates his neighbor and sets up ambush against him, smiting him so that he dies. If this man flees to one of the cities, the elders of his city shall take him and give him to the avenger of blood, and he shall die. This eliminates the issue of innocent blood from Israel and is good for Israel. A comparison of the passages can be seen in table 20.1.

Table 20.1. Comparison of Instructions for Cities of Refuge Exod 21 1. Number of Cities

v 12; 1 or indefinite

Num 35

Deut 19

Josh 20

v 2; 3 cities in the west

v 2; indefinite

vv 9–11; indefinite

v 7; 3 cities in the west

v 7; 3 cities in the west

v 13; 6 cities

vv 8–9; 3 + 3 cities with indefinite location

v 8; 3 cities in the east

v 6; 6 cities

Deut 4 v 41; 3 cities in the east

v 9; indefinite 2. Verb Used

v 13; “set up”

vv 6, 13, 14; “give”

“divide”

v 11; “select” 3. Group Eligible

Israel

v 10; Israel

East of Jordan

vv 2, 7, 9; “divide”

vv 2, 8; “designate”

v 9; “add”

v 7; “sanctify”

West (?)

v 1; Israel

v 15; sojourner

v 9; sojourner

4. Conditions of Eligibility a. Not Lie in Wait

v 13

b. Inadvertent

v 22 v 15

vv 3, 9

c. Did not Know

v 42

v4

vv 3, 5

d. Not Hate

v 42

vv 4, 6

v5

5. Name of Cities

Eastern

10

Six

Nelson, 228.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 195

9/18/14 9:20 AM

196

A. Setting Up Sanctuaries (20:1–9) Exod 21

Num 35

Deut 4

Deut 19

Josh 20

6. Process

vv 12, 24–28, 32–33

vv 11–12 (guilty)

vv 4–6, 9

a. Entrance

escaped avenger

escaped avenger

escaped avenger

b. Trial

killer & avenger before ‫עדה‬ of hometown

1) killer before elders at gate 2) before

‫עדה‬ c. Verdict, Guilty

avenger killed

elders give to avenger

to city of refuge

elders accept into city of refuge

d. Length of Sentence

until death of high priest

until death of high priest

e. Condition of Sentence

may not leave city of refuge or be killed by avenger; cannot be ransomed

f. Release

to his own land

Innocent

7. Nature of Refuge 8. Presupposition

‫ עדה‬return

altar

to his town

Levitical city

city

v 32; blood guilt on land

vv 10, 13; blood guilt on land

city gate

Interestingly, all the passages share the expression “to flee there” (‫)שׁמע לנוס‬ and all but the brief Exodus account share the same terms for avenger of blood (‫)הדם גאל‬, killer (‫)רוצח‬, and neighbor (‫)רע‬. The major verbal distinction is the technical term “city of refuge” (‫ )ערי המקלט‬shared only by Num 35 and Josh 20. Josh 20:9 also introduces a unique term, “cities of appointment” or designated cities (‫)ערי המועדה‬. In light of the similarities and differences in the passages, scholars have suggested various theories concerning the age and growth of the tradition of the cities of refuge. Nicolsky maintains that Josh 20 as a literary composition is totally dependent on Num 35 and Deut 19.11 He sees the original nomadic regulations as a burden for the cult, since it had to bear the cost of providing for the refugee. In addition, the future of the refugee was depended upon the atoning (sometimes premature?) death of the high priest of the sanctuary. Thus, originally, lots would have 11

Nicolsky, ZAW 48 (1930) 146–75.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 196

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

197

been cast periodically to determine which sanctuary would have had to serve as a place of refuge. The original custom would have been available to others besides killers, but the particular law was preserved because it served the later lawgivers’ purpose of combating the anarchical elements of tribal law. The Deuteronomists sought to centralize worship and secularize the law so that the altar is replaced with the city and the priestly responsibility with that of the elders. The priestly writer’s compilation is a postexilic projection of a custom no longer practiced but retaining a number of earlier customs. Nicolsky sees as uniquely Israelite the limitation to unintentional murder and the fact that the deity in no way protects, even for a limited time, a recognized lawbreaker, punishing even the inadvertent murderer. Löhr shows numerous examples in international treaties dealing with political asylum,12 while claiming that primitive tribal law made a distinction between intentional and unintentional murder. He, too, sees Josh 20 as a compilation, basically dependent on Num 35. Only vv 1–3, 7– 8, even then, belong to the original passage. He claims that blood revenge is not presupposed in Exod 21, because the “dying you shall surely die” formula presupposes official procedures of justice, not blood revenge. He emphasizes that the stay in the city of refuge is a type of atonement for the refugee and suggests that the custom rests ultimately on Canaanite customs taken over by Israel. Moshe Greenberg emphasizes the theological, religious nature of the materials, which cannot be accounted for on humanitarian or political grounds.13 He underlines the fact that every killer is guilty to some degree (cf. Gen 9:6; Exod 21:28–32). The development in the law is an advance over prior customs of regarding homicide as a purely private matter that the families settled. The law develops from a temporary asylum at the altar to an indefinite asylum in the city, where expiation takes place through the death of the priest. Greenberg sees the six cities named in Josh 20 as being under Israelite control only during the united monarchy, concluding this is the time when the program of regulating blood revenge was conceived, though the conception of asylum apart from the particular cities is doubtless older, functioning with a multiplicity of priesthoods and going back to the earliest age of Israel. Deuteronomy turns it into a purely humanitarian institution. M. David sees Josh 20 as a postexilic compilation using Num 35, which was later changed in light of Deut 19.14 This newly formulated law would use language that had no relevance for the contemporary situation since free cities no longer existed. The same goes for the use of the term ‫עדה‬, which is made to decide on matters that are too narrow for the time and interests of the national assembly. This raises for David the question of the entire idea of cities of refuge as opposed to asylum in the temple, and leads him to suggest that the phrase “cities of refuge” represents an idea that never had any practical significance. Delekat assumes that the editor who inserted Josh 20:4– 6 must have worked sometime in the postexilic period.15 The only plausible time he can find is that

12 13 14 15

Löhr, Asylwesen. Greenberg, JBL 78 (1959) 125– 32; IDB, 1:638– 39. David, OtSt 9 (1951) 30– 48. Delekat, Asylie und Schutzorakel, 290– 320.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 197

9/18/14 9:20 AM

198

A. Setting Up Sanctuaries (20:1–9)

of John Hyrcanus when Hebron was regained. Thus Delekat sees in Joshua a correspondence to the practice of the Hellenistic cities. The practice of cities of refuge is, of course, much older, he supposes, reaching back to a time when the cities were autonomous. This would be the time of the judges. He sees elders as the leading officers of the ‫ עדה‬so that real differences do not exist between Deuteronomy and Numbers. Delekat argues strongly that atonement is not the point at issue since the natural death of a man cannot be seen as atonement. Only the long separation from home could be seen as atoning. Starting from the mention of anointing in Num 35:25, Delekat argues that this is involved with legal practices of adoption rites in the ancient Near East. In such rites a person is anointed and thus freed from his adoption. The refugee then has been adopted by the high priest. This is parallel to the Near Eastern Paromone relationship in which a slave is joined to a master for the lifetime of the master. At the death of the master, i.e., the high priest, the refugee is free to go home. This is practically and politically advantageous for the new high priest. Delekat also argues that the city of refuge was limited to a certain area, at first the temple region within a city. The secularization of Deuteronomy could seek to make this refuge area another special section of the city. Delekat cannot imagine that it would be easy to find a section where people would welcome the refugees. Loewenstamm contends that the law of refuge belongs to Israel’s early history, though its functioning was improved during the united kingdom.16 He seeks to combine elements of all the passages to reconstruct the legal institution as a whole. Auld argues that the lists of cities of refuge are developed from Josh 21.17 Josh 20:9 takes over a phrase of uncertain meaning, ‫ערי מהלט‬, from 1 Chr 6:40– 45, which takes city names from the top of the lists of Levitical cities in Josh 21 and then interprets them in light of Deut 19. Nelson finds asylum originally attached to the local sanctuary with a belief of “contagious holiness” connected to the altar. Deuteronomy’s secularization program moved the institution from the sanctuary to designated towns.18 Hess uses the treaty context and the absence of reference to the institution in the following books to point to the antiquity of the law and of the towns named.19 Hess searches in vain for ancient Near Eastern parallels to the city of refuge and avenger of blood institutions.20 He concludes that these go back to Israel’s earliest times, forming part of a tribal society with strong traditions of blood vengeance. Schmidt sees the connection to the high priest’s death limiting the law to postexilic times.21 Moving the law from altars and sanctuaries to designated cities secularized the law. Thus a postexilic editor determines that the Josh 20 version builds off the Deuteronomic law and sees that the law needs to be carried out in Joshua’s days. Schmidt finds no evidence that cities of refuge were ever anything but a theory.22 The assembly is not that of a local city but of the entire nation, a theoretical practice totally impossible in practice. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Loewenstamm, “Law,” 258– 62. Auld, JSOT 10 (1978) 26– 40. Nelson, 228. Hess (1996) 278, n. 2. Hess (2009) 75. Schmidt, VT 52 (2002) 110. Ibid., 112.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 198

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

199

Pressler speaks of a vision rather than a practice, “a witness to the Israelite ideals of justice and protecting the vulnerable rather than as historical evidence.”23 This judgment rests on the silence of the rest of the Bible and the schematic nature of the list. One asks in return how many biblical laws do not have further mention or evidence, and how does one describe such a law setting out a list of cities other than schematic? Much recent thought reduces the cities of refuge to literary creations. I would conclude quite the opposite. Fritz observes that the institution of asylum appears to be present prior to the monarchy, as shown by Exod 21:13–14, and tied closely to the sanctuaries.24 The murder in 1 Kgs 2:28–35 shows the institution still alive and connected to the altar. With the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem, the cities totally replaced the altars as sites of refuge. I suggest that the institution of refuge is extremely old. It is a necessity for a community in which murder was not regulated by political courts but by local families. The institution of asylum or refuge placed a needed limitation on the zeal of enraged families seeking to carry out blood revenge. Such institutions originated in the tribe and thus found their center in a local place, a sacred place. The biblical laws show long reflection and frequent adjustment to new political and sociological situations. The case easiest to note is the law of release. Num 35 states that a man is to be sent back to his own land. This directive apparently stems from a society in which farming and agriculture were still predominant. Josh 20 changes the instructions to “his own town,” thus presupposing an urban society. The change from the interest in the altar (Exod 21) to the city gate (Josh 20) reflects a similar situation. The institution of city of refuge thus appears to have served Israel for many centuries, gradually being adjusted to new conditions. Each of the passages dealing with the institution is influenced by the context in which it is placed. The context in Josh 20 is that of fulfillment of the earlier Mosaic commands. The passage incorporates the language of both Num 35 and Deut 19 to show that every element of the command has been fulfilled. Josh 20, however, appears to maintain some tradition that other laws do not reflect, namely, the tradition of the conditions of entrance once the place of refuge has become an established city and the place of the trial at the city gate. The passage thus adapts the ancient institution to the urban setting controlled by the elders of the city, another ancient tribal institution. It also introduces the names of the three western towns. It is interesting that the extra towns of refuge presupposed as possible by Deut 19:9 are not mentioned in Joshua. The names of the towns reflect places long sacred to Israel. This shows that even with the turning over of many of the duties to the town elders, the towns themselves remained those with ancient sacral associations. While Auld reads the city-list traditions as derivations from the literature of Josh 21, I suggest that the development of the tradition shows the growth of the city- of-refuge institution from that of local holy places among the tribal elements to ancient sanctuaries in the land to established cities of refuge now under the control of the elders of the land. What is not clarified is the relationships of the elders to the ‫עדה‬. Delekat may be correct here in seeing the elders as leading officers of the ‫עדה‬. 23 24

Pressler, 100–101. Fritz, 202.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 199

9/18/14 9:20 AM

200

A. Setting Up Sanctuaries (20:1–9)

Source and Redaction Nelson maintains that the earliest text of Josh 20 deals with fulfillment of the command to Moses, although it does not include the specifics of Deut 19.25 He finds the literary relationship of Josh 20 to the other refuge texts problematic and complex, since Deuteronomy never uses the term “city of refuge.” Nelson follows Noth in seeing Num 35 dependent on the pre- MT form of Josh 20. An MT revision introduced Deuteronomistic thought to a text laden with Priestly terms. “Over time, the process of intertextual harmonization seems to have run in both directions.”26 Such “recensional development grew out of a conviction that the Pentateuch (Numbers and Deuteronomy) was canonical and scriptural.” Nelson may be close to reality in seeing scribes knowing both texts and consciously or subconsciously harmonizing them.27 Nelson is probably not so close when he denies any historicity to a practice he sees as an artificial literary composition based on second temple practice and ideology without an institution to implement and enforce it. Schmidt finds a complex interplay, the oldest element being Josh 20:1–3a*, 4– 6*, 7, 8*, which represents a postexilic report of the completion of the task described in Deut 19 and serves as the source text (Vorlage) for the instructions in Num 35:9–15.28 An editor expanded Josh 20 on the basis of Num 35, making Josh 20 a report of the completion of the task described there. Schmidt also states that v 4a needs a clear subject expressed.29 The duration of the killer’s stay in the city of refuge in vv 4– 5 does not correspond to that in the opening of v 6. Vv 8– 9 form a later addition adding tribal identifications to v 7. Schmidt’s conclusion, then (109–10), is that v 20 is built off of Deut 19:1–13 and then expanded on the basis of Num 35.30 Fritz finds the basic text in vv 1– 5, 7, 8 created by the Deuteronomic redactor.31 Vv 6, 9 stem from a later Priestly redactor. Knauf describes a complex procedure. Num 35:6– 8 is dependent on Josh 20–21.32 Naming of the cities is originally at home in Joshua and is taken up by Num 34:13–15. They have their place in late Persian and early Hellenistic eras. Surely the practice reflects early Israel’s attempt to establish justice among her loosely connected tribes in a culture without much protection for the guilty individual. The very adaptations in the related texts shows sociological change and practical need to make the theory fit reality.

Form Chap. 20 is set out formally as divine instruction (vv 1– 6) and human fulfillment (vv 7– 8) with an epilogue or colophon (v 9).33 Fishbane argues that the concluding colophon summarizes the earliest form of the text. Vv 1–2 set the context 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Nelson, 228; cf. the discussion of Schmidt above under “Tradition.” Ibid., 229. Ibid., 230. Schmidt, VT 52 (2002) 120–21. Ibid., 105. Schmidt, 109–10. Fritz, 201– 3. Knauf, 170–71. See Fishbane, CBQ 42 (1980) 446.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 200

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

201

of divine conversation and basic instruction tied to Mosaic command. V 3 gives the intention of the instruction, while vv 4– 6 describe the practical operation of the institution the instruction sets up. Such instruction connected to the sanctuaries appears to have been preserved and transmitted in Priestly tradition and practice, though inclusion of the elders may point to a tradition of the local gate.

Structure The opening divine speech in Josh 20:1 marks the beginning of a new section. The formulaic summary of v 9 and the switch of characters and subject matter in 21:1 show that 20:9 ends the section. The unit is divided into two parts: divine command (vv 1– 6) and human obedience (vv 7– 8) with a closing summary (v 9). The divine command has a complex structure: v 1–2a: Divine citation formula v 2b: Apodictic command tied to previous command v 3: Purpose for command v 4: Procedure explained v 5: Casuistic explanation from different perspective v 6: Procedure completed Human obedience is set forth in two parallel parts: setting up cities west (v 7) and east (v 8) of the Jordan. The summary of v 9 introduces new vocabulary and carries the procedure only to the court of judgment, not to the return from the city of refuge (contrast v 6).

Setting Nelson concludes that the practice of amnesty tied to the death of the high priest is “a post- exilic ideological development,” thus pointing to a postexilic literary setting for the chapter. Similarly, Schmidt maintains that the original setting for cities of refuge lies in Deuteronomic law that sought to give temporary asylum to the unintentional killer while maintaining cult centralization.34 This understanding forces the cities of refuge into the realm of theory and out of the realm of history. Howard understands the purpose of the cities to be to provide protection for a person who killed without murderous intention, thus providing evidence that the law made distinctions in degree of guilt.35 The textual and tradition-history studies above point to a complex development of the tradition of the cities of refuge in Josh 20. The chapter contains language from both Numbers and Deuteronomy. It reflects a practice that was sociologically adapted from local holy places among the tribal elements to ancient sanctuaries in the land and then to established cities of refuge under the control of the elders of the land. Form and structural studies point to scribes maintaining a Mosaic tradition, to priests in charge of local sanctuaries, and to elders maintaining justice in the city gate. The setting is thus a complex one developed and employed through the growth and diversion of Israel’s history from tribes to sanctuaries to city justice systems. 34 35

Schmidt, VT 52 (2002) 121. Howard, 382.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 201

9/18/14 9:20 AM

202

A. Setting Up Sanctuaries (20:1–9) Table 20.2. Joshua 20 Form and Narrative Elements Narrative (Not applicable—instruction) Element

Passage

Marker

Exposition (pf. or disjunctive)

Genre: Divine Instruction and Implementation Element

Passage

Marker

Divine command

vv 1–6

Divine conversation marker

v1

Basic instruction tied to Mosaic command

v2

Intention of the instructed institution

v3

Infinitive

Practical operation of the institution

vv 4–6

Pf. consecutives

Change or crisis (speech or dialogue)

Human obedience

vv 7–8

Impf. consec. + city list

Resolution (impf. consec.)

Closing colophone

v9

‫וַ יְ ַד ֵבּר יְ הוָ ה ֶאל‬

Imperative +

‫ְבּיַ ד־מ ֶֹשׁה‬

‫ֵא ֶלּה ָהיוּ‬

Comments 1–2 The important element for the book of Joshua is the fulfillment of the command to Moses. Here we see that the dominant theological hand of the book is still at work. 3 Unintentional sin is the subject matter of Lev 4 (cf. Num 15:27–29), where it is clear that such a sin is still regarded as bringing guilt upon the person committing it. Howard names two causes of unintentional sin: negligence or ignorance of the law.36 Unintentional sin had to be dealt with ritually. This sets the background for understanding the city of refuge. It is a place of safety and a place where the sinner must pay the consequences of his sin. It is at the same time refuge and prison. Burnside finds that the city of refuge has the following characteristics: a dwelling, a place of sacrifice subject to priestly supervision, and a place of ritual observance.37 The avenger of blood is related to the larger question of the ‫—גאל‬the go’el or avenger of blood—in Israel, a concept tied to the responsibility of the family for its own. The list of persons who may function as ‫ גאל‬is given in Lev 25:48– 49. He has the legal responsibility to protect the rights of his endangered relative. The most familiar examples of the ‫ גאל‬in operation appear in Ruth 3– 4 and in Jer 32:6–7. Blood revenge is illustrated well by the story of 2 Sam 14:1–11. The concept is rooted in ancient family law in societies that have not developed public prosecution and 36 37

Howard, 382. Burnside, JSOT 34 (2010) 260.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 202

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

203

legislation. Such ancient customs, however, were continued in altered form within the urbanized society. Phillips argues that the “goʼel of blood” was not connected with ancient tribal customs of vengeance but was a representative appointed by the elders.38 Phillips’s theory appears to ignore the sociological history behind the city of refuge. 4 The elders of the city represent an important political and legal institution in the ancient Near East. The functionings of such a body are illustrated in Ruth 4:1–12; 1 Sam 11:3; 16:4. Its roots are not in city life but in nomadic tribal life, so that even after Israel settled into the land, her tribes retained elders (Judg 11:4–11). The elders also play a role in some of Israel’s early narratives (Exod 17:5– 6; Num 11:14–17; 16:25), especially in the Deuteronomic law (Deut 5:23; 19:12; 21:1– 9, 18– 21; 22:13–21; 25:5–10; 27:1; 29:9 [10]; 31:9, 28). In Joshua they play only a minor role, appearing in the present passage and in Josh 7:6; 8:10, 33; 23:2; 24:1, 31. The court appearance here “amounts to a preliminary hearing to determine whether his [the asylum seeker’s] case qualifies for asylum” within the city of refuge.39 5 One of the first refinements in the law of blood revenge is the attempt to define criteria for determining whether the murder is inadvertent or not. One such criterion is previous relationships between the parties. Has one hated the other or not? If the accused has a motive for murder, he cannot invalidate the suspicions of the “court.” 6 The ‫עדה‬, “assembly,” appears to reflect the ancient usage (cf. Josh 18:1). The assembly of the local town sat in judgment on the one who applied for refuge.40 Certainly, when the ‫ עדה‬became “all Israel,” such an institution could not function in regard to every murder case. The death of the high priest was taken by early rabbinic authorities to refer to atonement. This is taken to its logical end in the discussion of Nicolsky.41 The opinion of Delekat, who maintains that this derives from adoption and slave regulations, is probably closer to the original development.42 The refugee became attached to the temple cult as a worker for the high priest and gained freedom upon the death of the priest, allowing the new priest to assemble his own staff while providing support for the priesthood among the newly freed men as they returned home. 7– 8 The use of the cultic term “to sanctify” (‫ )יקדשׁ‬has usually caused comment and reason for textual change. Perhaps this, too, reflects the ancient usage, when the cities were regarded as part of the cult. In the small country of Palestine, no person lived more than a day’s journey from one of the six cities.43 For Kedesh in Galilee, see Josh 12:22. It lay within Naphtali. Shechem in the central hill country of Ephraim was also an early cultic center (see Josh 8:30– 35; 24:1– 28). Kiriath-Arba, or Hebron, was a strategic city in southern Judah (see Josh 10:3). Three of the cities were east of the Jordan. Bezer was in the wilderness of the plain of the Reubenites. On the Moabite Stone, Mesha claims to have destroyed 38 39 40 41 42 43

Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law, 99–109. Hubbard, 452. Contra Schmidt, VT 52 (2002) 103–21, who insists this must be the unrealistic gathering of the assembly of the twelve tribes. Nicolsky, ZAW 48 (1930) 146–75; cf. Hubbard, 453. Asylie und Schutzorakelm. Howard, 386.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 203

9/18/14 9:20 AM

204

A. Setting Up Sanctuaries (20:1–9)

and rebuilt Bezer, which lay in territory Mesha claimed in northern Moab. Ramoth in Gilead was an important fortress where Solomon stationed the district governor (1 Kgs 4:13). It belonged to the tribe of Gad and became a center of dispute and battle between Damascus and Israel. Golan was north in Bashan of the eastern part of the tribe of Manasseh (1 Kgs 22; 2 Kgs 8– 9). Golan lay to the north in Bashan east of the Sea of Galilee (Chinnereth) in the territory of the eastern part of the tribe of Manasseh. 9 The form of the conclusion is the same as in chaps. 13–19 and shows that the same literary hand is at work. For the redactor, the cities of refuge represent an “all Israel” institution, taking in even the ‫גרים‬, the strangers who live outside their own kinship circles and thus do not have the status or privileges of an Israelite citizen (cf. Comment 8:33).

Explanation The book of Joshua attempts to demonstrate the faithful obedience of Joshua to the instructions God gave Moses by reaching back into the Pentateuch, especially into Deuteronomy, for traditions in which Moses received a command from Yahweh for later action. The final three chapters turn from “land apportionment to issues of how life in the land is to be lived.”44 The present text of Joshua goes further than simply emphasizing the obedience of Joshua. “The purpose of the conquest of Canaan, as presented in Joshua, was to establish justice in the land as well as to supply Israel a homeland.”45 Or as Pressler states: “The tribes are to use some of their God- given land for the sake of justice.”46 “Justice must look more to the motive than to the act.”47 This brief chapter shows the nature of the law that Joshua has carried out. The law is an attempt to adapt tribal, nomadic practices to the new sociological realities of urban life. The old practices still hang on. Blood revenge cannot be ignored. It stands as a threat to the life of the community. On the other hand, killing cannot be dismissed or handled lightly. The newly urbanized society must find a way to deal with both sides of the problem. The city of refuge seeks to find a middle ground for dealing with that problem. God sets up for Israel an institution to protect the individual who has been guilty of a crime that he did not plan and for which he had no motivation while still purifying the land from bloodguilt.48 The institution involves two legal steps, according to Josh 20. First, the elders of the city must be satisfied and allow the man into the city. Next, the general assembly of the city must hear the case. The interesting note is that the man does not simply go free even though he has proven that he acted without malice aforethought. Proven innocent, the man remains a virtual prisoner in the city of refuge, most probably in the service of the priest and/or temple of the city. Restoration to normal, free life comes only at the death of the priest. 44 45 46 47 48

Nelson, 230. Creach, 103. Pressler, 102. Hawk (2010) 188. See Creach, 105.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 204

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Explanation

205

From the earliest rabbinic times onward, this has been interpreted in the sense of Priestly atonement. Howard confirms this interpretation “since the high priest represented the sacrificial system, his death atoned for the sins of the manslayer.”49 McConville and Williams raise the possibility that “a kind of atoning function” is suggested but then admit that the priestly “limitation” may simply provide a lapse of time during societal transition in justice institutions.50 The text in its context suggests that even after the concept of the city of refuge had died out, the community continued to work with the text in new sociological conditions in an attempt to gain insights into the will and workings of God with sinful humanity. The Christian community is called to examine the text of the Old Testament and seek new insights for current sociological conditions. Such insights must begin where the text does, with the call to obedience to the lifestyle God demands and teaches. Beyond that, the community is called to reflect upon its understanding of crime and punishment and the centuries of traditions that have resulted in our present penal codes and practices. We should not take for granted that such practices have somehow been given us by divine revelation and need never to be altered. The Christian community must take seriously its responsibility to examine penal institutions and practices and seek to find the ways God would lead us to reform them. The innocent person should not suffer unduly, and the guilty person should be given sufficient protection and hope for new opportunities as well as sufficient punishment.

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42) Bibliography Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible. Trans. A. F. Rainey. London: Burns & Oates, 1967. 268–73. Ahlström, G. W. Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine. SHANE 1. Leiden: Brill, 1982. Albertz, R. “The Canonical Alignment of the Book of Joshua.” In Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Ed. Oded Lipschitz. Eisenbrauns (2007) 287– 303. Albright, W. F. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1946. 121–25. ———. “The List of Levitical Cities (Jos XXI, 1 Chr VI).” In Louis Ginzberg Jubilee. Vol. 1. New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1945. 49–73. Allan, N. “The Religious and Political Significance of the Early Settlement of the Levites in Judah.” IBS 10 (1988) 166–77. ———. “Some Levitical Traditions Considered with Reference to the Status of Levites in Pre-Exilic Israel.” HeyJ 21 (1980) 1–13. ———. “Jeroboam and Shechem.” VT 24 (1974) 353–57. Alt, A. “Bemerkungen zu einigen judäischen Ortslisten des Alten Testaments.” ZDPV 68 (1951) 193–210. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichten des Volkes Israel. Vol. 2. Munich: Beck, 1959. 289–305. ———. “Festungen und Levitenorte im Lande Juda.” In Kleine Schriften zur Geschichten des Volkes Israel. Vol. 2. Munich: Beck, 1959. 306–15. Auld, A. G. “Cities of Refuge in Israelite Tradition.” JSOT 10 (1978) 26–40. ———. Joshua Retold: Synoptic Perspectives. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. ———. “The Levitical Cities: Texts and History.” ZAW 91 (1979) 194–206. ———. “Studies in Joshua: Text and Literary Relationships.” Diss., Edinburgh, 1976. Baden, J. S. “The Violent 49 50

Howard 386; cf. Hubbard, 453. McConville and Williams, 80.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 205

9/18/14 9:20 AM

206

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42)

Origins of the Levites: Text and Tradition.” Paper presented to SBL Levites and Priests in History and Tradition Section, November 21, 2009. Barr, J. “Midrash in the Old Testament.” JSS 29 (1984) 15–31. Bartusch, M. W. Understanding Dan: An Exegetical Study of a Biblical City, Tribe and Ancestor. JSOTSup 379. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003. 98–108. Ben Zvi, E. “The List of the Levitical Cities.” JSOT 64 (1992) 77–106. Boling, R. “Levitical Cities: Archaeology and Texts.” In Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry. Ed. A. Kort and S. Morschauser. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985. 23–32. ———. “Levitical History and the Role of Joshua.” In The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. Ed. C. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisebrauns, 1983. 241–61. Cazelles, H. “David’s Monarchy and the Gibeonite Claim (II Sam XXI, 1–14).” PEQ 87 (1955) 171, 174. Chesnut, O. D. Israelite Expansion Process in the Iron Age II: A Chalk Moat Perspective. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Institute of Archaeology. Clarke, T. A. “Complete v. Incomplete Conquest: A Re-examination of Three Passages in Joshua.” TynBul 61 (2010) 89–104. Cody, A. A History of Old Testament Priesthood. AnBib 35. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. 159–65. ———. “Levitical Cities and the Israelite Settlement.” In Homenaje a Juan Prade. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (1975) 179–89. Cortese, E. “Gius. 21 e Giud. 1 (TM or LXX?) e l‘abbottonatura’ del ‘Tetrteuco’ con l’‘Opera Deuteronomistica.’” RevistB 33 (1985) 375–94. ———. Josua 13–21: Ein priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. OBO 94. Fribourg: 1990. Crossley, S. L. “The Levite as a Royal Servant during the Israelite Monarchy.” PhD diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1989. Dearman, J. A. “The Levitical Cities of Reuben and Moabite Toponomy.” BASOR 276 (1989) 55–66. Galil, G. “The Sons of Judah and the Sons of Aaron in Biblical Historiography.” VT 35 (1985) 488–95. Grabbe, L. L. Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A SocioHistorical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995. Gunneweg, A. H. Leviten und Priester. FRLANT 89. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. 64–65, 123–24. Halpern, B. “Sectionalism and the Schism.” JBL 93 (1974) 519–32. ———. “Levitic Participation in the Reform Cult of Jeroboam I.” JBL 95 (1976) 31–42. Haran, M. “The Levitical Cities: Utopia and Historical Reality.” Tarbiz 27 (1958) 421–39 (Heb.). ———. “Studies in the Account of the Levitical Cities.” JBL 80 (1961) 45– 54, 156–65. ———. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. 84–87, 112–31, 148. Harris, G. “Did All God’s Good Promises Come to Pass? Toward a Biblical Understanding of Joshua 21:43–45.” Paper Read to Old Testament Section of Evangelical Theological Society, Atlanta, November 18, 2010. Hauer, C., Jr. “David and the Levites.” JSOT 23 (1982) 33–54. Hollenberg, J. “Die deuteronomischen Bestandtheile des Buches Josua.” TSK 1 (1874) 462–506. Holmes, S. Joshua, the Hebrew and Greek Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1914. Japhet, S. “Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles.” JBL 98 (1979) 205–18. Jaroš, K. Sichem: Eine archäologische und religionsgeschichtliche Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Jos 24. OBO 11. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1976. KallaiKleinmann, Z. “The System of Levitic Cities: A Historical-Geographical Study in Biblical Historiography.” Zion 45 (1980) 13–34 (Heb.). ———. “The Town Lists of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan.” VT 8 (1958) 134–60. Klein, S. “Die Priester-, Leviten-, und Asylstädte.” Qobes of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society (1935) 81–94. Knoppers, G. N. “Hierodules, Priests, or Janitors? The Levites in Chronicles and the History of Israelite Priesthood.” JBL 118 (1999) 49–72. ———. “Projected Age Comparisons of the Levitical Townlists: Divergent Theories and Their Significance.” Textus 22 (2005) 21–63. Leithart, P. J. “Attendants of Yahweh’s House: Priesthood in the Old Testament.” JSOT 85 (1999) 3–24. Löhr, M. Das Asylwesen im Alten Testament. Halle: Niemeyer, 1930. 28–30, 33–34. Maynard, J. A. “The Rights and Revenues of the Tribe of Levi.” JSOR 14 (1930) 11–17. Mazar, B. “The Cities of the Priests and the Levites.” In Congress Volume 1960. VTSup 7. Leiden: Brill, 1960. 193–205. McConville, J. G. “Priesthood in Joshua to Kings.” VT 49 (1999) 73–87. ———. “Priests and Levites in Ezekiel: A Crux in the Interpretation of Israel’s History.” Tyn Bul 34 (1983) 3–31. Mettinger, T. N. D. Solomonic State Officials. Lund: Gleerup, 1971. 98–101. Miller, J. M.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 206

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Bibliography

207

“Rehoboam’s Cities of Defense and the Levitical City List.” In Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Memory of D. Glenn Rose. Ed. L. G. Perdue, L. E. Toombs, and G. L. Johnson. Atlanta: John Knox, 1987. 273–86. Mittmann, S. Beiträge zur Siedlungs- und Territorialgeschichte des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970. Möhlenbrink, K. “Die levitischen Überlieferungen des Alten Testaments.” ZAW 52 (1934) 184–231. Na’aman, N. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography: Seven Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists. JBS 4. Jerusalem: Simor, 1986. ———. “A New Look at the List of Levitic Cities.” Zion 47 (1982) 237–52 (Heb.). Nelson, R. D. Raising Up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Nielsen, E. “The Levites in Ancient Israel.” ASTI 3 (1964) 16–27. ———. “Politiske forhold og kulturelle strömninge i Israel og Juda under Manasse.” DTT 29 (1966) 1–10. Noth, M. “Überlieferungsgeschichtliches zur zweiten Hälfte des Josuabuches.” Alttestamentliche Studien Fr. Nötscher zum 60. Geburtstag. Ed. H. Junker and J. Botterweck. BBB 1. Bonn: Hanstein, 1950. 164–67. Nurmela, R. The Levites: Their Emergence as a Second-Class Priesthood. SFSHJ 193. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Otto, E. Jakob in Sichem: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche, archäologische und territorialgeschichtliche Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte Israels. BWANT 110. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1979. Ottosson, M. Gilead, Tradition, and History. Lund: Gleerup, 1969. Peterson, J. L. “A Topographical Surface Survey of the Levitical ‘Cities’ of Joshua 21 and 1 Chronicles 6: Studies in the Levites in Israelite Life and Religion.” PhD diss., Chicago Institute of Advanced Theological Studies and Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, 1977. Rofé, A. “The Editing of the Book of Joshua in the Light of 4QJosha.” In New Qumran Texts and Studies. Ed. G. J. Brook and F. G. Martínez. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. 73–80. Rösel, M. “The Septuagint-Version of the Book of Joshua.” SJOT 16 (2002) 5–23. Ross, J. P. “The Cities of the Levites in Joshua XXI and I Chronicles VI.” Diss., Edinburgh, 1973. Schaper, J. Priester und Leviten im achämenidischen Juda: Studien zur Kult- und Socialgeschichte Israels in persischer Zeit. FAT 31. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. ———. “Priestly Purity and Social Organization in Persian Period Judah.” BN 118 (2003) 51–57. Schmidt, L. “Leviten- und Asylstädte in Num. xxxv und Jos. xx; xxi 1–42.” VT 52 (2002) 103–21. Schmitt, G. “Levitenstädte.” ZDPV 111 (1995) 28–48. ———. “Der Ursprung des Levitentums.” ZAW 94 (1982) 575–99. Schulz, H. Leviten im vorstaatlichen Israel und im Mittleren Osten. Munich: Kaiser, 1987. Spencer, J. R. “The Levitical Cities, a Study of the Role and Function of the Levites in the History of Israel.” Diss., Chicago, 1980. Stackert, J. “The Cultic Status of the Levites in the Temple Scroll (11QT): Between History and Hermeneutics.” Paper presented at SBL section meeting, November 21, 2009. Strauss, H. “The Tasks of the Levites: šmr and ṣbʾ.” ZAW 96 (1984) 267–71. ———. “Untersuchungen zu den Überlieferungen der vorexilischen Leviten.” Diss., Bonn, 1960. 132–39. Tengström, S. Die Hexateucherzählung. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. 75–78. Toews, W. I. Monarchy and Religious Institution in Israel under Jeroboam I. SBLMS 47. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Tsafrir, Y. “The Levitic City of Beth-Shemesh in Judah or in Naphtali?” ErIsr 12 (1975) 44–45, 119 (Heb.). Vaux, R. de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Trans. J. McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961, 366–67. ———. Histoire ancienne d’Israel. Vol. 1. Paris: Gabalda, 1971. 493. Translated as The Early History of Israel. Trans. D. Smith. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1978 530. Weinfeld, M. “Deuteronomy—The Present State of Inquiry.” JBL 86 (1967) 249–62. Wellhausen, J. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 5th ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1899. 156–65. Translated as Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Trans. J. S. Black and A. Menzies. Edinburgh: Black, 1885. 159–67. Willi, T. “Leviten, Priester und Kult in vorhellenistischer Zeit: Die chronistische Optik in ihrem geschichtlichen Kontext.” In Gemeinde ohne Tempel = Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Ed. B. Ego et al. WUNT 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. 75–98. Williamson, H. G. M. “The Origins of the Twenty-four Priestly Courses.” In Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Ed. J. A. Emerton. VTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Yeivin, S. The Israelite Conquest of Canaan. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in her Nabije

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 207

9/18/14 9:20 AM

208

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42)

Oosten, 1971. 262–64. Zimmerli, W. “Erstgeborene und Leviten: Ein Beitrag zur exilischnachexilischen Theologie.” In Near Eastern Studies in Honor of W. F. Albright. Ed. H. Goedicke. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971. 469–69. Reprinted in Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Prophetie. ThB 51. Munich: Kaiser, 1974. 236–46.

Translation 1aThe

heads of the fathers of the Levites b approached Eleazer the priest and Joshua the son of Nun and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the sons of Israel. 2They spoke to them in Shiloh in the land of Canaan, “Yahweh commanded by the hand of Moses to give to us cities of residence along with their pastures a for our cattle.” 3The sons of Israel gave to the Levites from their inheritance according to the word of Yahweh these cities and their pastures: 4The lot came out for the clans of the Kohathites. a There belonged to that part of the Levites who were sons of Aaron the priest thirteen cities by lot from the tribe of Judah and from the tribe of the Simeonites and from the tribe of Benjamin. 5To the remaining sons of Kohath ten cities by lot from the clans a of the tribe of Ephraim and from the tribe of Dan and from half the tribe of Manasseh. 6To the sons of Gershon thirteen cities by lot a from the clans of the tribe of Issachar and from the tribe of Asher and from the tribe of Naphtali and from half the tribe of Manasseh in Bashan. 7To the sons of Merari twelve cities for their clans a from the tribe of Reuben and from the tribe of Gad and from the tribe of Zebulun. 8The sons of Israel gave these cities and their pastures by lot to the Levites just as Yahweh commanded by the hand of Moses. 9They a gave from the tribe of the sons of Judah and from the tribe of the sons of Simeon these cities which he called b them by name: 10To the sons of Aaron who were part of the clans a of the Kohathites among the sons of Levi b belonged [the following territory] since the first c lot belonged to them. 11They a gave to them Kiriath-Arba, the father of Anak b (it is Hebron), in the hill country of Judah and c its pastures surrounding it. 12But the field of the city and its suburbs they a gave to Caleb the son of Jephunne, into his possession. b 13To the sons of Aaron the priest a they gave the city of refuge for the killer, namely, Hebron and its pastures, along with Libnah and its pastures; 14Jattir and its pastures, Eshtemoa and its pastures; 15Holon a and its pastures, Debir and its pastures; 16Ain a and its pastures, Juttah and its pastures, Beth Shemesh b and its pastures— nine cities from these two tribes. c 17From the tribe of Benjamin: Gibeon and its pastures, Geba and its pastures; 18Anathoth and its pastures, Almon a and its pastures—four cities. 19All the cities of the sons of Aaron the priest were thirteen cities and their pastures. a 20To the clans of the sons of Kohath— the Levites remaining from the sons of Kohath— belonged cities of their lot a from the tribe of Ephraim. 21They gave to them the city of refuge for the killer, namely, Shechem and its pastures in the hill country of Ephraim, a and Gezer and its pastures; 22Kibzaim a and its pastures, Beth Horon and its pastures—four cities. 23And from the tribe of Dan: Elteke and its pastures, Gibbethon and its pastures; 24 Aijalon and its pastures, Gath-Rimmon and its pastures—four cities. 25From half of the tribe of Manasseh: Taanach and its pastures, Gath Rimmon a and its pastures— two cities. 26All the cities were ten and their pastures for the remaining clans of the sons of Kohath. 27To the sons of Gershon from the clans of the Levites a from half the tribe of Manasseh: the city of refuge for the killer, namely, Golan in Bashan and its pastures, Beeshterah b and its pastures— two cities.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 208

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

209

28From

the tribe of Issachar: Kishion and its pastures, Daberath and its pastures; 29Jarand its pastures, En- Gannim and its pastures—four cities. 30From the tribe of Asher: Mishal and its pastures, Abdon and its pastures; 31Helkath a and its pastures, Rehob and its pastures—four cities. 32From the tribe of Naphtali: the city of refuge for the killer, namely, Kedesh in Galilee and its pastures, Hammoth- Dor a and its pastures, Kartan and its pastures— three cities. 33All the cities of the Gershonites for their clans were thirteen cities and their pastures. 34 For the clans of the sons of Merari— the remaining Levites— from the tribe of Zebulun: Jokneam and its pastures, Kartah a and its pastures; 35Dimnah and its pastures, Nahalal and its pastures—four cities. a 36And a from the tribe of Reuben: Bezer and its pastures, Jahaz and its pastures; 37Kedemoth and its pastures, Mephaath and its pastures—four cities. 38And from the tribe of Gad: the city of refuge for the killer, namely Ramoth in Gilead and its pastures, Mahanaim and its pastures; 39Heshbon and its pastures, Jazer and its pasture— in all four cities. 40All the cities were for the sons of Merari for their clans who remained from the clans of the Levites. Their lot a was twelve cities. 41All the cities of the Levites were in the midst of the possession of the sons of Israel— forty- eight cities and their pastures. 42These cities a each had its pastures surrounding it; thus it was for all of these cities. muth a

Notes 1.a. Textual study is complicated by the appearance of virtually the same material in 1 Chr 6:39– 66 (= LXX and ET 6:54– 80). City names often differ quite radically in MT, LXX, and Chronicles. I can note only the most significant of these. Howard (390) explains many of the discrepancies as cities being on borderlines, as two cities having the same names, and as copying errors. Auld builds on earlier studies to conclude that “for the most part 1 Chr 6:39– 66 was the source which a late editor of Joshua had reshaped and expanded to produce Josh 21:1– 42” (“The Cities in Joshua 21: The Contribution of Textual Criticism,” in Joshua Retold, 49– 58). In “The ‘Levitical Cities’: Texts and History,” Auld states this conclusion: “the result of almost every examination of comparable details in the two texts is that the relevant detail in the Chronicles text is prior to that in the Joshua one” (in Joshua Retold, 27). For Auld, the textual situation shows MT to be a “deliberate re- edition of the earlier text witnessed to by the LXX” (“Levitical Cities,” in Joshua Retold, 31). Na’aman (Borders and Districts, 210–15) shows the strong evidence that Josh 21 is the earlier text, and Ben Zvi (JSOT 64 [1992] 77–78, n. 1) finds further reason to posit that Chronicles depends on an earlier version of Josh 21. 1.b. LXX has “sons” preceding “Levites” rather than “Israel,” where it appears later in the verse. The expression, taken up from Josh 14:1 and 19:51, is “heads of the fathers of the tribes of the sons of Israel,” from which our passage creates a related formula for the Levites, so that “sons” may belong originally in both formulas. 2.a. LXX uses two different terms to translate ‫מגרשׁ‬, “pasture,” a form of περισπόρια occurring in vv 2–11, 34– 42, while a form of άφωρισμένα occurs in thirty- five other places in the chapter (cf. Holmes, Joshua, 72). L. Delekat (“Zum hebräischen Wörterbuch,” VT 14 [1964] 22) says Josh 21:2–11, 34– 42 must not have appeared originally in the Greek. Delekat does show that the original reading should be ‫ ִמגְ ָר ָשׁ ָה‬, thus sg., throughout the chapter, the meaning of the word being the territory outside the city walls legally claimed by a city. Haran (JBL 80 [1961] 49) limits the meaning to a set stretch of pastureland for their animals, not agricultural land surrounding the city. 4.a. Auld deduces (“Cities of Refuge in Israelite Tradition,” in Joshua Retold, 45) that ‫למשׁפחת הקקהתי‬, “for the clans of the Kohathites,” is preferred by the ultimate editor of Joshua rather than ‫בני קהת‬, “sons of Kohath.” 5.a. LXX does not reproduce “clans” in vv 5– 6 but does so in v 7, where MT uses “for” or “according to” (‫ )ל‬their clans instead of “from” or “out of” (‫ )מ‬their clans used in vv 5– 6. BHS and BHK, Noth, Soggin, Fritz, and many others make vv 5– 6 conform to v 7, while

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 209

9/18/14 9:20 AM

210

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42)

Holmes (Joshua) appears to favor LXX. The Preliminary and Interim Report and Barthélemy (Critique textuelle) retain MT, as does Nelson, who sees OG and Syr. harmonizing here to the rest of the chapter. The form “from, out of” the clans appears in Joshua only in 21:5, 6, 10, 27, 40. Except for vv 5 and 6, the expression separates one clan from related clans. The expression may well be a later insertion into vv 5– 6 (cf. LXX) or a dittography there of the mem for an original lamed. The corresponding 1 Chronicles verses compound the confusion, 1 Chr 6:46 reading “from” while 6:47 reads “for, according to.” For use of ‫משׁ‬ ‫פחה‬, “clan,” in 1 Chr 6 and Josh 21, see Auld (“Cities of Joshua 21,” in Joshua Retold, 55– 57). 6.a. 1 Chr 6:47 does not reflect “by lot” or “half.” LXX joins Chronicles in inserting “lot” in the following verse rather than here. Vv 4–7 are developed through formulas with “by lot” an essential part. The “by lot” of v 8 does not fit the pattern there and may reflect a later marginal correction that should have been inserted into v 7 rather than 8. Fritz inserts “by lot” into v 7. 7.a. Auld (“Cities in Joshua 21,” in Joshua Retold, 55) lists the different uses of ‫משׁפחה‬, “clan” in MT, LXX, and 1 Chr 6. See Josh 21:4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 20, 26, 27, 33, 34, 40. 9.a. LXX has a sg. verb with a compound subject: “the tribe of the sons of Judah and the tribe of the sons of Simeon gave (sg.) and from the tribe of the sons of Benjamin these cities. They were assigned (or named) 10to the sons of Aaron.” 1 Chr 6:65 (Heb. 50) also mentions the tribe of the sons of Benjamin. This follows the pattern of Josh 21:4, 9–19 and may reflect an original text, though it is also possible that a later copyist may have sought to make the pattern complete by inserting reference to Benjamin here. Nelson says OG and 1 Chronicles fill out the pattern. Fritz simply changes the qal verb to the passive nipʿal. 9.b. Translations have paraphrased the Heb. idiom here, while 1 Chr 6:65 (Heb. 50) has harmonized the grammar to the context by pluralizing the verb and “names.” Holmes’ suggestion (Joshua) of an original ‫וַ יַּ ק ִֹדּ שׁוּ‬, “they sanctified,” on the basis of Josh 20:7 is quite fanciful. We can remain with MT (Soggin; Nelson, who points to OG’s difficulties in translating clauses involving moving from active to passive voice). 10.a. Cairo Geniza, Heb. MSS, LXX, and Syr. evidence along with 1 Chr 6:54 (Heb. 39) lead Fritz to read the sg. “clan.” 10.b. 1 Chr 6:54 (Heb. 39) does not reflect “from the sons of Levi,” a formulation that is not duplicated elsewhere in the chapter and may be secondary in the current context, making the Levitic relationship of the Aaronic priests explicit. 10.c. “The first” does not appear in LXX or Chronicles and may be secondary amplification (Nelson). 11.a. LXX continues the sg. verb (cf. Note 9.a) but without definite subject and reflects ‫אם‬, “mother,” rather than ‫אב‬, “father,” as in Josh 15:13. First Chronicles reads “land of Judah” rather than “hill country of Judah.” All of this reflects peculiarities of transmission and translation rather than actual textual variants. 11.b. The omission of any reference to Kiriath- Arba in Chronicles could reflect an original text. The reference may well be a later insertion based on Josh 15:13 (BHS). Auld (“Cities of Refuge,” in Joshua Retold, 46) finds that mention of Kiriath- Arba without reference to its being a city of refuge may indicate that this city’s name and the concept of city of refuge did not always go together. Auld similarly finds that the geographical additions to the city names of Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan indicate geographical locations within tribal allotments rather than being parts of the cities’ names. Fritz wants to delete “the father of Anak” as a gloss. The unusual content of the phrase may point to its originality. 11.c. LXX introduces the contrasting note here rather than at the beginning of the next verse as in mt. 12.a. LXX makes “Joshua” the subject, a harmonizing interpretation based on Josh 14:13 and 15:13. In the same vein, LXX makes the gift “to the sons of Caleb,” avoiding further repetition. 12.b. The final word “into his possession” is superfluous in the context and omitted by the Chronicler. Auld finds no motive for the Chronicler’s “deletion” and so uses this as “the single vital indicator that 1 Chr 6:39– 66 is related to a stage in the development of Joshua 21 which had not yet undergone editing from hands that are known as ‘Priestly’ in the widest sense of that term” (“Cities of Joshua 21,” in Joshua Retold, 57). 13.a. Both LXX and 1 Chr 6:57 (Heb. 42) omit “the priest,” which may represent the

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 210

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

211

later addition of a traditional title (cf. Holmes, Joshua; Nelson; Auld, the latter referring to a “pedantic note”). LXX continues its sg. verb here. 15.a. The pointing of ‫ חלן‬is not certain in light of ‫יל ז‬ ֵ ‫ ִח‬in 1 Chr 6:43 (58), often seen to reflect an original ‫יל ן‬ ֵ ‫ ִח‬. 16.a. ‫ עין‬is the Heb. word for “eye” or “fountain” and is often interpreted as unsuitable as a place name (Noth). “Ashan” of LXX and 1 Chr 6:44 (59) is often seen as original (Nelson; Fritz; Preliminary and Interim Report; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle). Juttah is one of eight cities not listed in Chronicles (cf. Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 270–71). 16.b. Nelson notes that Beth Shemesh is called Ir- Shemesh in Josh 19:41 and assigned to Dan. 16.c. Na’aman (Borders and Districts, 214) notes the appearance of ‫שׁבט‬, “tribe,” for the only time in Josh 21 and finds grounds for attributing the verse to a late editor. The summary verses such as v 16, missing from Chronicles, also get shoved back beyond the exile. 18.a. ‫עלמון‬, “Almon,” becomes “Gamala” in LXX B and “Alemeth” in 1 Chr 6:45 (Heb. 60), where the order of the cities is transposed. 19.a. “And their pastures” is not represented in LXX, while in 1 Chr 6:65 (Heb. 50) the summary reads: “all their cities were thirteen cities with their clans.” The latter represents a Heb. copyist’s substitution of one familiar term in the context for another, while LXX represents either the earliest version of the text or accidental haplography. Nelson sees different expansions in MT here and in Chronicles. 20.a. 1 Chr 6:66 (Heb. 51) reads ‫גבולם‬, “their territory,” instead of “their lot.” LXX reflects an inner Gk. error seemingly based on Heb. “their territory.” The combination “cities of their lot” occurs only here in the MT. “Cities of their territory” is no more frequent. A unique linguistic formulation has led to early textual corruption with Chronicles, perhaps reflecting the “original” text (cf. Auld, “Textual and Literary Studies in the Book of Joshua,” ZAW 90 [1978] 41; “Cities of Refuge in Israelite Tradition,” JSOT 10 [1978] 32), though Nelson sees 1 Chronicles and OG providing an easier reading and so follows MT. 21.a. LXX does not witness “in the hill country of Ephraim,” which may be a later geographical specification on analogy with v 11 (cf. Auld, JSOT 10 [1978] 32), but 1 Chr 6:67 (Heb. 52) does include the phrase, leading Nelson to see LXX tradition removing it because Shechem was actually in Manasseh (Josh 17:2, 7). 22.a. LXX witnesses textual confusion with a double reference to suburbs, a total of four cities, but the omission of “Kibzaim,” so that only three cities are named. 1 Chr 6:68 (Heb. 53) reads “Jokmeam.” Albright (“Die Priester-, Leviten-, und Asylstädte”) and Aharoni (Land of the Bible) want to retain both names. This could only represent an early form of the list prior to the present numerical totals. A copyist’s error is more likely. Noth derives “Jokmeam” from the Priestly name of 1 Chr 23:19; 24:23. Nelson retains MT and points to a complex copying error misreading three letters resulting in the Chronicles reading. He notes that otherwise neither “Jokmean” nor “Jokneam” is in Ephraim. 25.a. “Gath- Rimmon” is certainly dittography from v 24 (Fritz; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle). LXX B gives “Iebatha”; 1 Chr 6:70 (Heb. 55) “Bileam.” Some Gk. MSS reflect “Beth Shean,” which Hollenberg adopts (TSK 1 [1874] 462– 506). Old Greek appears to have read “Ibleam.” Usually today, “Ibleam” is read (Soggin; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle; Preliminary and Interim Report; Aharoni, Land of the Bible; Nelson; Howard; Fritz). 27.a. First Chronicles omits “Levites” as seen by unique use of ‫ משׁפחה‬without “Levites” in this chapter. See Na’aman (Borders and Districts, 213–14). 27.b. “Beeshterah” apparently reflects an initial preposition, which is faithfully reflected in the Gk. tradition. 1 Chr 6:71 (Heb. 56) reads “Ashtaroth,” which is usually adopted today (Fritz; Howard; Nelson, who sees mt as taken “thoughtlessly from Josh 13:12, where bet is clearly a preposition). Hertzberg makes the interesting suggestion “Beth Ashteroth.” 29.a. “Jarmuth” is rendered “Remmath” by LXX (cf. Josh 19:21) and “Ramoth” by 1 Chr 6:73 (Heb. 58). The original reading is uncertain. “En- Gannim” becomes “Pegen of the scribes” in lxx and “Anem” in 1 Chr 6:73 (Heb. 58). MT is usually retained (Nelson). 31.a. “Helkath” becomes “Hukok” in 1 Chr 6:75 (Heb. 60), but this is probably secondary (Noth, Nelson). 32.a. “Hammoth- Dor” is rendered “Nemmath” by LXX B with many other variants in the Gk. tradition. 1 Chr 6:76 (Heb. 61) reads “Hammon.” “Hammath” is generally read here (Nelson, Fritz) on the basis of Josh 19:35. Soggin carries this further and reads the following “Karthan” as “Rakkath” with Josh 19:35. LXX reads the latter as “Themmon,”

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 211

9/18/14 9:20 AM

212

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42)

while 1 Chr 6:76 (Heb. 61) reads “Kiriathaim.” Aharoni (Land of the Bible) holds the latter for a possible reading and includes Dor as a separate city. 34.a. “Kartah” of MT appears suspiciously like dittography from “Karthan” of v 32 (Aharoni, Land of the Bible). Aharoni suggests reading “Kartah” as “(Chisloth?)-Tabor.” Nelson follows MT, though “Kartah” appears nowhere else in OT. Nelson describes it as a “deformation of Kattath from 19:15, preserved as Kitron in Judg 1:30.” He also sees the possibility of a distorted repetition of “Kartan” from v 32 to fill in a haplography. Nelson thinks 1 Chr 6:77 (Heb. 62) has “Tabor” (= “Chisloth-tabor” of Josh 19:12) in place of “Kartah.” 35.a. 1 Chr 6:77 (Heb. 62) abbreviates in a radically altered form, reading Rimmono and Tabor as the only cities. LXX names Maan, Kadesh, and Gella and correspondingly totals only three cities. “Rimmon” may represent the original reading (Nelson, Fritz; cf. Preliminary and Interim Report) corrupted into “Dimnah,” though the latter is the more difficult reading. Noth correctly notes the tendency of the tradition to replace unknown names with town names known from the tradition. Soggin notes that the participle “who are remaining” is meaningless in the context. One can better say that it differs in function from the original formulaic usage in vv 5, 20, and 26, where it distinguishes the rest of the clan of Kohath from the Aaronites, who also belong to the clan. In vv 34 and 40, the expression marks off the Mararite clans as the remaining Levites after cities have been allotted to the Kohathites and the Gershonites. 36.a. The major Heb. tradition does not include vv 36–37, though some later Heb. mss do witness them. Nelson attributes the text in the later MSS to a copying from 1 Chronicles. Such omission, however, makes the arithmetic of v 41 in error. The LXX appears to give the earliest reading (Preliminary and Interim Report; Fritz; Nelson). This is probably a case of early haplography. Reconstruction of the verses is done on the basis of LXX and 1 Chr 6:78–79 (Heb. 63– 64). See Heb. reconstructions by Barthélemy (Critique textuelle), Fritz, and Nelson. 40.a. As in v 20, the early tradition confused “lot” and “territory,” the latter being witnessed in LXX. 1 Chr 6 concludes with Josh 21:39a. 42.a. MT changes unexpectedly to an impf. verb expressing either present, future, or imperative meanings. LXX witnesses a difficult construction with a prepositional element rather than a verb. Nelson (236) follows MT here, saying “No convincing explanation for this difference presents itself.” BHS is typical of modern scholarship in suggesting the insertion of a conjunction before the verb, thus reflecting a past meaning. This has, however, no textual basis. At best, the construction is difficult. At the end of v 42, lxx adds a long section paralleling Josh 19:49b– 50: Καὶ συνετέλεσεν ᾽Ιησοῦς διαμερίσας τὴν γῆν ἐν τοῖς ὁρίοις αὐτῶν. [42b] καὶ ἔδωκαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ μερίδα τῷ ᾽Ιησοῖ κατὰ πρόσταγμα κυρίου· ἔδωκαν αὐτῷ τὴν πόλιν, ἣν ᾐτήσατο· τὴν Θαμνασαραχ ἔδωκαν αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ ὄρει Εφραιμ. [42c] καὶ ῷκοδόμησεν ᾽Ιησοῦς τὴν πόλιν καὶ ᾤκησεν ἐν αὐτῇ. [42d] καὶ ἔλαβεν ᾽Ιησοῦς τὰς μαχαίρας τὰς πετρίνας, ἐν αἷς περιέτεμεν τοὺς υἱοὺς Ισραηλ τοὺς γενομένους ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὰς ἐν Θαμνασαραχ. “Joshua finished dividing the land into their territories. The sons of Israel gave Joshua a portion, according to the word of Yahweh. They gave him the city that he requested. Timnathserah they gave him in the territory of Ephraim. Joshua built the city and resided in it.” LXX then adds: “Joshua took the knives of stone with which he had circumcised the sons of Israel, those born in the way in the wilderness. He deposited them in Timnath- Serah.” This prepares the way for LXX mention of the knives in Josh 24:31. The repetition of the first part makes it suspect, though Holmes argues that a Heb. reviser deleted it (Holmes, Joshua). Hertzberg describes the final section as a legend spun from Josh 5:2ff. It is highly unlikely that the LXX translators would invent such a story and place it here. Rather, they appear to be working with older, possibly Heb., tradition about which we know nothing further (Cf. Soggin; Howard; M. Rösel, SJOT 16 [2002] 14). Nelson calls the LXX a “folkloristic recensional development.” Rofé decides “the function of 21:42a– d (LXX) is clearly redactional” (“Editing of the Book,” 74). It seeks to correct Josh 19:49– 51, creating “a well- designed editorial operation” but secondary to MT. I must follow Rofé and others in seeing MT as original here.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 212

9/18/14 9:20 AM

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 213

vv 9, 16

vv 9, 17

vv 10, 17, 21, 26, 27

v 11

vv 12, 31

vv 12, 31

Medeba

Dibon

Heshbon

Salecah

Ashtaroth

Edrei

18

19

v 19

v 19

v 20

Mephaath

Kiriathaim

Sibmah

Zereth-shahar

Beth Peor

v 61? (76?)

v 64 (79)

v 64 (79)

Deut 3:29; 4:46; 34:6

Deut 2:26

Isa 16:8, 9; Jer 48:52

Jer 48:1, 23; Ezek 25:9

Jer 48:21

v 37

Jer 48:23

Isa 15:4; 16:8–9; Jer 48:2, 34, 45

Isa 15:2,9; Jer 48:18, 22

Isa 15:2

Jer 48:19

Prophet

v 37

Deut 2:32; Judg 11:20

Deut 1:4; 3:1, 10

Deut 1:4

Deut 3:10

Deut 1:4; 2:24, 26, 30; 3:2, 6; 4:46; 29:6 (7); Judg 19:11, 26

Deut 2:36; 3:12; 4:48; 2 Sam 24:5; Judg 11:26; 2 Kgs 10:33

Dtr

v 18

v 63 (78)

v 56 (71)

v 66 (81)

1 Chr 6

Kedemoth

v 36

v 39

Josh 21

Isa 15:4; Jer 48:21, 34

32:37

22:41

33:45–46

Num Other

v 18

v 38

vv 3, 37

v 34

Num 32

Jahaz

v 23

vv 19–20

v 33

vv 25–34

vv 30, 34

Num 21

Ezek 25:9

v 17

Bethbaalmeon

12:4

12:4; 9:10

12:5

9:10; 12:2, 5

12:2

Josh Other

Baal Meon

v 17

Bamothbaal

Bamoth

vv 9, 16

Josh 13

Aroer

City

Table 21.1 Levitical Cities

Notes 213

9/18/14 9:20 AM

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 214

v 25

v 26

v 26

vv 26, 30

Rabbah

Ramath-mizpeh

Betonim

Mahanaim

v 27

v 27

v 27

v 27

v 30

v 30

Beth-haram

Beth-nimrah

Succoth

Zaphon

60 Cities

of Jair

‫( לדבר‬see Notes)

v 25

v 20

Aroer by Rabbah

Jazer

Beth-jeshimoth

Top of Pisgah

Slopes of Pisgah

v 20

21:38

12:3

12:3

cf. Gen 33:17; Ps 60:8 = 108:8

cf. Gen 32:3 (2)

v 32

v 20

v 41

vv 3, 36

v 36 = Beth Haran

vv 1, 3, 35

Num 32

cf. 26:15

33:49

23:14

23:28 25:3, 5, 18; 31:16

Num Other

v 38

v 39

Josh 21

v 65 (80)

v 66 (81)

1 Chr 6

Dtr

Deut 3:14; 1 Kgs 4:13; Judg 10:4, Cf. 1 Chr 2:23

Deut 3:4; 1 Kgs 4:13

1 Kgs 7:46; Judg 8

2 Sam 9:4, 5; 17:27

2 Sam 2:8, 12, 29; 17:24, 27; 19:32; 1 Kgs 2:8; 4:14

2 Sam 11:1; 12:26–29; 17:27

cf. Judg 11:33

2 Sam 24:5; (1 Chr 26:31)

Deut 3:27; 34:1

Deut 3:17; 4:49

(Ps 106:28)

Num 21 Deut 4:3

Josh Other

Peor

Josh 13

Baal Peor

City

Amos 6:13

Amos 1:14

Isa 16:8–9; Jer 48:32

Ezek 25:9

Hos 9:10

Prophet

214 B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42)

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

215

Form/Structure/Setting The section is clearly marked by the concluding formula in Josh 20:9, the new narrative introduction in 21:1, and the concluding summaries in 21:41– 42. Albertz links Joshua 21 to 14:4 and 18:7, concluding that Joshua 21 must belong to a priestly editor.51 Albertz concludes his discussion of Joshua 21 as aligned with Numbers 35:1– 8 “in a detailed and highly sophisticated manner. But in small ways it also accommodates the high standards of the Torah to the needs of the late postexilic Priesthood.” The content and summarizing character of 21:43– 45 mark these verses off as a separate theological summary.

Tradition Schmidt notes it improbable that the author had a traditional list as he compiled the book of Joshua.52 Rather, Schmidt contends that the list comes from a postexilic situation since it is seen as dependent on the previous chapter. Such a view assumes that the lists of chaps. 13–21 must come from late priestly sources. The present commentator finds no reason people of such late dates in Israel’s history would invent legal materials that so closely fit the sociological and cultural realities of early Israel. Coote finds it conceivable that the tradition of Levitical towns could be “the vestige of a genuinely ancient institution,” perhaps going back to “the house of David’s patronage of a scattered tribe of militant supporters.”53 Hess mentions the small size of the towns in Num 35, concluding that many of the “Levitical cities” were only hamlets, each with only a very few houses.54 Auld admits that the irregularity of thirteen cities for Judah “has a ring of authenticity,” not fitting the pattern of tens or six or four for other clans and the total of 48 (21:4–10, 13– 42).55 The arguments for or against ancient tradition here hinges on the nature of the Levitical duties.56 Gen 34:25 introduces Levi under a cloud of guilt (cf. Gen 49:5). Exod 32:26–28 pictures the Levites as Yahwistic zealots (cf. Num 3:12, 43– 45). They “do the service of the Lord” (Num 8:11, 14, 19; cf. 18:1–32), but they can be overzealous (Num 16:1–10). Some Levites had special responsibility for the ark of the covenant (Deut 10:8; cf. Josh 3– 4; 1 Sam 6:14–15; 2 Sam 15:24; 1 Kgs 8:4). Others fulfilled roles as judges (Deut 17:8–9; 21:5; cf. 17:18). At least some Levites provided medical services (Deut 24:8). Tradition also entrusted the decision-making urim and thummim to Levites (Deut 33:8). The split of the kingdoms left unemployed Levites unwanted by Jeroboam I, who apparently saw them as loyal to Jerusalem worship (1 Kgs 12:31). Thus the Levites became central to prophecies of salvation (Isa 66:21; Jer 33:18, 21–22; cf. Ezek 45:5; 48:13; Mal 2:4; 3:3). At least some prophetic traditions separated clearly between Levitical duties and Zadokite responsibilities (Ezek 40:46; cf. 44:10 for the Levites’ guilt). 51 52 53 54 55 56

Albertz, 297. Schmidt, VT 52 (2002) 117. Coote, 696. Hess (1996) 280. “Levitical Cities,” in Joshua Retold, 36. Cf. Butler, Judges, WBC 8 (Nashville: Nelson, 2009) 385– 87.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 215

9/18/14 9:20 AM

216

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42)

The Levites were apparently known for leaving their towns and wandering. They had the option to work at God’s chosen cult (Deut 18:6–7). Levites were thus scattered about in the towns of Israel (Deut 12:12, 18), needing financial assistance (Deut 12:19; 14:27–29; 18:1; 26:12; Josh 13:14, 33; 14:4; 18:7). Quite a different portrait appears in Judges. Judg 17:7 shows an old, if ironic, depiction of a Levite connected to the tribe of Judah, living in Ephraim as an itinerant priest. This Levite’s very presence raised great hopes for prosperity (Judg 17:13). Judg 19 introduces another itinerant priest living in the hill country of Ephraim. The narratives place a Levite in both the northern hill country of Ephraim and the southern center of Bethlehem. Neither story pictures the Levite heroically. Both stories appear to expect moral and cultic leadership from the Levites, though in these narratives little morality and a quite false cult appear. Leviticus outlines assigned sanctuary work for Levites, who could own property (Lev 25:32– 33; cf. Num 1:50– 53); and Levitical guard work preventing divine wrath. Num 3:6– 9, 32 places Levites eternally under Aaronic supervision. The books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles depict Levites active in the postexilic period. The Levites thus display changing attitudes toward themselves, their various home places, their tendencies to wander. These traits joined with the apparent combats between Zadokites and other Levites leave a large cloudy area. Early Levites appear to be well-known zealots who defended Yahweh’s causes. In Canaan they became a scattered group living in different places, doing various types of work, and exercising their zeal in various ways with various results. The tradition of wandering Levites with their not- so- exemplary lifestyle opened several new opportunities for Levites. They could minister at local, even irregular cultic places. They could offer services to individual families and even tribes. They might find employment at larger cult sites. They could become specialists as healers, judges, royal advisers, among other professions. Eventually some became connected with small villages and cities where they could live and tend cattle in the pasturelands. Thus individual Levites became attached to different tribes. The rise of the monarchy gave further opportunities for Levites with strong loyalty to the king to occupy government- sponsored cities as royal representatives, especially on the frontier. They helped maintain the loyalty of the people, to report on border activities by the enemies, and to guide cultic and judicial processes. This resulted in the neatly formulated system of forty- eight cities with slight irregularities due to more ancient tradition— for example, thirteen cities to the southern trio of tribes.

Source and Redaction Josh 21:5– 9 and 1 Chr 6:46– 50 contain basically the same material with a difference in order. Joshua introduces a narrative setting based on Num 35:1– 8 that is tied back to its own narrative in chaps. 14–19 with particular reference to the motif of the lot (Josh 14:2; 15:1; 16:1; 17:1, 14, 17; 18:6, 8, 10, 11; 19:1, 10, 17, 24, 32, 40, 51), to the plight of the Levite (Josh 13:14, 33; 14:3– 4; 18:7), and to the narrative of Caleb (Josh 14:6–15; 15:13–14). Joshua also gives comprehensive numerical summaries. The cities of refuge are included in the Levitical cities.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 216

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

217

The question of source and development of Josh 21 has many answers. Fritz points to a Priestly redactor of the P document, though he maintains that verses referring to the lot are secondary additions so that the “original” text from the Priestly editor encompasses only Josh 21:1–3, 9a, 13–19, 20aαbβ, 21– 41.57 Many scholars maintain that the cities of refuge are original to Josh 21 and not to Josh 2058 and that Chronicles uses Joshua. Ross and Auld argue for the Chronicler’s originality.59 Auld contends that “in virtually every detail 1 Chr 6:39– 66 is prior to Joshua 21; that the Chronicler’s text is something of a ‘collage’ fashioned only gradually; that in Joshua we see the logical rearrangement of this source material and its expansion in narrative form.”60 The Chronicler never mentions the tribe of Dan and does not include the tribe of Simeon in the Aaronic cities. The only summary in 1 Chronicles (6:45b) does not square with the preceding lists numerically. Auld suggests the disorderly situation of 1 Chr 6 may be closer to the original version than the orderly version of Josh 21.61 He finds the original tradition in 1 Chr 6:39– 45, 49, 51–55, 57– 62. Such an original tradition would be an interesting case where the editor radically improves the source material. Such a conclusion relegates Josh 20 to the waste bin of tradition, making it pure fiction with little purpose for the exilic/postexilic community and no connection with the Chronicler’s material. Similarly, Auld’s understanding that the Chronicles account serves as the source for the Joshua account refutes everything known about the Chronicler, who elsewhere is heavily dependent on earlier biblical sources but has no compunction about eliminating major parts of his source material. Auld must admit that 1 Chr 6:39– 42 is an insertion into Chronicles from an “earlier edition” of Josh 21.62 Ross contends that texts generally grow and expand rather than eliminate materials such as the Levites.63 A basic examination of Chronicles’ relationship to Kings demonstrates the tendency to eliminate materials that do not fit the Chronicles’ purposes. One must go further. The isolated summary in 1 Chr 6:45b belongs to the larger group of summaries that mark Josh 21 but play no significant role for 1 Chr 6. The same can be said for the summary statistics in 1 Chr 6:46– 48, which are correlated to the larger lists of cities and their summaries. The references to lot (1 Chr 6:39, 46, 48, 50) reflect an original element of Joshua, not Chronicles. The double repetition of “Hebron” has its sense within the larger Joshua context, but represents only a precise copying of material in the Chronicler. What is more important, the change of order can best be explained from the Chronicler’s perspective. In the context of Joshua, the important element was to give the total picture of all the cities of the Levites prior to giving the individual details. Thus the summaries are placed at the first, Josh 21:5–7, with the introduction in v 4. For the Chronicler, the important point is to keep the distinction between what belongs to Aaron and what belongs to the Levites. Thus everything to do with 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

Fritz, 210. Schmidt (VT 52 [2002] 116–17) concurs essentially with Fritz. Auld, JSOT 10 (1978) 47. “Cities of the Levites.” “Leviticial Cities,” in Joshua Retold, 31. “Cities in Joshua 21,” in Joshua Retold, 54. ZAW 91 (1979) 200. “Cities of the Levites,” 126.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 217

9/18/14 9:20 AM

218

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42)

Aaron is shifted to the first part of the text, to be followed by the summaries. The Chronicler often uses this procedure. Everything points to the originality of Josh 21. Auld rightly concludes that “we are dealing with two texts that have different aims but whose individual contents almost completely overlap.”64 Bartusch suggests that the cities listed in Josh 21 are taken from chaps. 13–19.65 This explains for Bartusch the absence of significant cult centers and indicates that Levites were involved in more than religious duties. That the editor of Josh 21 had the basic materials of chaps. 13–20 in hand is probable, for he structured the second major section of the book to include land claims, if not land possession, for all the tribes. If the Levites had government “border patrol” duties as well as cultic ones, then one would expect them to be located at tribal and national boundaries, many of whose cities appear in the lists of chaps. 13–19. Na’aman refutes Auld’s picture of the development and priority of Chronicles and the late date of Josh 21.66 He identifies the summaries (Josh 21:16b, 18b, 22b, 24b, 25b, etc.) as secondary additions.67 V 8a repeats v 3a (Wideraufnahme) showing the secondary nature of vv 4–7. Na’aman agrees with Auld that the thirteen Aaronite sites in Judah form part of the original tradition.68 Still the basic text, Na’aman discovers, is written by one author with a definite “literary and historiographic plan.”69 Apparently the ultimate editor possessed a tradition of Levitical towns that began with the settlement in Canaan in a somewhat random practice, most probably in Judah and Benjamin. Developing political situations expanded the practice and finally formulated a united monarchy policy and practice that took zealous, but poor, Levites and placed them in significant locations near tribal and national borders. The editor used the formal tribal divisions and previously described towns that were serving (had served) as Levitic headquarters. He placed the Judean/Aaronic notes at the beginning of the lists and inserted summaries with the number of towns each sector of the Levites received. This showed how God had provided an acceptable, practical lifestyle for people who could lay claim to no land at all. Most likely, the Levites only shared the cities with other Israelites. Several points become obvious in Josh 21. Repetition occurs in vv 3, 8, 9 and in 4b, 10, 13. The natural function of these verses is to introduce a following list. Two lists occur: vv 5–7 and 13– 40. The question of priority goes to the latter, which is summarized by the former. Vv 3 and 8 form a framework for vv 1– 8 and witness the same vocabulary and intention. This leaves v 9 as the original introduction to vv 13– 40. V 4 introduces the theme of lot, thus connecting the material back to chaps. 14–19, and introduces the form of the list in vv 5–7. V 10 continues the lot theme and serves to introduce vv 11–12, which duplicate v 13a to tie the narrative to chaps. 14–15. This means that the original introduction to the list in vv 13– 40 appears in vv 9 and 13. 64 65 66 67 68 69

“Levitical Cities,” in Joshua Retold, 27. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 98. Na’aman, Borders and Districts, 212–16. Ibid., 210–12 Ibid., 318. Ibid., 210.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 218

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

219

Form Auld points out that this chapter is a text rather than a list as seen by the “outer casing” in vv 1–3 and 41– 42.70 The summary appears in vv 4– 8 with vv 9–10 giving a “clumsy introduction.” Nelson classifies the chapter as a catalog, “enumerating or labeling a list of names according to a classification system.”71 The catalog intertwines a genealogical and a geographical system. Hess joins these systems to chaps. 13–19 and compares them to ancient Near Eastern land grants.72 Hubbard suggests that the chapter is a summary report in vv 1– 8 and a detailed formulaic follow-up in vv 9– 42 with a genealogical frame that is used to structure the city lists. The details in each genealogical section break down into geographical sections. This detailed form then has the following elements:73 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Introductory formula (vv 9, 11, 13, 20, 27, 34) Tribal source (vv 9, 11, 13–16, 17–18, 28–29, 30–31, 32, 36–37) Summary formula (vv 19, 26, 33, 40) Grand total tally (v 41) Conclusion (v 42)

Such a catalog is at home in real-life politics, not just in literature. The format allowed a government official to have a checklist for the work of the Levites in each city and for the government needs to move Levites from one place to another. It can also be employed to assure the tribes that each has received equal support.

Structure The Levitical list both completes the division of the land theme begun in chap. 13 and goes its own way if that new land is not acquired— or, rather, land from the other tribes is shared. Inheritance is no longer construed as land; God is the inheritance for the Levites. For the Levites, the giver is no longer God but the other tribes. One’s lot or allotment is no longer equated with land inheritance.74 The structure of the section is clear and becomes even clearer when compared to that of the related material in 1 Chr 6:39– 66 (6:54– 81). Joshua smoothly integrates the Levitical cities into the full land- allotment narrative, bringing chaps. 13–21 to a fitting close with a list parallel to the list of defeated kings in chap. 12. The defeated kings show the land is open for occupation. The Levitical cities show that all Israelites have a place to occupy in the land. The list betrays its origins outside the current context but is inserted in a satisfying, meaningful way. The list in Chronicles intrudes into a series of genealogical records and receives no conclusion to fully integrate the lists or catalog into the Chronicles context.

70 71 72 73 74

“Levitical Cities,” in Joshua Retold, 26. Nelson, 236; cf. Hubbard, 453. Hess (1996) 281. Hubbard, 456. See Hawk, (2010) 189– 90.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 219

9/18/14 9:20 AM

220

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42) Table 21.2. Comparison of Joshua 21 and 1 Chronicles 6 Josh 21:1–42

1 Chr 6:39–66

Larger context: chaps. 13–21

Division of land to tribes by lot

Larger context: chaps. 4–8

List of genealogy of Israel, specifically the genealogy of Levi (5:27–6:66)

vv 1–3

Narrative setting based on Num 35:1–8

v 39a

List introduction

v 4a (connecting to chaps. 14–19)

Lot falls for Kohathites

v 4b

Thirteen cities from Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin for Aaron by lot

v 39b

Aaron of the Kohathites by lot

v5

To rest of Ephraim, Dan, Kohathites, half Manasseh, ten cities

v6

To Gershon from Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, half Manasseh, thirteen cities

v7

To Merari from Reuben, Gad, Zebulun, twelve cities

v 8a (= v 3)

List introduction

v 8b

Obedience formula

v9

List introduction from Judah and Simeon

vv 10–12 (v 10a = 4b; joins to 14:6–15; 15:13–14)

First lot to Aaron of the Kohathites is Hebron; field and suburbs are Caleb’s

vv 40–41

Hebron in land of Judah given to Aaron; field and suburbs to Caleb

vv 13–16a (form parallels vv 4–7; content parallels vv. 10–12)

Nine cities listed for Aaron

vv 42–44 (v 42a = 39b–40)

Eight cities listed for Aaron

v 16b (related to v 9)

Summary: nine cities from two tribes

vv 17–18a

Four cities listed from Benjamin

v 45a

Three cities listed from Benjamin

v 18b

Summary: four cities

v 19

Summary (vv 13–18): thirteen cities for Aaron

v 45b

Summary: thirteen cities for Aaron

v 20a (cf. v 5)

For the rest of the Kohathites

v 46a

For the rest of the Kohathites

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 220

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting Josh 21:1–42

221 1 Chr 6:39–66

v 46b (cf. Josh 21:5)

Summary: ten cities from half Manasseh

v 47 (= Josh 21:6)

To Gershom from Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh in Bashan, thirteen cities

v 48 (= Josh 21:7)

To Merari from Reuben, Gad, Zebulun, twelve cities

v 49 (cf. Josh 21:8a)

Introduction: given to Levites

v 50 (cf. Josh 21:9)

List introduction from Judah, Simeon, Benjamin

v 20b

Their lot from Ephraim

v 51 (cf. Josh 21:20; 1 Chr 6:46a)

For Kohath from Ephraim

vv 21–22a

Four cities listed

vv 52–54

Six cities listed

vv 23–24

Four cities listed with summary from Dan

v 25

Two cities listed from half Manasseh with summary

v 55

Two cities listed from half Manasseh

v 26

Summary: ten cities for the rest of the Kohathites

v 27a

For Gershon

v 56a

For Gershom

v 27b

Two cities listed from half Manasseh with summary

v 56b

Two cities listed from half Manasseh

vv 28–29

Four cities listed from Issachar with summary

vv 57–58

Four cities listed from Issachar

vv 30–31

Four cities listed from Asher with summary

vv 59–60

Four cities listed from Asher

v 32

Three cities listed from Naphtali with summary

v 61

Three cities listed from Naphtali

v 33

Summary: thirteen cities for the Gershonites

v 34a

For Merarites

v 62a

For Merarites

vv 34b–35

Four cities listed from Zebulun with summary

v 62b

Two cities listed from Zebulun

vv 36–37

Four cities listed from Reuben with summary

vv 63–64

Four cities listed from Reuben

vv 38–39

Four cities listed from Gad with summary

vv 65–66

Four cities listed from Gad

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 221

9/18/14 9:20 AM

222

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42) Josh 21:1–42

v 40

Summary: twelve cities for the Merarites

v 41

Summary: forty-eight cities for the Levites

v 42

Summary definition of the cities

1 Chr 6:39–66

Setting The classical view is that of Graf and Wellhausen, who see the list as a postexilic utopian ideal of the Priestly school. Kaufmann understands this catalogue of cities to be a utopian ideal developed in the earliest stages of Israel’s existence.75 Howard points out that this is the almost universal opinion among critical scholars except that most place the list in a much later time.76 Howard maintains, however that the text reflects tribal allotments in Joshua’s day, providing another perspective on the theme of land yet to be possessed.77 Hess cites ancient Near Eastern, particularly Egyptian, practices of giving cities and land to the priestly classes.78 Thus the temple of Ammun in Thebes owned fifty- six towns in Egypt and nine more estates in Palestine and Nubia. Hess suggests that the Egyptian system of making people work the lands was much more oppressive than the Israelite. Tengström seeks to join the Levite list to the premonarchical Shechemite Hexateuch he has proposed.79 Klein80 and Albright have used archaeological information to place Levitical cities in the time of David, which de Vaux wants to shift to a time after the division of the kingdom. Haran connects the Levitical tradition to his Priestly school in the time of Ahaz and Hezekiah.81 Alt (cf. introduction to chs 13—19 above) seeks to join the Levitical city list to his other Josianic city lists, a decision Na’aman eventually accepts.82 Auld surveys the various terms translated “tribe” and concludes that the very idea of a shift from tribalism to monarchy around 1000 BCE was a “post-monarchical theoretical construct.”83 Mazar84 notes that the function of the Levites was to be devoted supporters of the Davidic- Solomonic monarchy used to administer both the cultic and political affairs of the frontiers of the empire (compare 1 Chr 26:29–32). This explains the point made repeatedly by Noth and Alt that the territory covered by the cities has unexpected gaps in the very stronghold of the kingdom itself, namely, in central Judah 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

Biblical Account of the Conquest of Canaan. Howard, 388. Ibid., 391. Hess (2009) 76–77. Hexateucherzählung, 75–78. “Die Priester-, Leviten-, und Asylstädte.” Haran, JBL 80 (1961) 45– 54, 156– 65. Na’aman, Borders and Districts, 229. “Tribal Terminology in Joshua and Judges” in Joshua Retold, 73–75. “Cities of the Priests and the Levites,” 193–205; cf. Ben Zvi, JSOT 64(1992) 79.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 222

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

223

between Jerusalem and Hebron and in the center of the northern kingdom in the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh. Mazar notes that the Levites were settled only in those cities that had been recently conquered by David so that they retained strong Canaanite traditions and probably strong Canaanite population elements. Albright points out the inclusion of cities that remained to be conquered under Joshua, namely, Tanaach, Ibleam, Gezer, Nahalol, Aijalon, Dor, and Bethshean (cf. Judg 1).85 Hauer uses anthropological theory to support Albright’s conclusion that Josh 21 is a historical record from the time of David.86 Mazar sees the Levitical cities as a part of David’s strategy to consolidate his kingdom, especially the newly conquered parts.87 Na’aman provides a history of research and then attempts to show that “the historical reliability of the system is not well established.”88 He concludes that the twelve- tribe system was a literary invention and that the boundary system never served an administrative purpose. These decisions eliminate any possibility of the Levitical cities representing a tribe in any kind of administrative function. Na’aman also argues that Levites should live in cultic centers, and major cultic centers are precisely the cities not mentioned in the list of Levitical cities. He grants the possibility of the “early existence of cities inhabited by Levites in the neighbourhood of Hebron as well as in the Shephelah (Libnah) and in the territory of Benjamin.”89 Na’aman even grants some united monarchy Levitical settlement in towns like Hebron, Libnah, and Anathoth. Still, he pushes the date of the thirteen Aaronite towns to the seventh century BCE. Ben Zvi sees a preexilic hint in the picture of the Aaronites as Levites.90 He suggests the united monarchy or earlier as its possible setting, but then analyzes two systems of cities of refuge, one with three members and the other with six. He concludes that the six- city system from Num 35 and from the Hebrew source or Vorlage of the Septuagint of Joshua 21 is later than the system of Deut 19, whose origin is assumed as Josianic, making Joshua 20 post- Josianic.91 Ben Zvi finds the string of texts claiming rights to land east of the Jordan to be as old as their claims for land west of the Jordan both representing postexilic reality. Such a conclusion sees Josh 21 based on Josh 20 and so an even later postexilic origin leading to “either messianism or eschatology or both.”92 The author of Josh 21 ignored all other Aaronite genealogical claims to locate all Aaronites in Judea.93 This represents an “ideological concern” rather than “historical reality.” The author of Josh 21 presents “rewritten history.”94 In so arguing, Ben Zvi notes that claims to monarchic backgrounds to these texts are ideological and based on multiple hypotheses. Surely his claim has as much ideology and

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Hauer, JSOT 23 (1982) 33– 54. “Cities of the Priests and the Levites,” 193–205. Borders and Districts, 203– 36 (quote on 206). Ibid., 232. Ben Zvi, JSOT 64 (1992) 82. Ibid., 99. Ibid., 101. Ibid., 103. Ibid., 104– 5.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 223

9/18/14 9:20 AM

224

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42)

as many hypotheses as does any claim that accepts the biblical setting for the materials.95 Schmidt sees the lists as schematized and dependent on the previous chapter, pushing chap. 21 into the postexilic period to support the leading position of the Aaronite priests.96 The postexilic editor created the forty- eight- city structure. Schmidt’s conclusion is that the entire system is theoretical, never having been implemented.97 Bartusch finds archaeological evidence against a united monarchy setting.98 Peterson points to the eighth century BCE. Bartusch questions the ability to make accurate site locations and the validity of surface surveys and points to the cities that appear to have tenth- century occupation. Bartusch ultimately leaves the question open, citing evidence that can be interpreted as favoring either an eighthcentury or a tenth- century origin for the lists.99 Hubbard finds that the inclusion of Gezer makes the list “more ideal than real.”100 Nelson rejects both a united monarchy date because of the advanced development in cultic personnel (Levites and priests separated) and a Josianic date because too much territory is covered.101 Archaeological data rules out the early date with its broad geographical scope while no political rationale is convincing. Nelson maintains that chap. 21 is a catalogue seeking to “anchor idealized levitical demographic patterns into the foundational past and rationalize this as part of a [sic] orderly structure.”102 Nelson states that the rhetorical power of the composition “has been so effective it has induced many scholars to accept the historical existence of this artificial system” when it actually has “the earmarks of a scholarly imitation.”103 The non-idealized numbers, such as thirteen, show that the early part of the list, according to Nelson, is an inherited source list covering only the kingdom of Judah and used to describe a “defensive ring around Judah and Jerusalem.”104 The remainder of the list represents an editor’s culling of cities from the previous lists in chaps. 13–20, Judg 17–18, 19. Laws such as Deut 14:29; 16:11, 14; 26:11–12 appear to represent Levites as homeless wanderers dwelling wherever they can find priestly employment. Howard emphasizes that Josh 21 represents an allotment of cities, not necessarily a conquest or possession. None of the military encounters in chaps. 6–11 mention any of the cities so that “a number of them may have remained unoccupied by the Levites for some time. . . . The fact that some of the cities cannot be proven to have been settled by the Levites does not prove or disprove their original designation as Levitical cities.”105 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

Ibid., 98– 99, n. 3; 99, n. 2. VT 52 (2002) 117. Ibid., 121. Understanding Dan, 101 (Bartusch is working from Peterson’s dissertation, “Topographical Surface Survey”). Ibid., 102– 4. Hubbard, 454. Nelson, 238. Ibid., 236. Ibid., 236– 37. Ibid., 239; cf. 2 Chr 11:5–12. Howard, 387– 88. Howard (cf. Hess, [1996] 281) then points to J. Peterson, “Topographical

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 224

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

225

Hess finds many of the towns had been Canaanite centers and stood on tribal borders.106 He concludes that they served for Israel to preserve and disseminate the faith and culture of Israel. Hawk sums up the arguments for a united monarchy setting: the area included, many “cities that remain” (chap. 13), Levitic functions under David according to 1 Chr 26:29–32, and the similarity of the Josh 21 list to that of Rehoboam’s defense cities (2 Chr 11:3–12).107 It is not improbable that, prior to David, Levites had begun to live in cities that were themselves sanctuaries and places of refuge or that were near such cities. The monarchy simply institutionalized such practices, likely based on an Egyptian model.108 In later times, the measures against the Levites and the local sanctuaries, particularly by Jeroboam (2 Chr 11:13–15) and Josiah (2 Kgs 23:8), intensified the need to find places of residence and service for the Levites. Our list thus has its source in premonarchical Judah and its original setting as a full list in the time of the united monarchy. Josh 21 shows that the Levites did not live together as a clan or tribe but rather functioned as government and cultic supporters throughout the land. Reverse proof for this comes from Jeroboam I’s expulsion of the Levites from the northern kingdom. The Chronicler’s use of the material may reflect the continued life of the institution in a new form in the postexilic community. The institution itself can be seen from two perspectives. From that of the monarchy, it was designed to strengthen government control and influence through the employment of men of high reputation and long- standing tradition. From the perspective of the Levites, it provided security and meaningful employment for a group who lived their life on the economic borderline, while permitting them to continue their tradition of priestly employment.

Table 21.3. Joshua 21 Form and Narrative Elements Narrative: Not narrative Element

Passage

Genre: Divine command fulfilled Marker

Element

Passage

Exposition (pf. or disjunctive)

Request for fulfillment

vv 1–2

Complication (impf. consec.)

Fulfillment agreement

v3

Change or crisis (speech or dialogue)

[Lot] for each group of Levites with numerical summary

vv 4–40

Marker Yahweh commanded

Inconsistent markers—lot, out of the town of, etc.

Resolution (impf. consec.) Ending/ denouement (formulaic)

Surface Survey,” for evidence of occupation of many of the Levitical cities during Iron Age II (1200–1000 b.c.e.). 106 Hess (1996) 281. 107 Hawk (2010) 189. 108 Mazar, “Cities of the Priests and the Levites.”

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 225

9/18/14 9:20 AM

226

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42)

Comments 1 The opening verse connects back to Josh 14:1, 17:4, and 19:51. The Levitical motif is taken up from Josh 13:14, 33; 14:3– 4; and 18:7. Thus far in the book of Joshua, no provision has been made for Levitical residence. Rather, the point has been that Levites cannot have material possessions and responsibilities as do the other tribes since they are devoted to Yahweh and his service. The gift of cities of residence was foreshadowed in 14:4. This leads Knauf to suggest that this chapter presupposes the present text of 14:1–20:9, a presupposition that works just as well for one who presupposes the literary unity of the book as well as for Knauf’s sevenfold plus redaction history.109 Knauf describes the Levites as being first a profession and only secondarily as a tribe.110 Levites thus would be specialists like smiths integrated into a tribe but without voting rights or land claims. Knauf describes chap. 21 as a utopian view of the future spurred by the call for cult centralization that was enforced in fifthcentury BCE Jerusalem. Hubbard notes various duties the Levites performed: conscripting soldiers and laborers for royal building projects, collecting taxes and tithes, serving as judges, serving as priests for people living a distance from the temple, teaching the Mosaic tradition, and helping to maintain national unity and loyalty to Yahweh.111 Such a list of duties is far from utopian, representing precisely the needs of tribal and infant monarchical Israel. 2 The fulfillment of Mosaic commands, a theme so vital to the entire book, relates back to Num 35:1– 8. The intriguing element here is that the recipients of the promise, the Levites, take the initiative rather than Joshua or the other Israelite leaders (cf. Num 27:1; 36:1). It is emphasized here and particularly in Num 35:3 that the pasture land is for the cattle to graze, not for farmland to be worked and exploited economically by the Levites (cf. Note 2.a above). The cattle would, presumably, be for the immediate food and clothing needs of the family and for personal sacrifices. Hubbard generalizes the meaning to include “a belt of land outside a city’s walls over which the town exercised jurisdiction.”112 D. J. A. Clines agrees that pastureland is not correct, expanding the meaning to “land outside the city walls whether as claimed territory of a city, exclusion zone to which others had no right, or a sacral zone.”113 Still, Clines notes that the term is often used for pasturelands, but that is not its basic meaning. 3 The cities are pictured almost as a sacrifice given by the various tribes to the Levitical priests. 4 The choice of the cities and their distribution among the various Levitical clans is incorporated into the lot system employed previously for the distribution of the land among the tribes. The first lot does not fall on the firstborn.114 Rather, the lot falls on the ancestor of Aaron. This is made clear by the abrupt change of subjects from 4a to 4b, from the clans of Kohath to the sons of Aaron. 109 110 111 112 113 114

Knauf, 176. Ibid., 174. Hubbard, 464. Ibid., 455; cf. J. Barr, “Migrash in the Old Testament,” JSS 29 (1984) 15– 31. DCH, 5:138. Cf. Gen 46:11; Exod 6:16; Möhlenbrink, ZAW 52 (1934) 184–231.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 226

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

227

The thirteen cities have caused much comment.115 The total of forty- eight cities would suggest a pattern of four cities from each tribe. The pattern is broken only here and with the tribe of Naphtali. Tsafrir has suggested that Beth Shemesh (v 16) originally referred to the city of that name in Naphtali (cf. Judg 1:33) and was secondarily transferred to Judah.116 This is not impossible, but far from proven. The irregularity of the numerical system could argue for its authenticity. It may be that the tradition of thirteen Aaronic cities was originally separate from that of forty- eight Levitical cities. This is particularly interesting in light of two facts. The Chronicler does not include Simeon, thus possibly leaving nine cities from Judah. Num 35:8 calls for a distinction in number of cities according to the size of the tribe. The unevenness of distribution may be the original tradition, while later systematizers developed a theory of four cities per tribe. Coote notes, “The so- called imbalance makes its own point: the primacy of Aaron.”117 5 Dan is pictured in its original western position rather than its home after the later move northward (Judg 18). Its connection is with northern Ephraim and Manasseh rather than with the southern Judah (cf. Judg 15:9–13) or the more proximate Benjamin. 6 The other half of Manasseh is located geographically east of the Jordan in Bashan as usual but is connected uniquely with the western tribes of Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali. Such a connection points to an ancient tradition in which related Levitical clans lived in these regions. 7 Zebulun is joined to the eastern tribes of Reuben and Gad, again pointing to an ancient tradition in which Levitical distribution did not coincide with the normal tribal listing. 8 V 8 summarizes the section by calling renewed attention to the obedience to divine command. 9 The actual list of cities is introduced here, following the theological introduction. The significance of v 9b is not clear. Is it an attempt to say Israel renamed the cities? Or does it try to say that long ago the forty- eight cities were explicitly listed, so that no contemporary king has a right to tamper with the list, taking one city off and adding another? 10 The preeminent role of Aaron is again emphasized in that his “sons” receive the first lot. This serves to introduce the following verses. 11–12 These verses are necessary in light of the Caleb traditions (Josh 14:6–15; 15:13–14) and the Levitical city tradition of v 13. The verses clarify that the city itself and its immediate pastures were set apart for the Levites while the surrounding villages that were controlled by the city- state of Hebron along with all the agricultural fields belonged to the Calebites. Levites are excluded from exercising direct political power and from developing an economic power base. Hebron represents David’s first power base (2 Sam 2; 5) so the placement of Aaron’s descendants there may represent “longstanding ties . . . between the nation’s religious and political leaders.”118 115 116 117 118

Cf. especially Albright, “Die Priester-, Leviten-, und Asylstädte.” ErIsr 12 (1975) 44– 45, 119. Coote, 701. Hubbard, 454.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 227

9/18/14 9:20 AM

228

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42)

‫אחזה‬, “possession,” appears here for the first time in the book of Joshua. It is used most often in Lev 25, 27; Num 32, 35; Ezek 44– 48. It appears again in Josh 21:41; 22:4, 9, 19. Gerleman has argued that it refers specifically to the use of land for cultivation rather than to possession of the land. He translates the passage “with the right of cultivation.”119 In the context of Joshua, though, such an interpretation overlooks the theological overtones of the context. The emphasis is not so much on agricultural rights as upon permanent possession and control of the territory. Such control is still understood in terms of the land belonging to God and given to the tribe for its use. 13 Each of the cities of refuge is included within the Levitical cities as indicated in Num 35:6. Noth has argued that such inclusion is secondary. His theory rests on his previous literary theory that Josh 13:18 and 19:35bβ quote from a form of Josh 21 that does not include the cities of refuge. Such literary analysis is very tentative and without much textual support. Num 35:6 might point to a tradition of forty-two Levitical cities, but this too is quite speculative. Since cities of refuge were probably tied to ancient altars, it would be quite appropriate for them to become cities of the Levitical priests. This must not, however, mean that every Levitical city was an ancient sanctuary. For Hebron, see Comment on 10:3. For Libnah, see Comment on 10:29. 14 Jattir is modern Khirbet Attir, thirteen miles south- southwest of Hebron and fourteen miles northeast of Beersheba. See Josh 15:48; 1 Sam 30:27. Eshtemoa is modern es- Samua, eight and a half miles (fourteen kilometers) southwest of Hebron. An Iron Age deposit of silver jewelry and ingots was found there. See Josh 15:50; 1 Sam 30:28. 15 Holon has not been located. See Josh 15:51. For Debir, see Comment on 10:3. 16 ʿAin appears as a place name here; in Josh 15:32 and 19:7; and in Num 34:11. The latter is geographically distinct while the other two passages may refer to ʿEinRimmon. ʿAshan, usually read here with LXX (cf. Notes), is located at Khirbet ʿAsan, a mile and a half northwest of Beersheba. Juttah is identified with Yatta, five and a half miles southwest of Hebron. See Josh 15:55. With Beth Shemesh, the list moves radically northwestward onto the Philistine border. Juttah is located near modern Beth Shemesh, twelve and a half miles (twenty kilometers) west of Jerusalem. Though unmentioned in ancient literature outside the Bible, it apparently has deep roots in history, an eighteenthcentury BCE city having been excavated. It is named House of the Sun, apparently in reference to a temple for the sun god, and is apparently identical with Ir Shemesh, the city of the sun, assigned to Dan in Josh 19:41. See Josh 15:10; 1 Sam 6; 1 Kgs 4:9; 2 Kgs 14:11, 13; 2 Chr 28:18.120 17 The Benjaminite Levites may have served in the Jerusalem sanctuary. This may explain the absence of Jerusalem from the list. It is possible that the list reflects the Davidic time before Jerusalem became the major sanctuary, the high place being at Gibeon (1 Kgs 3). For Gibeon, see above on Josh 9–10; cf. 18:25. Geba is the Benjaminite city (Josh 18:24) on the northern border of Judah (2 Kgs 119 “Nutzrecht und Wohnrecht: Zur Bedeutung von ‫ אחזה‬und ‫נחלה‬,” ZAW 89 (1977) 313–18. 120 Cf. EAEHL, 1:248– 53.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 228

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

229

23:8; Zech 14:10), identified with modern Jeba, six miles north-northeast of Jerusalem. See 1 Sam 13–14; 2 Sam 5:25; 1 Kgs 15:22; Isa 10:29; Ezra 2:26; Neh 7:30; 11:31; 12:29. 18 Anathoth is famous for its connections with Jeremiah and his priestly ancestors (Jer 1:1; 11:21–23; 29:27; 32:7–9; compare 1 Kgs 2:26). It is located at Ras el-Kharrubeh, three miles north of Jerusalem. Its name may have been associated with a temple to the Canaanite goddess Anath. See Isa 10:30; Ezra 2:23; Neh 7:27; 11:32. Haran uses Anathoth as an argument for denying that Levitical cities were also shrines or cult cities, the Levites of Anathoth ministering in Shiloh and Nob, not Anathoth.121 Almon is mentioned only here (cf. Notes). It is located at Khirbet Almit, a mile northeast of Anathoth. 20–26 The remainder of the clan of Kohath is allotted former Canaanite strongholds on the borders of Ephraim, Dan, and half of Manasseh. Only Shechem, the city of refuge, represents the heartland of Ephraim and Manasseh. 21 Shechem is the key city in the history of the Hexateuch, according to Tengström.122 Judg 8– 9 shows that it was a strong Canaanite center of Baal worship even during Israel’s early history with mention of Baal-berith, the Baal of the covenant in Judg 8:33. It has significant patriarchal connections in Gen 12:6; 33:18– 35:4; 37:12– 14, but has no conquest narrative in Joshua, only the cultic references in Josh 8:30– 35 and 24:1–28. It is placed within the borders of Manasseh in Josh 17:7 but does not appear in the city lists. Excavations have uncovered occupation levels dating back to ca. 3600 BCE with major occupation between 1900 and 1540 and between 1450 and 1125. Excavations have amply illustrated the cultic importance of Shechem.123 Gezer is far southwest of Shechem. Some scholars use this distance to theorize that the cities of refuge are a secondary addition to this list. Gezer is located at Tell Jezer five miles (eight kilometers) south- southeast of Ramleh and evidences settlement at least as early as 3300 BCE. It was deserted from 2500 until 1900, and its fortifications were built only about 1650. Here a massive sanctuary with ten sacred pillars has been revealed. Destruction came about 1470, possibly from Thutmose III of Egypt, the city being rebuilt only after 1400. In the fourteenth century, ten of the Amarna letters come from kings of Gezer. Merneptah of Egypt claims to have destroyed Gezer about 1232, but the archaeological evidence is ambiguous at this point. Gezer was allotted to Ephraim, but not conquered (Josh 16:3, 10). Philistines took over the city in the twelfth century and controlled it up to the time of the Israelite monarchy (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15–17). Solomon apparently built new fortifications, but destruction came soon, probably at the hand of Pharaoh Shishak ca. 924. Israel regained the city but lost it to Assyria in 733. Hezekiah may have regained control.124 It was destroyed again by Babylon in 586.125 See Comment on 10:33. 121 JBL 80 (1961) 52. 122 Tengström, Die Hexateucherzählung. 123 Cf. E. F. Campbell, Jr., IDBSup, 821–22; idem, “Two Amarna Notes: The Shechem City- State and Amarna Administrative Terminology,” in Magnalia dei (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976) 39– 54; G. E. Wright, EAEHL, 4:1083– 94; K. Jaroš, Sichem; K. Jaroš and B. Deckert, Studien zur Sichem- Aera, OBO 11a (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1977); E. Otto, “Überlieferung von Sichem und die Ausgrabungen auf tell balāta,” BN 6 (1978) 19–26; idem, Jakob in Sichem, 108– 58. See also 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; Hos 6:9; Jer 41:5; Ps 60:8 (6) = Ps 108:8 (7). 124 N. Na’aman, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah and the Date of the lmlk Stamps,” VT 29 (1979) 76. 125 Cf. W. G. Dever, EAEHL, 2:429– 43.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 229

9/18/14 9:20 AM

230

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42)

22 Kibzaim occurs only here. No location is known. Possibly it is a textual corruption of Jokneam (or Jokmeam; see Notes), which would have to be distinguished from the northern city mentioned in Josh 12:22; 19:11; 21:34, and from Jokmean of 1 Kgs 4:12. Beth Horon is usually divided into a lower part, on the boundary of Benjamin and Ephraim (Josh 16:3; 18:13), and an upper part, also on the southern boundary of Ephraim (16:5). See 1 Kgs 9:17; 2 Chr 25:13; Comments on 10:10. 23 Eltekeh in Dan (Josh 19:44) was the site of a battle between Sennacherib of Assyria and Egypt in 701 BCE (ANET, 287b). Elliger locates it at Tell el- Melat northwest of Gezer.126 Tell esh- Shallaf is another candidate. There is also an Altaku mentioned in the conquest lists of Hor- en-heb, Seti I, Ramses II, and Ramses III.127 Gibbethon in Dan (19:44) came into Philistine possession early in the divided monarchy (1 Kgs 15:27; 16:15–17). Elliger identifies it with ʿAgir, four kilometers west of Tell el- Melat, but others identify it with Tell el- Melat.128 Hubbard admits that Gezer, Eltekeh, and Gibbethon were Philistine cities that the Levites occupied much later or “probably not at all.”129 If Hubbard is correct, this biblical passage reflects an early date when Israel had expectations, or at least hopes, of gaining control of these cities and others in the land that remained. 24 Aijalon of Dan (19:42) remained under Amorite control (Judg 1:35) despite the victory of Josh 10:12. It is identified with Yalo near Emmaus, twelve miles (twenty kilometers) northwest of Jerusalem. See 1 Sam 14:31; 2 Chr 11:10; 28:18. Gath-Rimmon of Dan (19:45) may be Tell Jerishe in modern Ramat Gan near the Yarkon River. Excavations there have traced settlement back to about 2300 BCE. Only after 2000 was the settlement fortified, but it was destroyed in the middle of the sixteenth century. Rebuilding followed quickly. Destruction came again in 1200, followed by Philistine occupation. This town was subsequently destroyed, possibly by David. The Israelite city did not last long, however, probably destroyed by Pharaoh Shishak about 920 BCE.130 25 Tanaach belonged to Manasseh, though located in Issachar (17:11), and continued in Canaanite hands (Judg 1:27). See Comments on 12:21. Ibleam (see Notes) also belonged to Manasseh, though located in Issachar (17:11), and remained in Canaanite hands ( Judg 1:27). It is located at modern Belameh, two kilometers south of Jenin. See 2 Kgs 9:27; 15:10 (LXX). 27– 33 The clan of Gershon gains cities on both sides of the Sea of Galilee, in a rare union of groups east and west of the Jordan. This may reflect royal policy— seeking to create forces to unify the territory. 27 Golan is known only in the city- of-refuge tradition. It may be Sahem elJoulan on the eastern bank of the River el-Allan. If Ashteroth is the correct reading (see Notes); it may reflect the ancient capital city of Og. (See Comments on 12:4.) 28 Kishion in Issachar (Josh 19:20) may be related to the Kishon of Judg 4:7, 13; 5:21; 1 Kgs 18:40. A parallel text in 1 Chr 6:57 (72) reads Kedesh. Its loca126 127 128 129 130

BHH, 1:385, 567. ANET, 242. BHH, 1:385, 567, but see also AEHL, 127. Hubbard, 457. Cf. N. Avigad, EAEHL, 2:575–78.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 230

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

231

tion remains uncertain with Tell el- Muqarqash (7 kilometers southeast of Mount Tabor, on the Wadi esh- Sherrar), Khirbet Qasyun (two kilometers south of the base of Mount Tabor in the Esdraelon Plain), and Tell el- Ajjul (two kilometers southwest of En- dor, seven kilometers south- southwest of Mount Tabor) having been suggested.131 Daberath on the border of Zebulun (Josh 19:12) is located at Khirbet Dabbura on the northwest side of Mount Tabor, less than .5 kilometer east of the modern village of Daburiyeh.132 29 Jarmuth is a city in Issachar northwest of Beth- shan. This verse is the only reference to Jarmuth in Issachar (cf. Notes). It has been tentatively identified with Kaukab el-Hawa.133 It quite likely finds referral as Mount Yarmuta in an Egyptian stele of Seti I discovered in Beth- shan and in different spellings as Remeth (Josh 19:21) and Ramoth (1 Chr 6:73). Jarmuth of Judah’s Shephelah (chap. 10) is a different location. 134 En- Gannim refers not to the Judean city (Josh 15:34) but to the one in Issachar (19:21). A tentative identification has been made with Khirbet Beit Jann or modern Jenin seven kilometers due west of the Sea of Galilee.135 30 Mishal of Asher (Josh 19:26) appears in early Egyptian texts and has been variously identified with Tell Kisan, Tell en-Nahl, Tell Abu Hawan, and Tell Bir erJarbi, all in the Plain of Acco, the exact location being unknown. Abdon of Asher (cf. Ebron, Josh 19:28 with Notes) may be located at Khirbet Abdeh, four miles east of Achzib in Phoenician culture.136 31 Helkath (cf. Notes) of Asher (Josh 19:25) is tentatively placed at Tell el-Harbaj in the southeastern corner of the plain of Acco near the River Kishion, eighteen miles south of Acco,137 but this is quite uncertain (Noth). Hess places Helkath at Tell Amar.138 Others point to Tell el- Qassis at the northwest end of the Esdraelon Plain.139 Rehob of Asher (Josh 19:28, 30) was not actually conquered (Judg 1:31). Suggested locations include Tell el- Gharbi (= Tel Bira), seven miles (10 kilometers) eastsoutheast of Acco,140 Tell el-Balat in Lebanon,141 or Tell er-Rahb inside modern Israel. 32– 33 Kedesh in Naphtali (Josh 19:37) was Barak’s home and the gathering point for Israel’s troops in Judg 4– 5. It served as a city of refuge as well as a Levitical city.142 Kedesh is located at Tell Qedes, six miles (ten kilometers) north of Hazor. Excavation has shown occupation reaching back to Early Bronze I (ca. 3000) with only sporadic evidence for Late Bronze and Iron Age settlement.143

G. W. van Beek, “Kishon,” IDB, 3:38; J. L. Peterson, ABD, 4:88– 89. See, however, G. Biton, “Haddabrat— A Defined Place Name,” BMik 24 (1978) 73–74. AEHL, 162. See K. A. Wilson, NIDB, 3:194. See J. L. Peterson, ABD, 2:302; contrast G. W. van Beek, “En- Gannim,” IDB, 2:101. G. W. van Beek, “Abdon,” IDB, 1:4. A. Alt, “Das Institute im Jahre 1928,” PJ 25 (1929) 38– 39. Hess (1996) 272. See J. L. Peterson, ABD, 3:125–26. G. W. van Beek, “Rehob,” IDB, 4:29; T. Eddinger, NIDB, 4:732. AEHL, 269. V. Fritz, “Die sogenannte Liste der besiegten Könige in Josua 12,” ZDPV 85 (1969) 152, would separate the two places; cf. EAEHL, 2:406; 3:702– 3. 143 Y. Aharoni, EAEHL, 2:406. See 2 Kgs 15:29. 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 231

9/18/14 9:20 AM

232

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42)

Hammoth- Dor (see Notes) is probably the Hammath of Naphtali (Josh 19:35; cf. 1 Chron 2:55). Its name indicates that it was a spa with hot baths. It is identified with Hamman Tabariyeh, three kilometers south of Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Dor is a city south of Mount Carmel on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. (Cf. Comments on 11:2.) Karthan or Rakkath (see Notes and Josh 19:35) is called Kiriathaim in 1 Chr 6:76 (61). It has been tentatively located at Khirbet el- Qureiyeh, six kilometers west and one kilometer north of Tell Qades,144 and Tell Eklatiyeh (or Quneitireh = Tel Raqqat), one kilometer north of Tiberias (Noth). 34– 40 The clan of Merari received cities in two widely separated geographical areas: Zebulun in the northwestern part of Palestine and the wide-ranging areas of Reuben and Gad east of the Jordan and below the Sea of Galilee. This unlikely “invention” may well rest on the historical tradition of widely separated elements of the Levitical clan, reaching back into the period when the clan consisted of wandering sojourners within Israel (contrast Noth). 34 Jokneam is near the border of Zebulun (Josh 19:11). See Comments on 12:22. Kartah appears only here in the bibilical text (see Note). It is located at Atlit,145 where Middle/Late Bronze Age and eighth- to seventh- century occupation has been uncovered or at el Artiqeh.146 Others concede that the location is completely unknown.147 35 Dimnah appears only here in the biblical text and is equated with Rimmon (see Notes), on the border of Zebulun (Josh 19:13), which is most likely located at modern Rummaneh, six miles (nine kilometers) north-northeast of Nazareth.148 Nahalal of Zebulun (Josh 19:15) was not conquered by Joshua (see Judg 1:30). Some have attempted to identify it with the contemporary village of Malul in the Jezreel Valley and others with Tell en- Nahl at the southern end of the Plain of Acco, ten kilometers east of the Mediterranean149 but probably outside Zebulun’s territory. Peterson explores the possibility of Tell el- Beida with Jokneam, nine kilometers to the southwest.150 36 Bezer is mentioned only as a city of refuge. A tentative location is suggested by E. D. Grohman151 at modern Umm el-Amad, eight miles northeast of Medeba. Bezer appears on the Moabite Stone. Jahaz of Reuben is a city on the Exodus itinerary north of the Arnon River, frequently identified with Khirbet el- Medeiyineh, though Khirbet Libb and Khirbet Iskander have also been suggested. Sihon fought Israel there as did King Mesha of Moab centuries later as recorded on the Moabite Stone. (See Comments on 13:18).152 37 For Kedemoth and Mephaath of Reuben, see Comments on Josh 13:18. 38 Ramoth- Gilead, missing from the lists of chap. 13, was the capital of Solomon’s sixth province (1 Kgs 4:13). Scholarly consensus locates it at Tell er-Ramith, 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152

IDB, 3:3; J. L. Peterson, ABD, 4:7. C. N. Johns, AEHL, 130. See AEHL, 134, 177. Noth; IDB, 3:3; cf. J. L. Peterson, ABD, 4:6–7. V. R. Gold, “Rimmon,” IDB, 4:99; cf. AEHL, 269. AEHL, 227; IDB, 3:496. ABD, 4:994– 95; cf. J. R. Tatlock, NIDB, 4:208. IDB, 1:407; cf. Hess (1996). Note Num 21:23; Judg 11:20; Isa 15:4; Jer 48:21, 34. See K. A. Wilson, NIDB, 3:175.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 232

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Explanation

233

seventy miles south of Damascus and 60 kilometers north of modern Amman. The only problem with such a location lies in the lack of evidence for pre- Solomonic settlement, perhaps another indication of the date of the list.153 The excavator Paul W. Lapp thus writes, “The question of the identification . . . has not been conclusively proved by the excavations, but the case is as strong or stronger than for many biblical sites.” He notes that the site is smaller than one would expect from the literary evidence.154 For Mahanaim in Gad, see Notes on Josh 13:26; cf. Gen 32:3; 2 Sam 2; 17:24–27; 19:33; 1 Kgs 2:8; 4:14. 39 For Heshbon, see Notes on Josh 2:2; cf. Josh 9:10; 13:10, 17, 21, 26, 27; Num 21; 32:3, 37; Deut 1:4; 2:24–35; 3:2, 6; 4:46; 29:6; Judg 11:19, 26; Neh 9:22; Song 7:5; Isa 15:4; 16:9; Jer 48:2, 34, 45; 49:3. Jazer of Gad was discussed in the Comments on Josh 13:25. See Num 21:32; 32:1, 3, 35; 2 Sam 24:5; 1 Chr 26:31; Isa 16:8– 9; Jer 48:32. 41– 42 The final summary ties back to Num 35 to show that the exact requirements set forth there have been met. God’s word has been followed explicitly. The LXX (see Notes) conclusion carries the obedience motif further and reiterates the obedience of Israel in giving Joshua a place to live as well as the obedience of Joshua in occupying the city and in preserving the sacred relics, which would now, presumably, be at the disposal of the priests of Timnath- Serah. If LXX represents later interpretation, it shows that the tradition continued to develop the theme central to the story itself.

Explanation Take special care of the poor clergy! This is the theme of the complex formed by Num 35 and Josh 21, along with the relevant Deuteronomic laws. Tradition pictures the Levitical priests in a precarious economic situation. This narrative complex provides a simple reason and remedy for the situation. The Levites belong to God and must serve him, not their own financial interests. They must depend on him for their livelihood. God, not land and agricultural riches, are the inheritance of the Levites (cf. Josh 13:14, 33). The priesthood, not farm work, occupies their time (Josh 18:7). “Levitical cities are never called the ‘inheritance’ or the ‘possession’ of the Levites. The Levites could live in the cities and make use of them, but they were not attached to or rooted in them as their permanent residence in the same way that the other tribes were grounded in their own territories.”155 Priests could officiate in sanctuaries removed from the town where they lived.156 Thus the chapter explains “how the priests and Levites, though technically denied ‘inheritance’ (13:14, 33; 14:3; 18:7), still form an integral part of Greater Israel.”157

153 H. M. Jamieson, “Ramoth Gilead,” IDBSup, 726; M. Ottosson, Gilead, 32– 34. 154 The Tale of the Tell (Pittsburgh: Pickwick [1975]) 119. Noth (Könige, vol. 1, BK AT 9.1 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968] 413) and Mittman (Beiträge, 225) accept the identification. See 1 Kgs 22; 2 Kgs 8:28–29; 9:1–14. 155 Harstad, 660. 156 Pitkänen, 342. 157 Hubbard, 453.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 233

9/18/14 9:20 AM

234

C. Gifts from God’s Goodness (21:43–45)

The remedy is equally simple. The tribes of Israel are responsible for the support of their priests. Part of this support involves a “parsonage.” Each tribe gives of its own cities for the priests. It gives offerings of which the priests receive a part for their own food (Josh 13:14; cf. Lev 2:3, 10; 5:13; 6:9 (16), 11 (18), 19 (26), 22 (29); 7:6– 10, 14, 31–36; 8:31). Such provision was, however, open to abuse (see, for example 1 Sam 2:12–17). The possibility of such abuse vanished, however, with the destruction of the temple in 586. Still, the precedent and principle had been established. The Christian church found that it needed only the priesthood of Jesus (cf. Hebrews), but the problem opened itself in a new form. The church had gifted persons who served as evangelists and teachers and pastors. Paul, though seeking to provide for his own living, reminded his followers that the ones “who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel” (1 Cor 9:14 RSV; cf. Matt 10:10). Josh 21 thus represents the first step in a long road, the road to the rights of the minister. Paul notes the other side of the picture in his own example. Such rights cannot be asserted by the minister on his own behalf when this puts obstacles in the way of others (1 Cor 9:12). The question of the original setting of the material opens a new set of problems. If the archaeological and historical evidence can place the list in the early monarchy, then the problem of the relationship of the priesthood to the government is opened. Apparently, the original intention of the material was to provide not only the necessities of life for the priests but also for loyal supporters for the government in areas of political unrest and insecurity.

C. Gifts from God’s Goodness (21:43–45) Bibliography Becker, U. “Endredaktionelle Kontextvernetzungen des Josua-Buches.” In Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur ‘Deuteronomismus’-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Ed. M. Witte, K. Schmid, D. Prechel, and J. C. Gertz. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006. 141–61. Clarke, T. A. “Complete v. Incomplete Conquest: A Re-examination of three Passages in Joshua.” TynBul 61 (2010) 89–104). Harris, G. H. “Did God fulfill Every Good Promise? Toward a biblical understanding of Joshua 21:43–45.” Master’s Seminary Journal 23 (2012) 55–83. Noort, E. “Land in zicht . . . ? Geloofsvisie, werkelijkheid en geschiedenis in het oudtestamentisch spreken over het land: Enkele opmerkingen naar aanleiding van Joz. 21:43–45.” In Tussen openbaring en ervaring. FS G. P. Hartvelt. Kampen: Kok, 1986. 94–113. Polzin, R. Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary History of the Deuteronomic History. New York: Seabury, 1980. Smend, R., Jr. “Das Gesetz und die Völker.” In Probleme biblischer Theologie: von Rad Festschrift. Ed. H. W. Wolff. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. 494–509. Younger, K. L., Jr. Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing. JSOTSup 98. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.

Translation 43Yahweh gave to Israel all the land that he had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. 44Yahweh gave them rest all around, according to everything that he had sworn to their fathers. Not a single man stood before them from all their enemies; rather all their enemies Yahweh gave into their hand.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 234

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

235

45Not

a single word fell from every good word which Yahweh spoke to the house a of Israel. Everything came to pass.

Notes 45.a. LXX has “sons” rather than “house” of Israel, another instance of the use of different familiar formulas within the textual tradition.

Form/Structure/Setting The passage is a theological conclusion of the book of Joshua up to this point. Though written in the style of narrative imperfect consecutives, the section stands apart from what precedes and follows in content. The previous section has a concluding summary in Josh 21:41– 42, while the transitional (‫)אז‬, “then,” introduces a new subject in 22:1.

Tradition These three verses represent a literary conclusion to the previous narrative and thus do not form a narrative behind which one would search for tradition.

Source and Redaction The section is without a doubt a literary summary composed by the ultimate editor of the book in his favorite Deuteronomistic vocabulary. Knauf goes so far as to see here the conclusion to his Hexateuchal redaction, which knows the Torah in a basically complete form.158 This is the third of his book conclusions (10:40– 42;* 11:16–23;* 21:43– 45), the first two concluding the story that begins with Moses and the Exodus, the latter concluding the narrative that starts with creation and the patriarchs.159 Chaps. 22–24, for Knauf, complete the independent prophetic book of Joshua. Chap. 22 looks back at chaps. 1–21. Chap. 23 looks forward to Judges through 2 Kings. Chap. 24 grandiosely combines Gen. 1–Josh. 23 together into one composition, making Joshua the conclusion to the Hexateuch in the traditional sense of the term and the introduction to the following prophetic books in the Jewish context of canon. Becker regards vv 43– 45 as a later repetition (Wiederaufnahme) of 11:16–23 used to implant the land- distribution section into the text and thus posits it as a very late Deuteronomistic addition.160 McConville and Williams cogently summarize the situation: We know by now, however, that the possession of the land as described in the tribal allocations is far from complete, that the Canaanite enclaves remain, that in some cases the existing populations have proved stronger than Israel, that Dan was unable to hold his territory and was forced north where he took land not given by lot and with illegitimate violence, that the boundaries between tribal allotments have at times been difficult to draw, and that land once given 158 Knauf, 176. 159 Ibid., 179. 160 “Endredaktionelle,” 151.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 235

9/18/14 9:20 AM

236

C. Gifts from God’s Goodness (21:43–45)

may not have remained in its original Israelite hands. The reader is faced with the question whether these tensions are part of a deliberate portrayal by the author. The discrepancy between the perspective of total conquest by virtue of God’s gift and that of untidy, incomplete possession is such that it is more easily read as a feature intended to catch the reader’s eye. It may be a device to convey the message that reality is far from ideal and that the call to live before Yahweh will have to be played out in a plural situation of conflicted loyalties.161 Hawk suggests that “at no point in the book do narrated reality and the narrator’s perspective seem so far apart.”162 He offers several explanations: hyperbole, ideal vision, or high irony. From this information Hawk draws the following interesting conclusion: Conquest of a town does not necessarily lead to inheritance (cf. 19:47), nor does the fact that it is given by Joshua (14:13–14). Allotment does not necessarily stipulate inheritance, for the lot sometimes identifies property that is not an inheritance. And inheritance is not to be equated with portion, for one tribe will inherit portions within the inheritance of others. Inheritance does not entail occupation or even communal endorsement of a property.163 For Hawk, “Divine stability and consistency are thus set against Israelite instability and inconsistency.”164 The explicit theological themes of Deuteronomy and Joshua are taken up and brought to a conclusion. Deut 1:8 says that Yahweh has set (‫ )נתן‬before the people the land. Israel is to go and possess (‫ )ירשׁ‬that which Yahweh swore to their ancestors to give (‫ )נתן‬to them and to their seed after them. Deut 1:34 presents another divine oath, this time explaining why the generation in the wilderness would not see “the good land which Yahweh swore to give to your fathers.” In Deut 4:21–22 God swears that Moses will not enter the good land, but “you all will pass over and will possess this good land.” The oath sworn to the ancestors is a motivating force in the homiletical portions of Deuteronomy (6:10, 18, 23; 7:8, 13; 8:1, 18; 9:5; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 19:8; 26:3, 15; 28:9, 11; 30:20; 31:7, 20, 21, 23; 34:4). Joshua picks up this theme in 1:6; Joshua is promised that he will cause the people to inherit the land “which I made an oath with their ancestors to give them.” Josh 11:23 summarizes chaps. 2–11, the story of Joshua conquering the land and providing rest from war. The distribution of the land in chaps. 13–21 concludes with a parallel summary in our section (21:43– 45). The history of promise has become reality. As Hess shows, the Canaanite coalitions are defeated: “In 13:1–21:42 the nations are isolated individuals and groups that must still be uprooted.”165 Hess finds that from 21:43 on the nations are once again “a combined force.” I would add that the “combined force” now points to the future and the monarchy. For the first generations in the Promised Land “Israel must defend itself against and drive out the isolated pockets of resistance that remain.”166 161 162 163 164 165 166

McConville and William, 83. Hawk (2000) 225. Ibid., 223. Ibid., 225–26. Hess (1996) 286. Ibid.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 236

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

237

The theme of Yahweh giving rest from war is introduced in Deut 3:20 in the speech to the Transjordanian tribes, whose armies are to pass over armed until Yahweh gives rest to their people as he already has to them. This is the goal of Israel’s march across the Jordan, and it is taken a step further in Deut 12:9–10, where obtaining rest is the sign for the beginning of worship (cf. Josh 22–24). In Deut 25:19, rest is the sign to send all the Amalekites to their eternal rest. Joshua continues the theme in 1:13–15 with explicit reference to Deut 3:20. The Transjordanian tribes are to remain until “Yahweh gives rest to your brothers just as to you (pl.). They also are to possess the land which Yahweh your God is giving to them.” Rest from war is achieved in Josh 11:23. Josh 21:44 brings the rest to a climax— the promised rest has arrived. In 22:4 Joshua dismisses the eastern soldiers, and the condition of rest serves as the introduction to 23:1. (Note also 2 Sam 7:1, 11; 1 Kgs 5:18 [4]; 8:56.) Vv 44b– 45 interpret more precisely the significance of the preceding verses. Employing a good amount of hyperbole and language of holy war oracles (Josh 10:8), the biblical writer explains that not just in one battle but in the whole land every single enemy soldier has fallen. Hubbard describes the situation well: The book intentionally portrays contrasting realities— the ideal and the real. The use of hyperbole serves to heighten the tension between them in order to speak ironically. The book does commend to readers of every generation an ideal Israel, the Israel that serves God’s cosmic vision for the world. The realities of any given moment may conflict with that ideal, but they neither disprove nor discredit the ideal’s ultimate success by God’s power.167 This is emphasized by the contrast sentence stated first with the enemy as subject and the verb negated, then without conjunction but with the normal sentence order reversed, with the enemy as object and God as subject of a positive verb. This is the material situation. The enemy is defeated. But that is not the main point. The conclusion (v 45) voices the theological point in a sentence structure parallel to v 44b. A negative sentence precedes a positive one. The final clause is made shorter here, ending the section with stylistic impact.

Form These few verses form a theological summary for both the battle report and land allotment narratives in the book of Joshua. The content reaches back to chap. 1, showing that God fulfilled the promise of land (1:6), Israel settled the land (1:11), God gave Israel the promised rest in the land (1:13, 15), and God defeated the enemies so that no man could stand before Joshua and the Israelites (1:5). The summary result was total victory for Israel, receiving all that God had promised. Form and style combine, then, to give force to the theological climax of the book. Having told the stories of conquest and of distribution with particular reference to the obedience of Israel and its leader, the editor now draws a theological conclusion. 167 Hubbard, 461; cf. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 126– 34.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 237

9/18/14 9:20 AM

238

C. Gifts from God’s Goodness (21:43–45)

Structure These verses join with other structural conclusions to give shape to Joshua. Hyperbole underlies these verses as “the narrator stretches the device to tie together the entire program of conquest, apportionment, and settlement.”168

Setting The setting is clear. The ultimate editor has penned the words of these verses as a powerful conclusion to this narrative. These words are the writer’s affirmation that God is faithful and capable.

Comments 43 The editor emphasizes the completeness of God’s action with a “powerful closing comment.”169 In so doing, he ignores the tradition concerning the incompleteness of Israel’s action (Josh 13:1– 6, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12–13; cf. Judg 1:19, 21, 27–35). Clarke argues for a consistent picture of an incomplete conquest: “No one person out of the mass of Israel’s enemies ever successfully opposed Joshua or Israel. . . . The story does not tell us that all Israel’s enemies actively opposed them and were subsequently put to death. Consequently there is no evidence in the final form of the text of Joshua 21:43– 45 that necessarily implies an unequivocally complete conquest.”170 Clarke must bring new twists to 10:40– 43; 11:16–23; and 21:43– 45 to defend his opinions. He has taken precisely the three summary passages that the ultimate editor of Joshua used to make strong theological statements about God and taken the heart of the theological statements from these passages. We can see, rather, the manner in which biblical writers interpreted their source material. They emphasized the point of view they needed to make in the context, underlining one perspective. In a different context, a different element of the tradition could be taken up and underlined. Such a different context is illustrated by comparing the present text with that of Josh 13:1–7 or Judg 1. The theme in Josh 21:43– 45 is the faithfulness of God in fulfilling his promises. God has done his part. No matter what the political situation of Israel in a later generation, be it the divided monarchy, the fall of the northern kingdom, or the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile, Israel could not blame God. God had faithfully done for Israel what he promised. 171 44 The meaning of the ultimate historian’s theology of rest is clear here. Rest is peace, the absence of enemies and war (see Josh 1:12–18). The verse is a counterpart to chap. 12, which concludes the first section of the book. It is the fulfillment of God’s promise in Exod 33:14. Both major sections of the book of Joshua thus end with a statement about God’s faithfulness in defeating the enemy. As in v 43, 168 169 170 171

Hawk (2010) 191. See also Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts. Hubbard, 457. Clarke, “Complete v. Incomplete Conquest,” 103. For the theme “promise to the fathers (ancestors),” see C. Westermann, Die Verheissungen an die Väter (FRLANT 116 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976] = The Promises to the Fathers, trans. D. Green [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980]). Reference here to the whole land signifies the completion of all God’s promises to the ancestors, though Knauf (178) limits it to Judah and Samaria on the basis of his redactional conclusions.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 238

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Explanation

239

the editor underlines one side of the whole. Israel won all her battles and gained control of the land. The one-time slave people have now become masters of their destiny and fate. This affirmation of victory and control, however, did not erase the other facts of life. Enemies abounded, and war was a constant threat. The book of Joshua stands as an example of how to act and gain similar victories in that future threat of war and defeat. War, just as peace, is to be conducted in accordance with divine command. The message of the book of Joshua is that obedient people must let God defeat their enemies and find God’s gift of peace. The book must not be misread as a call to universal war. It is a call to face all aspects of life in faith in the faithful God. 45 Here is the major emphasis of the section. God’s word can be trusted, and God fulfills his promises. The faithful community of God reads history as the story of God’s directing promises.

Explanation These three verses create a “rhetorical device for bringing the section and the book as a whole to a coherent and satisfying end.”172 The book of Joshua is to be read in light of these three verses, particularly v 45. God directs history for his people through his warning and judging word. The prophets then exemplify particularly this latter statement. Still again, the word of promise takes precedence in the production of the prophetic books.173 Such theology of faith and rest sounds good to the modern ears, but it seldom takes root in the modern assembly of the people of God. It raises many more questions than it calls forth answers. Who in the community can claim to hear the promising and/or judging word of God for the present? Who can point to fulfillment of God’s word in present historical events? Who can read from history the word of command to God’s people for the present situation? Our secular age has marginalized the thought of God’s continuing control of history. Was such an idea confined only to the nation of Israel? How do the people of God today understand their reality? That is the question posed by Josh 21:43– 45. Whatever method the present generation may find to hear, interpret, and live out the word of God in their current reality, Josh 21:43– 45 states that, on the basis of long experience with God, God’s word of promises and judgments will become historical reality.

D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34) Bibliography Albertz, R., ed. Kult, Konflikt und Versöhnung: Beiträge zur kultischen Sühne in religiösen, sozialen und politischen Auseinandersetzungen des antiken Mittelmeerraumes. AOAT 285. Veröffentlichungen des AZERKAVO/ SFB 493.2. Münster: Ugarit, 2001. Angel, Hayyim. 172 Hawk (2010) 190. 173 Note the discussion of R. E. Clements, Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach (Atlanta: John Knox, 1979) 131– 54.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 239

9/18/14 9:20 AM

240

D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34)

“There Is No Chronological order in the Torah: an axiom for understanding the book of Joshua.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 36 (2008) 3–11. Assis, E. “‘For It Shall Be a Witness between Us’: A Literary Reading of Jos. 22.” SJOT 18 (2004) 208–31. ———. “The Position and Function of Jos 22 in the Book of Joshua.” ZAW 116 (2004) 528–41. Auld, A. G. Joshua, Moses and the Land: Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch in a Generation since 1938. Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1980. ———. “Pluralism where least expected? Joshua 22 in Biblical context.” ExpTim 122 (2011) 374–79. ———. “Re-telling the Disputed ‘Altar’ in Joshua 22.” In The Book of Joshua. Ed. Ed Noort. Leuven: Peeters (2012) 281–94. Bissell, E. C. “Joshua XXII. 9–34 and the Israelitish Cultus.” Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis Notes 7 (1887) 61–63. Boecker, H. J. Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testament. WMANT 14. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964. 35–41, 118. Braulik, G. “’Die Weisung und das Gebot’ in Enneateuch.” In Manna fällt auch heute noch. New York: Herder (2004) 115–140. Callaway, R. “The Story of Joshua 22 Reconsidered: The Non-Sacrificial Altar.” Studium Biblicum Hong Kong. Hong Kong, 2005. Online: http:// www.sbofmhk.org/eng/Research/Biblical_research/bi_research_0003.html. Cholewinski, A. Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976. 24–26. Coats, G. W. “Conquest Traditions in the Wilderness Theme.” JBL 95 (1976) 177–90. ———. Rebellion in the Wilderness. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968. 32–37. Diebner, B. J., and H. Schult. “Die Stellung der Jerusalemer Orthodoxie zu den Yhwh-Altären in der Diaspora: Eine historische-kritische Spekulation zu Jos. 22:9–34.” DBAT 7 (1974) 33–37. Dinur, G. “’Itsuv ha-masha u-matan be-parashat mizbeah shene ha-shevatim u-hatsi hashevet (Yehoshuaʿ,” 22:9–34).” BMik 53 (2008) 89–122. ———. “The Design of the Dialogue in the Story of the Altar of the Two-and-a-Half Tribes (Joshua 22:9–34).” BMik 53 (2009) (Heb.). Dus, J. “Der Brauch der Ladewanderung im alten Israel.” TZ 17 (1961) 15–16. ———. “Die Lösung des Rätsels von Jos. 22.” ArOr 32 (1964) 529–46. Eissfeldt, O. “Monopol-Ansprüche des Heiligtums von Shilo.” OLZ 68 (1973) 327–33. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften. Vol. 6. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1979. 8–14. Fraine, J. de. “De altari Reubenitarum.” VD 25 (1947) 301–13. Goldstein, R. “Joshua 22:9–34: A Priestly Narrative from the Second Temple Period.” Shnaton 13 (2002) 443–82 (Heb.). Gordis, R. “A Note on Jos 22:34.” AJSL 47 (1931) 287–88. Gottwald, N. K. The Tribes of Yahweh. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979. Hackett, J. A. “Religious Tradition in Israelite Tradition.” In Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Ed. P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. 125–36. Haran, M. Temples and TempleService in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. Hermisson, H. J. Sprache und Ritus im altisraelitischen Kult. WMANT 19. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965. 99–101. Hertog, C. G. den. “Der geschichtliche Hintergrund der Erzählung Jos 22.” In Saxa loquentur: Studien zur Archäologie Palästinas/Israels: Festschrift für Volkmar Fritz. Ed. C. G. den Hertog, U. Hübner, and S. Münger. AOAT 302. Münster: Ugarit, 2003. 61–83. Jobling, D. K. “‘The Jordan: A Boundary’: A Reading of Numbers 32 and Joshua 22.” SBLSP 19 (1980) 183–207. ———. The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible II. JSOTSup 39. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. 98–99. Kloppenberg, J. S. “Joshua 22: The Priestly Editing of an Ancient Tradition.” Bib 62 (1981) 347–71. Knight, D. A. “Joshua 22 and the Ideology of Space.” In Imagining Biblical Worlds: Studies in Spatial, Social and Historical Constructs in Honour of James W. Flanagan. Ed. D. M. Gunn and P. McNutt. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. 51–63. Mazor, L. “The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua.” BIOSCS 27 (1994) 29–38. Meer, M. N. van der. Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses. VTSup 102. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Menes, A. “Tempel und Synagoge.” ZAW 50 (1932) 270–71. Möhlenbrink, K. “Die Landnahmensagen des Buches Josua.” ZAW 56 (1938) 246–50. Noort, E. “Der reissende Wolf: Josua in Überlieferung und Geschichte.” In Congress Volume, Leiden 2004. Ed. A. Lemaire. VTSup 109. Leiden: Brill, 2006. 153–73. ———. “Der Streit um

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 240

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Translation

241

den Altar: Josua 22 und seine Rezeptionsgeschichte.” In Kult, Konflikt und Versöhnung: Beiträge zur kultischen Sühne in religiösen, sozialen und politischen Auseinandersetzungen des antiken Mittelmeerraumes. Ed. R. Albertz. AOAT 285. Veröffentlichungen des AZERKAVO/ SFB 493.2. Münster: Ugarit, 2001. 151–74. Olyan, S. “Zadok’s Origins and the Tribal Politics of David.” JBL 101 (1982) 177–93. Organ, B. E. “Pursuing Phinehas: A Synchronic Reading.” CBQ 63 (2001) 203–18. Otto, E. Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal. BWANT 107. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1975. 170–71, 362. Polaski, D. C. “What Mean These Stones? Inscriptions, Textuality and Power in Persia and Yehud.” In Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period. Ed. J. L. Berquist. SemeiaSt 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2007. 37–48. Reimer, D. J. “The Old Testament and the Unity of the People of God.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 30 (2012) 6–20. Renckens, H. E. J. “Der zweifache Segen Josuas: Wie in Erzählung und Schrift die Vergangenheit zur Parabel und Thora wird. Ein Versuch Josua 22:1–9 zu erklären.” T&K 10 (1981) 25–37. Rudolph, W. Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua. BZAW 68. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1938. 238– 40. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. Josua und Salomo: Eine Studie zu Autorität und Legitimität des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament. VTSup 58. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Schenker, A. “Altar oder Altarmodell? Textgeschichte von Jos 22, 9–34.” In Florilegium lovaniense. Leuven (2008) 417–25. Schley, D. Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History. JSOTSup 63. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989. 121–26. Schmid, R. Das Bundesopfer in Israel. SANT 9. Munich: Kösel, 1964. 87–90, 116. Snaith, N. H. “The Altar at Gilgal: Jos 22:23–29.” VT 28 (1978) 330–35. Soggin, A. “On loʾ in Jos 22:20b.” BO 29 (1975) 229–30. Vaux, R. de. Histoire ancienne d’Israel. Vol. 1. Paris: Gabalda, 1971. 536–38. Translated as The Early History of Israel. Trans. D. Smith. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1978. 581–84. Vink, J. G. “The Date and Origin of the Priestly Code in the Old Testament.” OtSt 15 (1969) 73–77. Wehmeier, G. Der Segen im Alten Testament. Basel: Reinhardt, 1970. Zevit, Z. “Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P.” ZAW 94 (2009) 481–511

Translation 1Then

Joshua called to the Reubenites, a to the Gaddites, and to the half tribe of Manasseh b said to them, “You (pl.) have obeyed all that Moses, the servant of Yahweh, commanded you, and you have obeyed my voice according to all that I have commanded you. 3You (pl.) have not abandoned your brothers these many days up until this day, so that you have fulfilled a the obligation b of the commandment of Yahweh your God. 4Now, Yahweh your God has given rest to your a brothers just as he spoke to them. Therefore, turn and go for yourselves to your tents, to the land of your possession, which Moses, the servant of Yahweh, b gave to you beyond the Jordan. 5Only, be exceedingly careful to obey the commandments and the Torah, a which Moses, the servant of Yahweh, commanded you, b to love Yahweh your c God and to walk in all his ways d and to obey his commandments and to cleave to him and to serve him with all your heart and with all your being.” 6Joshua blessed them and sent them away, and they went to their tents. 7Now half of the tribe of Manasseh Moses had set up in Bashan, while half of it Joshua had set up with their brothers beyond a the Jordan to the west. It was also the case b that when Joshua sent them to their tents, he blessed them and said to them, 8“With great wealth, a return to your tents and with exceedingly large herds of cattle, with silver and gold, with bronze and iron, and with a large quantity of clothing. Divide the booty from your enemies with your brothers.” 9The sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad and half the tribe a of Manasseh turned and turned away from being with the sons of Israel, away from Shiloh, which was in the land of 2and

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 241

9/18/14 9:20 AM

242

D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34)

Canaan, to go to the land of Gilead, to the land of their possession which they themselves had seized to possess it, according to the word of Yahweh by the hand of Moses. 10They came to Geliloth of the Jordan, which was in the land of Canaan. The sons of Reuben a and the sons of Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar visible for miles. 11The sons of Israel heard, “The sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh have just built an altar at the edge of the land of Canaan, at the region of the Jordan on the side of the sons of Israel.” a 12The sons of Israel listened, a and all the congregation b of Israel assembled themselves at Shiloh to march up against them for war. 13The sons of Israel sent Phinehas, the son of Eleazar a the priest, to the sons of Reuben and to the sons of Gad and to b half the tribe of Manasseh to the land of Gilead. 14Along with him were ten chiefs, one each of the house of the father a for all the tribes of Israel, each the head of the house of their fathers b (they belonged to the clans of Israel). 15They came to the sons of Reuben a and to the sons of Gad and to half the tribe of Manasseh to the land of Gilead. They spoke with them, 16“Thus says all the assembly of Yahweh, a ‘What is this disobedience b with which you (pl.) have disobeyed the God of Israel to turn today from following after Yahweh, in that you have built for yourselves an altar of your rebellion today c against Yahweh? 17Was the sin of Peor too little for us, a the sin which we have not cleansed from among us until this day? It brought a plague against the congregation of Yahweh. 18“‘But you (pl.) are turning today from following after Yahweh. It will be so that you will rebel today against Yahweh, then tomorrow he will become angry with a all the assembly b of Israel. 19Now, indeed, (if) the land of your possession is impure, a pass over for yourselves to the land of the possession of Yahweh, where the tabernacle of Yahweh is dwelling, and seize for yourselves a possession in our midst. But against Yahweh do not rebel, and against us do (not) rebel b by building for yourselves an altar aside from the altar of Yahweh our God. 20Did not Achan the son of Zerah disobey with a disobedience of the ban so that on all the assembly of Israel came the anger, despite the fact that he was but one man? Did he not die on account of his sin?’” a 21The sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh answered. They told the heads of the clans of Israel, 22“El, God, Yahweh! El, God, Yahweh! He knows. May Israel know! If [we acted] in rebellion or if in disobedience against Yahweh, then you (sg.) a do not save us this day 23for a building for ourselves an altar to turn from following after Yahweh. And if (it was) to send on it a burnt offering and a sacrifice, or if to make upon it a peace offering, may Yahweh himself seek (us) out! 24“In truth, was it not because of anxiety from the state of affairs that we did this thing, in that we said, ‘Tomorrow your sons will say to our sons, “What is there between you and Yahweh, the God of Israel? 25But a boundary Yahweh has set up between us and you (pl.), the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad, a namely, the Jordan. There is no portion for you (pl.) in Yahweh.” Your sons would cause our sons to cease fearing Yahweh.’ 26We said, ‘Let us act for ourselves, a building the altar.’ 27“It is not for burnt offerings and not for sacrifices. Indeed, it is a witness between us and between you (pl.) and between our generations after us to perform the service of Yahweh before him with our burnt offerings and with our sacrifices and with our peace offerings. But your sons will not say tomorrow to our sons, ‘There is no portion for you (pl.) in Yahweh.’ 28We said, ‘When they talk to us and to our generations in the future, then we will say, “See the model of the altar of Yahweh which our fathers made. It is not for burnt offering nor for sacrifice, but it is a witness between us and between you (pl.).”’ a 29Far be it from us that we should rebel against Yahweh to turn today from following after Yahweh to build an altar for burnt

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 242

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

243

offering and for sacrifice and for offering except for the altar of Yahweh our God a which is before his tabernacle.” 30Phinehas the priest and the a chiefs of the assembly and the heads of the clans of Israel who were with him heard the words which the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad and the sons b of Manasseh spoke. It was good in their eyes. 31Phinehas, son of Eleazar a the priest, said to the sons of Reuben and to the sons of Gad and to the sons of Manasseh, “Today, we know that Yahweh is in our midst, because you (pl.) have not disobeyed Yahweh in this disobedience. In that way, b you have delivered the sons of Israel from the hand of Yahweh.” 32Phinehas, the son of Eleazar a the priest, and the chiefs returned from being with the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad, b from the land of Gilead, to the land of Canaan to the sons of Israel and reported unto them the matter. 33The matter was good in the eyes of the sons of Israel, and the sons of Israel a blessed God. But they did not command to go up against them for war to utterly destroy the land where the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad b were living. 34The sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad a named the altar because it was a witness between us that Yahweh is the God.

Notes 1.a. LXX reads “sons of Reuben” and “sons of Gad” rather than “Reubenites” and “Gadites,” another of many examples of variant expressions interchanged within the tradition. Nelson notes that this is the only use of these gentilic forms. Similar variation is evidenced in the ms variation between the two Heb. words ‫ מטה‬and ‫ שׁבט‬for “tribe.” Auld (Joshua, Moses, and the Land, 58) discovers that ‫ מטה‬is in the best mss but is a unique phrase registered only here, possibly because of the term in chap. 21, whereas most often ‫ שׁבט‬appears with the tribal names. 1.b. Auld (Joshua, Moses, and the Land, 58) finds the position of east Manasseh in Josh 22 to be anomalous. In vv 25, 32– 34, only Reuben and Gad are mentioned. The manner of mentioning Manasseh in the chapter varies: half the tribe of the sons of Manasseh, half the tribe of Manasseh, and the sons of Manasseh. Auld attempts to build a case with chaps. 13, 17, and 22 that 22:7 serves “to reinforce the recruitment of half Manasseh in the eastern tribes— a recruitment that occurred after the first drafting of the altar story.” Textually, Auld sees “the evidence of both MT and LXX could be accounted for by a hypothesis of inconsistent and independent supplementation of both versions of the tradition.” 3.a. The verbal construction with waw and pf. demands discussion. Within the narrative context, the simple pf. or impf. consec. is expected. LXX thus has aorist. Holmes (Joshua) says the MT must be a “modified imperative.” He follows Steuernagel, Holzinger 1901and others in omitting the conjunction and connecting the “up until this day” with “you have obeyed.” GKC §112ss lists seven examples of a “longer or constant continuance in a past state” represented by pf. with conjunction. GKC §112ff discusses the pf. consec. used to introduce the apodosis. This may be the meaning here, v 3a expressing the fulfilled condition and v 3b giving the result. Cf. Harstad, 680. 3.b. LXX and Syr. omit ‫משׁמרת‬, “obligation,” perhaps because they did not understand the nuance of the construction discussed in the previous note. Nelson explains the omission as haplography. 4.a. LXX uses “our” with “God” and “brothers,” perhaps to prevent any restriction of Yahweh to the Transjordanian tribes. Cf. v 5. 4.b. LXX does not witness “the servant of Yahweh,” which may be a later addition of a frequent title, but van der Meer (Formation and Reformulation, 186– 87) explains the LXX omission as “a modest attempt to avoid the repetitiveness of the ponderous text” (187). 5.a. Fritz sees “and the Torah” as a gloss, being superfluous in the context. When did superfluity become unusual or unacceptable in human speech? 5.b. LXX reads “us.” Cf. v 4d. 5.c. LXX reads “our God.” 5.d. “To walk in all his ways” does not appear in Syr. and could be a later insertion on the basis of Deut 10:12; 13:4. Nelson calls the Syr. omission the result of haplography.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 243

9/18/14 9:20 AM

244

D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34)

7.a. The MT has preserved different readings of the preposition: Kethib = ‫מ‬, Qere = ‫ב‬. 7.b. The two Heb. particles appear to serve separate functions here. ‫ גם‬functions at sentence level to emphasize the following action. ‫ כי‬introduces a temporal clause, the main clause then being introduced by the impf. consec. 8.a. LXX does not witness “and he said to them saying” and thus changes the following construction to read: “And with great wealth they returned to their homes, and exceedingly large herds of cattle and silver and gold and iron and a large quantity of clothing. They divided the booty of the enemies with their brothers,” omitting the opening verb of v 9. Following the lead of Dillmann, Holmes ( Joshua) changes the qal impv. ‫ חלקו‬to a piʿel indicative introducing, in a somewhat unusual fashion, a circumstantial clause to be translated, “Having divided. . . .” He says later tradition misunderstood the verbs as impvs. and then inserted the opening line of v 8 and the opening word of v 9. Holzinger (1901) is correct, however, in preferring MT as the more difficult reading. LXX understood the division of spoil as resulting in the wealth and thus transformed the sentence, which originally spoke of a wish (command) for division of spoil in future victories (cf. Steuernagel). Nelson follows MT but says it could have been caused by an attempt to “avoid a triple repetition of the return home (vv 6, 8 OG, 9).” Nelson also sees several haplographies in the Gk. tradition. 9.a. LXX brings parallelism by adding “sons” to “Manasseh” also. 10.a. Here and in vv 11 and 15, LXX transposes “Gad” before “Reuben.” LXX understood ‫ גלילות‬as “Gilgal,” but the Heb. term means “districts, regions” in Josh 13:2. The term is a proper name in 18:17 and may be so understood here (so Soggin, Noth). LXX translates the same term “Gilead” in v 11 (compare, however, Snaith, VT 28 [1978] 330– 35). 11.a. Nelson notes that the translation could put the altar on the eastern side of the Jordan since in the Heb. “both locational designations are ambiguous.” He puts it on the western side in light of v 10. 12.a. “The sons of Israel listened” repeats the phrase of v 11a and does not appear in LXX, Syr., or Vg. It may represent dittography. Holmes’ suggestion (Joshua) of homoioteleuton in LXX is less likely, but cf. Nelson. 12.b. LXX does not reproduce “congregation,” perhaps an addition in line with vv 16, 17, 18, 20, 30 in which “sons” does not appear, but contrast Josh 18:1. 13.a. LXX completes the genealogy with “sons of Aaron.” 13.b. Cf. Note 9.a. 14.a. Syr. does not witness “of the house of the father,” which could represent partial dittography from v 14b (Noth; Soggin; Fritz). MT is the more difficult reading and is supported by LXX (cf. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle), whereas Syr. deletes the phrase in both parts of the verse (cf. Preliminary and Interim Report). 14.b. Holzinger (1901) calls v 14b “untranslatable.” Fritz says “of the house of their fathers” is a gloss that does not fit the context but harmonizes the text’s social structure terminology with that of the Priestly writings. Nelson points to Num 17:2 (Heb. 17), where “patriarchal house . . . is effectively synonymous with tribe.” 15.a. Cf. Note 10.a. 16.a. The tendency of the tradition to interchange familiar phrases is witnessed by Heb. and Tg. MSS reading “Israel,” while other Heb., Gk. and Arabic evidence points to “sons of Israel” (cf. BHS). 16. b. Nelson follows J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991) 345– 46, in translating ‫מעל‬, “sacrilege.” 16.c. LXX does not witness the second “today,” which may be dittography in MT or simplification by LXX. 17.a. Williams (Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, 59) calls the construction a “determinative accusative.” See Note on Josh 9:24. IBHS 10.3.2c notes ‫ את‬as marking the subject of a verbless clause. 18.a. Fritz wants to emend ‫ אל‬to ‫על‬. 18.b. LXX omits “assembly.” Cf. Note 12.b. 19.a. LXX reads “too little” for impure. Holmes (Joshua) follows Masius in suggesting an inner- Gk. error: μιαρα>μικρα; cf. van der Meer (Formation and Reformulation, 235). Holzinger (1901) may be correct in saying LXX did not understand the text. Mazor (BIOSCS 27

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 244

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

245

[1994] 37) believes MT has a hostile view of Transjordan, but such an opinion is making a lot out of a little evidence. See Note 1:14.b. 19.b. For “against us, do not rebel,” LXX reads, “do not rebel against the Lord,” after having read the preceding as “do not become rebellious against God.” This may point to variant readings incorporated into the text (Steuernagel). MT reads ‫מרד‬, “rebel,” followed by the preposition ‫ ב‬then followed by the sign of the accusative. The latter occurs nowhere else in the OT. Ehrlich, followed by Noth, Fritz, Nelson, and Soggin, suggests reading the hipʿil, thus creating a usage nowhere witnessed in MT (cf. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle). Holmes (Joshua) suggests that the MT rests on the LXX repetition with ‫ ביהוה‬later being changed to ‫ואותנו‬. Either the writer used a rare grammatical form for variety, or the text has become so disturbed that the original reading cannot be restored. If one reads the MT, then the pointing of Leningrad must be changed with many Heb. witnesses from ‫ ֶאל‬, “to,” to ‫ ַאל‬, “not” (Preliminary and Interim Report; Fritz; see discussion by Barthélemy, Critique textuelle). 20.a. The syntax of this verse is extremely difficult. LXX introduces an extra “behold” at the beginning, and follows its regular pattern of transcribing the name “Achar” (cf. Josh 7:1). Thus it reads, “Behold, did not Achar the one of Zara transgress a transgression in regard to the ban, and upon all the assembly of Israel wrath came. This one alone himself died on account of his own sin.” NETS reads, “Look! Did not Achar the son of Zara commit a trespass from what was devoted, and there was anger upon the whole congregation of Israel? And he was not one lone person. Did he alone die for his own sin?” LXX B appears to have suffered haplography. LXX A restores the text to “And this one was alone. Not only this one died on account of his own sin.” LXX does not appear to witness the negative, while Heb. does not have an equivalent for “alone.” Nor does Heb. represent an expressed interrogative unless one carries it over as understood from the sentence’s initial interrogative. Nelson admits the possibility of the interrogative translation but chooses this for his text: “Did not Achan son of Zerah commit sacrilege with the things devoted to destruction? Wrath came on the whole community of Israel, and he was not the only one to die for his offense.” Holmes (Joshua) explained the text as a result of two interpolations, first “one” from Deut 24:16 then, after the LXX, “not” on the basis of 7:24ff., where Achan’s family also died. Soggin translates “and if only he had perished alone for his iniquity!” following the Vg. in reading ‫ ל ֹא‬for ‫לוֹ‬. With all this, the interpretation of Steuernagel remains the most likely. He accepts the interrogative context, suggesting perhaps emendation to add the interrogative particle. He then ties “and he was one man” to the preceding clause as a conditional clause. The final clause then shows the gravity of the divine anger. 22.a. The 2nd pers. address to deity is surprising in context of the immediately preceding 3rd pers. reference. Most commentators thus read the 3rd pers. here with LXX, Syr., and Vg. (see Fritz). Such change of persons is not uncommon in Heb. and should not so readily be ignored (Hertzberg; Gray). Holmes’ change (Joshua) to “the God of Israel” on the basis of v 16 is too speculative. 23.a. The Heb. inf. construction ties back to the preceding verse. LXX, followed by many modern commentators, simplifies the construction by introducing “and if” at the beginning. This results in ignoring the “and if” that does occur in the Heb. in the middle of the verse. LXX also expands the divine title to “following after Yahweh our God.” 25.a. LXX and Syr. do not reproduce “the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad,” probably a later insertion to give explicit identification (Fritz; Nelson). 26.a. An attempt is often made to provide an object for the verb “to make” (cf. Soggin; Noth), but ‫ עשׁה‬can have an absolute sense “to act.” 28.a. LXX transposes “between us and between you (pl.)” and adds from the context “and between our sons.” 29.a. LXX does not witness “our God” while Syr. adds “of Israel,” again witnessing the tendency of the tradition to interchange familiar expressions. LXX may be original here. 30.a. LXX adds “all” and omits “the heads of the clans,” which may be an insertion of the tradition on the basis of v 14b. 30.b. MT’s “sons of Manasseh” here and in v 31 incorporates the addition by LXX in vv 9 and 13 but omits the normal reference to the half tribe. LXX here reads “half tribe” without “sons,” showing the fluctuation in the transmission of the text. 31.a. LXX does not witness “the son of Eleazer,” which may be an amplification of the tradition. Cf. Note 13.a.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 245

9/18/14 9:20 AM

246

D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34)

31.b. IBHS 39.3.4f sees a logical use of ‫ אז‬here, translating “(As a result we can conclude) now, (that) you saved.” 32.a. See Note 31.a. 32.b. The absence in MT of reference to Manasseh is surprising and is corrected by LXX. Cf. vv 33, 34. 33.a. The tradition could not accept a blessing in the mouth of the people. Thus LXX represents a theological correction in its reading, “They blessed the God of the sons of Israel.” This resulted in the addition in LXX of a preceding clause, “and they spoke to the sons of Israel.” 33.b. See Note 32.a. 34.a. LXX inserts “Joshua” as the subject, relegating the tribes to the possessors of the altar. Again LXX includes the half tribe of Manasseh (cf. vv 32b, 31a.). This also resulted in the final clause reading “and he said that it is between them that the Lord is their God.” Nelson calls MT “enigmatic, apparently not explicitly expressing the name of the altar.” Many scholars seek on the basis of Syr. to find an explicit name for the altar, namely, “Witness” (Steuernagel; Holmes [Joshua]; NRSV) or “Gilead” (Dillmann; Holzinger 1901) or something scandalous (Noth; Soggin). The MT can be interpreted in at least three ways, the last line being causal, a name, or a quotation (Preliminary and Interim Report). Barthélemy (Critique textuelle) points to the literary level rather than the textual to say that an editor has removed the name of the altar as offensive.

Form/Structure/Setting Chap. 22 can be subdivided in several distinct ways, due to the nature of vv 1– 8. These verses clearly form a theological summary, building a bridge back to the message of Josh 1:12–18. As such, they tie to the theme of 21:43– 45. At the same time, they have a message of their own and can be considered independently. In the context of the book of Joshua, this chapter functions as a transition to the narrative concerning the East Jordan tribes in vv 9– 34. ‫ ָאז‬, “then” (v 1), marks a new beginning, separating this chapter from the previous one. The reversed sentence order of v 7 might be taken as the sign of a new section, but its content reveals that it is being set off as a contrast to what precedes, not as a new section within the larger structure. Similarly, v 9 introduces a new phase in the narrative, but the imperfect consecutive ties it closely to the preceding structure, while the subject matter gives both a conclusion to what precedes and an introduction to what follows. Syntax and content thus render the entire chapter as a single unit. It concludes with the formulaic structure of v 34 and a temporal clause marking a new opening at 23:1. Hess points out, in fact, that the final three chapters of Joshua “all focus on a single matter, the proper worship of Israel’s God.”174

Tradition This section appears to reflect a unique narrative type in Israel. Hess finds no clear example of a story like this concerning building an altar as a monument.175 It also presents a somewhat shocking view of Israel. As Knight calculates: the chapter refers to Israel nineteen times, sixteen times to the western tribes, while only three to the eastern ones.176 Thus chap. 22 defines Israel as the western tribes and “also portrays them as the guardians of the faith, condemning the Eastern tribes with the same term, maʿal (ֹ ‫ )מעל‬as used to accuse Achan in 7:1.”177 174 175 176 177

Hess (1996) 287. Hess (2009) 78. “Joshua 22,” 56. Ibid., 57.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 246

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

247

If the tradition has ancient roots—which Fritz dismisses178—then, they would have to be located in the period prior to Samuel, when the Shiloh sanctuary occupied a strong position in Israel’s cultic life (cf. Judg 21:12, 19), a time when the Ephraimites asserted themselves over the tribe of Benjamin and the East Jordan tribes (Judg 12:1; 19–20; cf. Judg 8:1). The tradition would then mark an agreement between the Israelites centered at Shiloh with the tribes from East Jordan and whoever else (e.g., Benjamin) maintained the sanctuary at Gilgal.179 Such an agreement would have recognized that Shiloh was the central sanctuary rather than Gilgal. The actual power of the agreement would have been short- lived since Gilgal quickly lost its cultic significance. The Shiloh tradition lived on, however, in the exiled priesthood in Anathoth (1 Kgs 2:27). The Shiloh tradition may have exercised an important influence on the book of Joshua as a whole. A major section of the book is dominated by Gilgal narratives, but the closing section reflects the importance of Shiloh (Josh 18:1–22:34). Did the tradition as a whole gain its contours at the time of Shiloh’s dominance? This old story, rooted in the feuding of Israelite tribes and cults, was taken up by the biblical writer to proclaim the word of God in a quite different setting. The exile had produced further divisions between the former exiles and those who remained behind. The worship place is no longer Shiloh, but Jerusalem, where the temple lies in ruins. Worship may well again center around a holy tent within the sacred ruins. The people of power and influence, however, are no longer there. They live in Babylon in exile. They face the question of worship far beyond the Jordan. The old narrative finds a resolution for the new crisis in worship. Worship beyond the Jordan, in exile, away from God’s land of possession, can be carried out. Such worship, however, cannot be the normal sacrificial worship of Jerusalem.180 Such tension lived on, however. Josh 22 stood as an ever-real need for the people of Israel during the exile and the years of the second temple. Its importance became even more acute with the rise of yet another schism within the people of God. Ezra and Nehemiah reflect the growing tension between the people of the north around Samaria and the people of Jerusalem. Josh 22 provided a possible solution for this tension as well,181 but the solution was never accepted and realized. Thus an old tradition spoke to ever-new historical realities for the people of God. It is probable that each of these new situations left its mark on the tradition as God used his word to work out the tensions among his people.

Source and Redaction182 Traditional critical scholarship finds Priestly and Deuteronomistic language converging here and pointing to a late date for the material. Thus Nelson divides the text at v 7, with vv 1– 6 being Deuteronomistic and vv 9–34 Priestly, admitting “distinctive features that set this narrative apart from the Pentateuchal source.”183 Fritz finds vv 7– 8 to be a parenthesis interjecting the eastern half of Manasseh into a narrative originally concerning only Gad and Reuben.184 Fritz sees vv 1– 6 as a 178 179 180 181 182 183 184

Fritz, 221. Cf. Möhlenbrink, ZAW 56 (1938) 246– 50; Otto, Mazzotfest. Cf. Menes, ZAW 50 (1932) 270–71. Vink, OtSt 15 (1969) 73–77. For a review of previous study, see Pitkänen, 363– 67. Nelson, 247. Fritz, 220.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 247

9/18/14 9:20 AM

248

D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34)

redactional insertion created after the Deuteronomistic redaction. V 9 is the actual narrative introduction, while v 11 is an unnecessary interruption. Other later additions appear in v 20 and in the verses introduced in the last part of vv 27–29. The remaining story appears in vv 9–10, 21, most of 27, 30–34 and is Priestly, belonging to a post- Priestly redaction. Schley modifies the classical view a bit by assigning vv 8, 24 to JE and excising Manasseh from the original narrative.185 Callaway posits several possible endings for the story: vv 7– 9; 9–10 and 33; and 10 and 34.186 He suggests the “bracketing verses,” vv 7–10 and 33– 34, “are cohesive, the quarreling regarding the altar makes no sense without the bracketing verses in some format. As a minimum, if one assumes an intrusive element, it is likely to be vv 11–33 either in part or in whole.”187 A canonical approach leaves Callaway without clear parallels in the “Primary History,” that is Genesis– Kings. He sees as useful Jobling’s idea that Josh 22 serves as a conclusion to Num 32.188 Creach describes “the rather unified story that comes from their combination.”189 Even for Nelson the redactional effort “works fairly well.” Coote finds Priestly language and motifs added to a Deuteronomistic story, admitting: “It is not always certain what was added.”190 The uncertainty of the source and redaction again reflects what appears to be a splintered community where educated writers have their own vocabulary and interests and are unable to utilize the language and beliefs of another group to make a point. United monarchy writers may just as well be divided into two or more groups of writers and royal functionaries, the one emphasizing the continued choice of a worship place by Yahweh and the other the role(s) of the priests in maintaining the foundational beliefs and practices of the religion of Moses and Aaron. The ultimate editor thus would most likely emphasize the central place of worship by incorporating oral tradition preserved by the priesthood of Shiloh prior to being absorbed into the Jerusalem tradition. One therefore reads with interest the viewpoint of Pitkänen, heavily influenced by Milgrom and Ottosson, that the theology of the passage is Deuteronomic but the literary ties are with Numbers. This leads Pitkänen to postulate that the Priestly material comes from Shiloh and the Shiloh sanctuary with its tent of meeting. This places the bulk of chap. 22 into the premonarchic period and denies any existence of a Deuteronomistic history.

Form Nelson states that the narrative “exhibits an oblique affinity to sanctuary legends” involving building and naming an altar with a “more direct narratival connection to Gen 31:43– 54.”191 He concludes that “literary and theological concerns

185 186 187 188 189 190 191

Shiloh, 121–26. “Story of Joshua 22 Reconsidered,” 2. Ibid. Jobling, Sense of Biblical Narrative, 98– 99. Creach, 106. Coote, 707. Nelson, 248; cf. Assis, ZAW 116 (2004) 539– 40, who calls Josh 22 a mirror reflection of Gen 31.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 248

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

249

have overwhelmed whatever traditional narrative may have originally provided the author with inspiration.” Fritz pares the narrative down to a complete place-name etiology with the name of the altar having disappeared.192 This is not much of a narrative form when the major component is absent. Callaway classifies Josh 22 as a story of “dispute and resolution.”193 The chapter divides into two major parts: vv 1– 8 and vv 9– 34. The first part represents the ultimate editor’s formulation to bring closure to the conversation with the eastern tribes that began in chap. 1. This creates the large editorial sandwich around the rest of the cross, conquer, and consign narratives of chaps. 2–21. The narrative section (vv 9–34) has two major parts. The first (vv 9–12) is a narrative introduction to the second (vv 13–34), which follows the pattern of official consultations seeking to avoid formal judicial action:194 I. Narrative introduction (vv 9–12) A. Departure from Israel to Gilead—v 9 B. Arrival at Jordan and construction of altar—v 10 C. Angry reaction of Israel: preparation for holy war—vv 11–12 II. Consultation to avoid judicial and military involvement (vv 13–34) A. Delegation sent—vv 13–15 B. Messenger speech—vv 16–20 1. Formula of accusation—v 16a 2. Detailed testimony describing guilt—v 16b 3. Precedence case used to predict consequences—vv 17–18 4. Alternative proposal to settle dispute—v 19a 5. Warning against present policies—v 19b 6. Precedence case to support warning—v 20 C. Defense testimony—vv 21–29 1. Introduction—v 21 2. Oath of purgation—v 22 3. Sworn denial of accusation—v 23 4. Formula of appeasement under oath—vv 24–29 a. Appeasement formula with oath—v 24a b. Conditions motivating action—vv 24b–25 c. Purpose of action—vv 26–28 d. Oath of innocence—v 29 D. Resolution—vv 30–34 1. Defense testimony accepted—v 30 2. Verdict announced—v 31 3. Announcement to accusers—v 32 4. Acceptance and response by accusers—v 33 5. Response of accused—v 34 Each side in the case faces a major problem if the case is not won. Nelson presents the alternatives well: “For one party the problem is the future possibility of 192 Fritz, 220. 193 “Story of Joshua 22 Reconsidered,” 7. 194 Cf. Boecker, Redeformen.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 249

9/18/14 9:20 AM

250

D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34)

losing their acceptance as Yahweh’s people; for the other the problem is residency outside Yahweh’s territory and what appears to be an act of apostasy.”195

Table 22.1. Structure and Form of Joshua 22 Narrative Element Exposition (pf. or disjunctive); not a narrative but a series of speeches Past relationships Present actions Blessing for future

“National” unity threatened Exposition (pf. or disjunctive); eastern tribes leave sons of Israel Complication: building an altar brings war Change or crisis (speech or dialogue): investigation committee commissioned and conducts investigation

Passage

Genre Marker

Element

Passage

Marker

Speech of ultimate editor

vv 1–8

Dismissal speech with Closure parallels to Josh 1 Then he called and said You obeyed

vv 1–3

You (intensive) kept

Introduction

v1

vv 4–6

‫ ַרק‬. . . ‫וְ ַﬠ ָתּה‬ Sent them and blessed them

Commendation

vv 2–3

Results of past obedience

v4

Command for future obedience

v5

Blessing, dismissal, departure Dismissal of eastern Manasseh with blessing Avoiding

v6

I. Narrative introduction

vv 9–12

They returned . . . to the land

II. Consultation to avoid judicial and military involvement

vv 13–34

They sent Phineas et al.

Delegation sent

vv 13–15

Messenger speech Defense testimony

vv 16–20

vv 7–8

vv 9–10a

No marker; tied to vv. 1–8 as exposition

vv 10b–12

Impf. consec.

vv 13–29

Dialogue

vv 7–8

Now Yahweh has given you rest Now continue to keep the commandments Joshua blessed them Disjunctive; when he sent, he blessed Procedures

vv 21–29

195 Nelson, 249.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 250

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting Narrative

251 Genre

Element

Passage

Marker

Resolution: commission report Ending/ denouement: establishing the altar

vv 30–33

Impf. consec.

v 34

Formulaic

Element Resolution

Passage

Marker

vv 30–34

Structure A structural description of the chapter shows that it contains two basic subsections: an opening theological summary (vv 1– 8) and the narrative (vv 9– 34). A formal analysis of each of these reveals the original setting and purpose of each.196 Coote suggests a fourfold frame around the conquest and allotment narratives:197 1. Joshua received his commission and mustered the Israelites 2. Joshua called on and gained the assent of the east-bank tribes to join their west-bank tribes in fighting until the land was conquered 3. Rahab was loyal 4. Israel crossed the Jordan This is paralleled at the end of the book (employing some modifications of Coote’s explanations): 4a. 3a. 2a. 1a.

East-bank tribes prepare to cross Jordan An act resembling Aachan’s disloyalty turns out to be closer to Rahab’s loyalty The east-bank group proves its loyalty to the unity of Israel The west-bank tribes reaffirm loyalty to the east-bank ones

Coote is thus able to conclude with only a bit of overplay that the “writer matched the story of Israel’s crossing of the Jordan (chaps. 3– 5) with the story of the building of the altar at the Jordan (chap. 22).”198 To meet his parallel scheme, Coote would have to extend the chapters to 1– 5. Vv 1– 8 form the editor’s conclusion to the East Jordan tribes’ participation in the conquest. As so often in such editorial summaries, it is given in monologue form (vv 1– 6, 8), interrupted only by a brief historical review (v 7). It can be outlined: I. Dismissal of East Jordan tribes (vv 1– 6) A. Introduction (v 1) B. Commendation (v 2) C. Reason for commendation detailed (v 3) D. Results of obedience (v 4) E. Command for the future (v 5) F. Blessing, dismissal, and departure (v 6) 196 See the excursus by Pitkänen, 352– 54. 197 Coote, 706. 198 Ibid., 707.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 251

9/18/14 9:20 AM

252

D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34)

II. Dismissal of eastern Manasseh (vv 7– 8) A. Historical setting (v 7) B. Blessing in imperative form (v 8) The two dismissal passages appear to be complete in themselves. In fact, the eastern Manasseh dismissal appears almost as a secondary addition to emphasize the split in the tribe of Manasseh. With regard to content, the following narrative (vv 9–34) appears to be complete in itself, but syntax with its imperfect consecutive gives a clue that the ultimate editor tied these together. Hawk suggests that the “narrator creates a sense of closure by drawing structural, lexical, and thematic connections to the beginning of the book.”199 Vv 1– 8 not only give closure to chaps. 1–22 by repeating the language of chap. 1 but also serve as part of the exposition of vv 9–34 by describing the obedience and loyalty the eastern tribes have in relationship to God and to the western tribes. Here the editor sets up the narrative as one about loyalty and unity among tribal groups. The complication (vv 10b–12) comes as the easterners head to their God- given possessions but are described as going away from the sanctuary at Shiloh, away from the sons of Israel, away from the land of Canaan, that is, away from the land of promise. They decide to build an altar but give no reason for doing so. The sons of Israel come back to Shiloh, where they had just parted from the easterners, and declare war on the easterners. The conflict (vv 13–29) turns attention from war to religious crime so that the chief priest heads a delegation to prevent war and formal judicial action against the easterners. Included in the delegation are representatives of ten tribes, thus west Manasseh is investigating east Manasseh. The delegations’ assumption is guilt, indeed guilt before God. The delegation ties the present sin back to the infamous sin east of the Jordan at Peor. The westerners fear God’s judgment will come on all the people, east and west, an indication that they know east and west form one people, though many hints in the narrative point to their acting as if west were superior to east. The implication is that Israel, east or west, may only worship Yahweh in one sanctuary, the one at Shiloh in the west. The reader then raises the question if loyalty to Shiloh originated in a Deuteronomistic defense of a single worship site of Yahweh’s choosing. Or, does the loyalty represent a type of competition among several worship sites as seen in Judges— Gilgal, Bethel, Shiloh, Dan, Ophrah, Shechem, etc.? Is the abnormal size of the new altar for visibility, for a memorial, or for competition?200 After the delegation from the west states its accusations against the easterners, the time for the easterners’ defense comes. They reveal their unspoken purpose: to maintain their claim to membership in Israel for future generations who might forget the history and tradition. The narrative resolution (vv 30–33) brings the delegation’s report clearing the easterners and restoring the wished-for unity among the tribes. Ironically, the delegation declares that the easterners’ innocence in face of westerners’ accusations has brought deliverance to the westerners, still called the sons of Israel. 199 Hawk (2010) 203. 200 For unique linguistic ties to Joshua 22 see Auld, “Re- telling the Disputed ‘Altar’ in Joshua 22.”

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 252

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

253

The narrative ending (v 34) remains a bit obscure in reporting the act of naming the altar without recording the name. The sense appears to be that the easterners could name the altar, thus giving it identity and legitimacy as a witness to the unity between east and west. With a few signs of awkwardness and perhaps the integration of a traditional story into a narrative frame, Josh 22 “is skillfully integrated into the book. This narrative demonstrates the idea that the tribes of Israel who divided the land into 12 separate portions still form a united nation. This is illustrated in the depiction of a dangerous conflict caused by the two parties’ commitment to the unity of the people, and prevented by that very same commitment.”201

Setting Knauf finds the central theme to be God’s land and how people in diaspora, away from the land, can find the divine presence in the fifth century BCE when they do not yet have the Torah. He ties this to the request of Jews in Egypt to rebuild a temple in Elephantine, which was approved but without the allowance to make burnt sacrifices.202 This suggests that the book is a product of the Diaspora, written outside the land of promise for the needs of the Diaspora population, not for the people of the land. This fits Knauf’s comments concerning scribes who were working with mistaken information and did not know geography or chronology. It fits well a scribal religion developed in exile. It explains the east/west orientation when most of Israel’s problems during the monarchy were north/south. It does not fit at all the biblical claim to be preserving historical traditions of the period of Israel’s national beginnings in the land prior to the monarchy. Formal analysis raises two questions. Where was such legal language employed to relate this type of narrative? And, in what context was the narrative preserved? Neither question can be answered with certainty. Creach echoes the reply of most critical scholars by pointing to a postexilic setting “when the territory east of the Jordan was considered non-Israelite.”203 Nelson sees the east- of-the- Jordan problem arising under the Assyrian administration system with the problem of a Jordanian dividing line coming only with Ezek 47:13– 48:29. Knight sees the centralization of worship theme as signifying a Deuteronomistic program and the narrative at least “heavily modified” by the “Deuteronomistic group seeking to secure the allegiance of Israel- Canaan.”204 Knight’s Deuteronomistic group is at home in the Persian period “when the restoration of the land was a dominant concern.” The writers had a dual purpose, according to Knight: to legitimate Judeans’ residence in the land and the “divinely ordained centrality of worship in Jerusalem.”205 Assis finds that the content “reflects a time period after Joshua’s death.”206 Assis points to the required developmental time for a sociological idea such as fearing 201 202 203 204 205 206

Assis, ZAW 116 (2004) 540. Knauf, 182– 84. Creach, 109. “Joshua 22,” 57. Ibid., 60. ZAW 116 (2004) 535.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 253

9/18/14 9:20 AM

254

D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34)

that the river would bring separation from Cisjordan tribes. If it had come from Joshua’s time period, the story should have reflected tribal unity, not diversity. Schley sees a northern setting for the material since it emphasizes the northern shrine of Shiloh and the absence of the Zadokite priesthood.207 Callaway puts the accent on the tabernacle, not on Shiloh.208 The cultic nature of the material suggests that its origins are within the priestly circles of Israel. This is reinforced by the strange fact that Phinehas, the priest, not Joshua, is the major character of the narrative. Two sanctuaries appear in the narrative: Shiloh and one of the East Jordan tribes on the Jordan. The LXX may be correct in identifying the latter with Gilgal.209 The present narrative is certainly a victory for the Shiloh tradition. Sacrificial worship is restricted to Shiloh, being forbidden at Gilgal. This stands over against the history of Gilgal, which was carefully legitimated and used as an official sanctuary (Josh 4:19–5:15), served as the center for festive treaty making (Josh 9:6–15), and had a tradition of sacrificial offerings (1 Sam 10:8; 11:15; 13:8–14; 15:12–15, 21; Amos 4:4–5).210 As the Samuel passages show, Gilgal was closely tied to King Saul. Samuel himself, however, had roots in Shiloh (1 Sam 1– 4). These roots were torn away by the Philistine conquest in which Shiloh lost its priesthood, its ark, and probably its existence or at least its cultic significance (1 Sam 4; Jer 7:12, 14; 26:6, 9; Ps 78:60).211 The name Phinehas was part of the Shilonite Priestly tradition (1 Sam 1:3; 2:34; 4:4, 11, 17, 19; 14:3). Nothing about this narrative consigns it to the later stages of Israel’s history. Ir represents an internal struggle among the tribes of Israel, not an allegorical application to Israel’s fight for legitimation and freedom from controlling international powers. Exiled Jews in Babylon might easily read the narrative in light of their plight, but such a narrative gives no hints of arising in Babylon except for the east/ west orientation and the separating river. The story fits the period of the Judges when different dialects, different occupations, different degrees of freedom from other nations, different degrees of control of the allotted land, different sanctuaries, and different types of leaders characterized the people Israel. In a book so aimed at honoring Joshua and naming him as the servant of the Lord, the unexpected focus on the high priest lends credulity to the story of Josh 22. The abrupt switch from Deuteronomistic to Priestly language represents a basic narrative introduced by an ultimate editor whose pattern came from Josh 1. The tradition was preserved in the Shiloh sanctuary under Eli and Samuel. These traditions moved to Jerusalem with David’s move there and joined traditions from Gilgal, Shechem, Gibeon, Beersheba, Bethel, etc. The likely setting for the final composition is the period of the united monarchy, especially the time of David, when the king crossed the Jordan to Saul’s headquarters and again when facing Absalom’s revolt. The Phinehas story legitimated the southern king’s claims to the territory of Saul and the plans to center worship in Jerusalem. 207 Schley, Shiloh. 208 “Story of Joshua 22 Reconsidered,” 2. 209 See Soggin; Snaith, VT 28 (1978) 330– 35; Otto, Mazzotfest; Möhlenbrink, ZAW 56 (1938) 246– 50. 210 Cf. H. J. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT 8/1 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973) 210–11. 211 Cf. A. Kempinski, EAEHL, 4:1098–1100; but see M. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980).

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 254

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

255

Comments 1 ‫ ָאז‬, “then,” introduces a new narrative unit indicating its occurrence at the same time as the previous narrative.212 ‫מטה‬, “tribe,” occurs only here and in v 14 in this chapter, in which ‫שׁבט‬, its synonym, appears seven times. This follows a pattern of the book. In chaps. 1–12, ‫ מטה‬appears only with “Achan” in Josh 7:1, 18; ‫ שׁבט‬thirteen times. In chaps. 13–21, ‫ מטה‬is used fifty-three times, while ‫ שׁבט‬appears only with notices about the Levites (13:14, 33), and in the editor’s introductions (13:7; 18:2, 4, 7) and notes (13:33; 21:16). This makes it probable that the notation here in 22:1 is also from the editor, intent on including half of Manasseh in a section where specific mention of half of Manasseh comes in vv 7– 8. The concern with the eastern Jordan tribes here is significant. The entire Joshua narrative is framed by a concern for the people of God living outside the actual Promised Land. This may reflect the setting of the major editorial work of the book (see “Setting” above). Josh 22 at first reflects the same spirit as Judg 12, where dialect differences and political differences separate east and west. Knight claims the Judges narrative “provides further indication of suspicions or antipathy persisting between east and west.”213 2 The command of Josh 1:13–15 and the pledge of 1:16–18 have been realized. No reasons can be given to condemn those tribes dwelling outside the Promised Land. They have been faithful to the two great commanders of Israel, Moses and Joshua. The reference to commands of both Moses and Joshua “puts Joshua on a footing almost equal to Moses. . . . Joshua 22:1– 6 depicts Joshua as a fully endowed successor to Moses.”214 The repeated note of obedience “underscores the positive portrayal of the Transjordanian tribes as obedient.”215 3 The writer surprises by describing the eastern tribes’ extended length of service. As Howard notes: “No specific indication of the length of time is given, but this reference combines with the similar reference in 11:18 . . . to indicate that the taking of the land was not done in a single, short campaign, contrary to the impression sometimes given by the battle summaries in chaps. 10–11.”216 The praise of faithfulness to their kindred in the land has specific relevance for many periods in Israel’s history as dividing factors elicit a call for unity. This applies to the periods of David and Saul, Rehoboam and Jeroboam, Josiah and his expansion dreams, etc. One particularly applicable period is the exile. Babylonian Jews cannot be condemned for unfaithfulness. No one geographical group of God’s people has a monopoly on faithfulness and obedience. The term ‫משׁמרת‬, “obligation to God” or “charge given by God,” appears in several highly significant summary contexts (Gen 26:5; Lev 8:35; 18:30; 22:9; Num 9:19, 23; Deut 11:1; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Chr 13:11; otherwise only 2 Chr 23:6; Mal 3:14). God’s covenant people have a command or charge from God to obey the commandments God gives. Joshua’s generation is commended as one generation that did not forsake God or quit obeying his expectations. 212 213 214 215 216

See Howard, 238, n. 192. “Joshua 22,” 58– 59. Creach, 108. Assis, SJOT 18 (2004) 209. Howard, 403.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 255

9/18/14 9:20 AM

256

D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34)

4 The result of faithfulness is rest, the precise reward promised in Josh 1:15 (cf. 21:43– 44). The reward, however, is for the kindred, since the East Jordan tribes already have their rest (1:13). The easterners now simply receive the command to return and enjoy that rest. This has particular significance in light of the following narrative in which the brothers bring accusation of unfaithfulness against the East Jordan tribes. The accusing West Jordan tribes can enjoy their “rest” only because of the faithfulness of their East Jordan kindred. It appears at this point that rest has been achieved, and so the end of the story has come. But the story continues, for Israel must test its unity and look toward its future identity. 5 Return to rest does not mean return to forget or neglect obligation. God demands faithfulness in peace and prosperity as well as in war and danger. The command echoes that given to Joshua in 1:7. It is a summary of the charge of Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 10:12–13, 20; 11:1; 6:4–15; 13:4– 5 [3– 4]; 30:15–20). It is the definition of the people of God. The individual- God relationship is not a legalism done in fear, nor a business transaction done with pride of achievement. It is a relationship of love and devotion, obeying and worshiping out of free choice. Knauf translates ‫אהב‬, “love,” with verehren, “to serve, honor, worship.”217 He claims that the idea of loving God first appeared in the postbiblical mystics, the Hebrew term being limited to human love until that time. Such a conclusion goes against all the primary lexical tools.218 Love is more than emotion. It involves covenant commitment to honor and obey as well as to feel committed to in love.219 Knauf defines “to serve God” as to worship him in the cult with personal expense, cost, and work.220 He also points to the heart as the center of intellect and to the entire soul as the vitality that gives life and energy. He notes too that the Bible does not have a doctrine of the soul. 6 Blessing is not necessarily connected with the cult for ancient Israel. Here it is simply part of the formula of taking leave and saying goodbye. Included is the wish for luck and prosperity (v 8).221 Having distributed the land after gaining control of it, Joshua’s commission is complete. He can retire to his inheritance given by the people and wait until it is time for his final speech “after many days” (23:1) and his final commitment of the people to the covenant (ch 24). “An Israel, that lives in the land according to the Torah of Moses, needs no Joshua just as Yahweh for the future needs no Moses for this Israel.”222 7 An historical review takes up the notes of Num 32:33; 34:14–15; Deut 3:13; Josh 1:12–15; 17:1–13. The isolated notice about half the tribe of Manasseh is unexpected in this context, representing another way of underlining the unity of the tribe of Manasseh and of the nation.223 “The separate appeal to Manasseh signifies the connection between the settlers on both sides of the Jordan.”224 It may be related to the 217 Knauf, 180, 184. 218 KBL, NIDOTTE, TLOT, TWOT, TDOT, DCH. Jenni in TLOT does speak of the rare and late usage, and Willis in TDOT refers to the tie between love and devotion and obedience. 219 Cf. Harstad, 681. 220 Knauf, 185. 221 Cf. G. Wehmeier, Der Segen, 154; Gen 32:1 (ET 31:55); 47:7, 10; 2 Sam 19:40 (ET 19:39); 13:25. 222 Schäfer- Lichtenberger, Josua und Salomo, 217. 223 Howard, 404. 224 Assis, SJOT 18 (2004) 214, with reference to Woudstra and Nelson.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 256

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

257

similar phenomenon in Num 32 and have ultimate historical roots.225 The second part of the verse must refer to the dismissal of only the eastern half of the tribe. 8 Here the formal blessing receives content. Again, it is striking that such a blessing is given only to the one group. It may relate to a reputation as a “man of war” (Josh 17:1). The concluding imperative note may be understood in several ways. It may be an admonition to share your current wealth with the families who stayed beyond the river; but it may also be a programmatic note for the future, calling for the East Jordan tribes to remember their western kindred after future military successes. This would fit the emphasis on unity in the following narrative. Assis argues that the Israelites had a numerical advantage and unity that gave them victory over the Canaanites.226 Everywhere Joshua shows, however, that God fights for Israel and thus brings victory. Assis also states that “the claim of the Book of Joshua, whereby the conquest is carried out by a united nation is an anachronistic description of a very different reality.”227 9 Mysteriously, “Reubenites,” “Gadites,” and “Manassehites” are now referred to as “sons of Reuben,” “sons of Gad,” and “sons of Manasseh.” Repeating the departure note of v 6b, now including Manasseh, the narrative proper begins by distinguishing between the East Jordan tribes and the children of Israel as well as between the land of Canaan and the land of Gilead. This may well reflect ancient designations in a period before the unity of the twelve tribes was self- evident. Pitkänen devotes an excursus to Josh 22:9–34 and its relationship to the Deuteronomistic history theory. He posits an origin of much of the materials at an early point of history at Shiloh.228 The important point for the editor here is that the East Jordan tribes were obeying Yahweh and the Mosaic commandments. Assis calls v 9 “syntactically ungainly, lengthy and tiresome.”229 Still the verse shows that “the settlement in the Transjordan is a realization of God’s promise to their ancestors.”230 McConville and Williams remind the reader that “the two- and- a-half tribes then leave the people assembled at Shiloh, to their own land, charged with remaining part of Yahweh’s people, yet with a strong sense of separation and farewell.”231 10 The altar is located in the land of Canaan, which, according to the previous verse, means west of the Jordan. The location may reflect an ancient understanding of the land west of the Jordan as that controlled by Yahweh and thus suitable for an altar to Yahweh (cf. v 19). Historically, the altar may reflect an ancient tie between the East Jordan tribes and the Benjaminites with their sanctuary at Gilgal. Geliloth may be another name for Gilgal.232 In the present context, the altar shows respect for the call to worship at only the one place God chooses, at that time being Shiloh and always a place west of the Jordan. 11 Scholarly controversy over the location of the altar centers on the meaning of 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232

Cf. Hubbard, 484. ZAW 116 (2004) 535, n. 49. Ibid., 536. Pitkänen, 363– 80. SJOT 18 (2004) 215. Ibid., 216. McConville and Williams, 84. Howard, 406.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 257

9/18/14 9:20 AM

258

D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34)

the phrases ‫ אל־מול‬and ‫אל עבר‬.233 The first means “the front side of” (Exod 26:9; 28:25, 27, 37; Josh 8:33). Perhaps Josh 9:1 is the best parallel here, speaking of the territory in front of, that is, this side of, the Lebanon. The other is more difficult. It can mean “on the other side of, beyond” as in Deut 30:13. It can refer, however, to the side, the edge of something: Exod 28:26 (= 39:19); Ezek 1:9, 12 (= 10:22). It is apparently this latter meaning that is intended in our passage. The altar is a border shrine within the land of Canaan but on its very edge and serving for those tribes who are not precisely part of the children of Israel, but rather live in the land of Gilead. This explains their fear of separation and exclusion. Assis may be correct in seeing v 10 as the Transjordanian view and v 11 as the Cisjordanian view.234 Callaway underlines the basic, most important fact about the altar— its location near the Jordan on the border.235 Its purpose is as a witness and a pattern. It is a place of watching, not acting. Callaway continues: “In other texts, parties erect stones or pillars to serve as witnesses between them. These types of structures are never meant for sacrifice and are typically placed on the border between rivaling groups or set up in key locations at transitional moments.”236 Such witnesses settle a dispute or seal relationships. Pattern in its positive uses refers to some cultic item or structure . . . built with great attention to detail. Though “pattern” may have non-physical qualities in modern thought, in the Hebrew Bible it generally conveys the idea of physical properties which make an object clearly identifiable. It even connotes the idea of a comprehensive and detailed plan rather than a general description. This, along with the Transjordanian group’s own declaration in v 28, leaves no good reason to doubt that their altar was a duplicate of the altar at the Tabernacle.237 12 For the assembly or congregation of Israel, ‫עדה‬, see Comment on 18:1. The original purpose was to engage in immediate battle, a practice not unknown among Israelite tribes (cf. Judg 19–21; the Judah- Benjamin conflict represented by David and Saul; the ultimate dissolution into two kingdoms). Organ notes that Israel could only go to war against another tribe when that tribe was no longer considered one of the “children of Israel” (cf. Judg 20:1).238 13 Abruptly and unexpectedly, the strategy changes. An investigation commission is appointed. This is in the best Israelite tradition of seeking to avoid court and military conflict when possible,239 a tradition that was certainly not realized in all instances. Phinehas plays a unique role here, being the only leader besides Joshua to take the initiative in any action within the book. He is the son of Eleazer, who is on the inheritance commission with Joshua (14:1; 19:51; 21:1), but who never acts independently. Here Phinehas takes center stage away from Joshua. The later tradition 233 234 235 236 237 238 239

See Assis, SJOT 18 (2004) 217. Ibid. “Story of Joshua 22 Reconsidered,” 3. Ibid., 5. Ibid., 6. CBQ 63 (2001) 213. See Boecker, Redeformen.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 258

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

259

modified this by inserting Joshua into v 34 (LXX; see Notes). Outside his birth (Exod 6:25), Phinehas appears only in the Baal of Peor incident (Num 25; cf. Ps 106:30), the resulting war against Midian (Num 31:6), and the note inserted into Judg 20:28. It is interesting to note that the tradition connects him here with Shiloh, in Judg 20 apparently with Bethel, and in Josh 24:33 with Gibeah. 14 The commission includes a representative of the nine full tribes and the western half of Manasseh. For the term ‫נשׁיא‬, “chief,” see Comment on 9:15 (cf. 13:21; 17:4). The house of the father, ‫בית אב‬, is generally the third division within Israelite society under the tribe (‫ שׁבט‬or ‫ )מטה‬and the clan (‫ משׁפחה‬or ‫)אלפים‬, but here the meaning is not so clear. The family terms are fluid and contextual.240 The term may be given an extended meaning to serve as a synonym for “tribe,” or it may seek to describe each of the “chiefs” as being the head of his extended family as well as chief of his tribe. 16 The speech opens with the official “messenger formula” so well known from the prophets.241The accusation is that Israel has “disobeyed, transgressed,” ‫(מעל‬see Comment on 7:1). This is the only use of the term that has been preserved from the early tradition if the sentence does not reflect late interpretation. The accusation is not without its irony. An act of religious devotion, building an altar, is defined as rebellion against God. This presupposes that God has ordained only one legitimate altar (Deut 12).242 An earlier stage of the tradition may have interpreted this to mean that God had specifically legitimated certain sanctuaries, setting them apart from the Canaanite shrines (see Josh 5:13–15). The accusation would then be that the new altar was constructed at humanity’s initiative, not God’s. The emphatic “for yourselves” may point in this direction. 17 The prosecution uses a precedence case to strengthen their accusation. This is based on the tradition of Num 25, which also appears in Deut 4 as the extreme example of Israel following other gods. This sets up the prosecution’s understanding. The altar will lead the East Jordan tribes to worship other gods, the primary sin. The sin of Israel at Beth Peor has lasting effects. Howard explains, “The implication is that Israel had never truly rid itself of this sin, that it always flirted with— if not participated in—idolatry and the lure of pagan religious systems.”243 ‫טהר‬, “cleanse oneself, purify from among us,” is at home in Priestly circles, particularly the legislation in Lev 14–16. Our text appears to mean more than cultic ritual. It refers to excluding all worship of foreign gods.244 ‫נגף‬, “plague,” appears to be a specifically Priestly term referring to numinous divine punishment, which can be averted only by following divine instructions (Exod 12:13; 30:12; Num 8:19; 17:11–12 [16:46– 47]). The use of Priestly terms, however, does not automatically relegate language to a late period. Surely priests created literature and transmitted tradition long before the exile. 18 The prosecution predicts the results of the crime— divine anger on the entire community (cf. Josh 9:20; Deut 29:27 [28]). ‫קצף‬, “wrath, anger,” in verbal 240 P. J. King and L. E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, Library of Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 39. 241 See the summary by W. E. March, “Prophecy,” in Old Testament Form Criticism, ed. J. H. Hayes (San Antonio: Trinity UP, 1974) 146– 57. 242 Cf. A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1979) 61– 63, 220–29. 243 Howard, 409. 244 Cf. Gen 35:2; H. Ringgren, TWAT, 3:314.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 259

9/18/14 9:20 AM

260

D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34)

form is used for divine anger in a majority of the cases, particularly in Deuteronomistic and Priestly circles.245 Human sin and rebellion rouse the divine wrath. The responsibility of the community for its members and the sense of unity within the community mean that the sin by a part brings punishment on the whole. At this point, the prosecution appears to testify that east and west are both part of the Yahweh community. 19 The prosecution seeks to avoid the punishment. They offer an alternative solution, marked grammatically by an exclusive sentence246 that separates the proposed solution from the threatened punishment. The presupposition is that East Jordan’s land is “impure,” ‫ טמא‬ṭāmēʾ. This is a Priestly term dominating Lev 11–15, Num 19, and Deut 14. Knauf sees a reference to the Jewish colony at Elephantine in Egypt where land could be “your possession,” the only land outside the Promised Land capable of becoming a personal possession since Promised Land belongs to Yahweh in perpetuity (Lev 25:23).247 This impurity is not caused by disobeying purity codes, however. East Jordan is impure because it is not Yahweh’s possession. Rather it is simply “your possession.” That means it is land where Yahweh does not live, land that his presence has not sanctified and purified (cf. Amos 7:7). Again, the charge of the prosecution is that the accused have taken their own initiative, chosen their own land and their own altar, and thus have forsaken God. The alternative solution is to forsake their land and their altar and come into Yahweh’s possession. This is a self- sacrificial proposal, for it means that the ten tribes will have to share their land with the East Jordan tribes (cf. Gen 13:8– 9). The ‫משׁכן‬, “tabernacle,” of Yahweh shows its presence in the land of the children of Israel. The expression is a part of Priestly language (Exod 26–27, 36– 40; Num 1–10). It is based, however, on an old Shiloh tradition.248 Even though the altar is built, the warning is given, “Do not rebel.” This underlines the contrast of choices available. Worship at an altar is viewed as a necessity by both parties. The point is which altar has been properly legitimated by God and which is contaminated by worship of foreign gods? As Knight points out, “all cultic sanctuaries for worship by ‘all Israel’ appear only in the west (Shechem, Gilgal, Bethel, Shiloh, and eventually Jerusalem), not in the east.”249 20 Another precedence case is used to illustrate the drastic nature of the punishment. The example of Achan (Josh 7) shows that individual sin brought disaster for the whole community. It also shows that not only the guilty party had to die for his sin, but his extended family as well (7:5). This should stand as warning enough for anyone who would disobey God. On this solemn note, the prosecution rests its case. 21 “The heads of the clans of Israel” picks up the last phrase of the somewhat overloaded v 14 and may reflect an ancient military division in ancient Israel.250 The use of such a term in the original tradition would correspond to the military overtones given the tradition by v 12. 245 246 247 248 249 250

G. Sauer, THAT, 2:665. Andersen, Sentence, 170–74. Knauf, 186. M. Haran, Temples, 194–204; for literature on this issue, see A. R. Hulst, THAT, 2:908. Knight, 52. Cf. N. Gottwald, Tribes of Yahweh, 270–78.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 260

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

261

22 The defense opens its testimony with a solemn proclamation of three different names for God. The first, El, is the name of the Canaanite high god taken over into the names of the gods of the ancestors (e.g., El Shaddai, Gen 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25; Exod 6:2–3; El ʿOlam, Gen 21:33; El ʿElyon, Gen 14:18–22; El Roʾi, Gen 16:13; El Berith, Judg 9:46; El the God of Israel, Gen 33:19–20).251 Elohim is the generic name for God, which is grammatically plural, having the Hebrew plural ending ‫( ִים‬îm). Most often, as here, it refers to the one God. Yahweh is the personal name of Israel’s God revealed to Moses (Exod 3; 6). Knauf claims that this is not quite a confession of monotheism.252 The defense case begins with a solemn vow that God knows the truth and the plea that Israel may soon learn. This is strengthened by an oath formula, directed in the Hebrew text to God, and asking that he not bring them victory if they are guilty. The assumption here is that the final word in the dispute belongs neither to the accuser nor to the accused but to God. The term again gives military overtones to the scene. 23 A second oath formula (v 23b) adds a new perspective to the argument. The defense understands the accusation to deal with the problem of sacrifice, terms never introduced by the accusers. This may well reflect the use of the tradition in a time when the Jerusalem temple began to claim sole authority for sacrifice. Three types of sacrifice are named. The ‫( עולה‬ʿōlâ) is the whole burnt offering (Exod 29:18; Lev 1). ‫( מנחה‬minḥâ) is a vegetable offering that normally accompanies the whole burnt offering, though in special circumstances the term assumes more specific meanings.253 ‫( זבחי שׁלמים‬zibḥê ŝĕlāmîm) is a compound term apparently joining two originally separate types of sacrifices.254 The ‫ זבח‬began as a private family sacrifice (e.g., 1 Sam 1–2) in which the animal is eaten by the worshipers. The ‫שׁ‬ ‫ למים‬is the offering given at the conclusion of the ceremony of the whole burnt offering. The joining of the terms appears to be the result of cult centralization as demanded by Deut 12, so that family sacrifices were limited to the temple area with the priest carrying out certain blood rituals originally associated with the ‫שׁלמים‬ alone.255 Hess notes that together the list of sacifices symbolizes “all the offerings that could be made on the altar.”256 Again the oath leaves punishment to Yahweh. 24 The accused state their case in a form that seeks to appease their accusers by justifying their actions and the motives behind them. They were motivated by ‫( דאגה‬dĕ ͗āgâ) “anxiety, concern” (see Jer 49:23; Ezek 4:16; 12:18–19; Prov 12:25) over the current state of affairs. This is stated in terms of the younger generation and future possibilities. It reflects present anxiety. The relationship between the different groups in Israel was not one of trust. Rather the East Jordan group felt threatened with expulsion from the communal worship of Yahweh and from the community who worshiped him. 251 Cf. B. W. Anderson, “Names of God,” IDB, 2:407–17. 252 Knauf, 186. 253 Cf. R. Rendtorff, Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im alten Israel, WMANT 24 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967) 168– 98. 254 Ibid., 151. 255 Ibid., 162– 68; cf. B. Lang, TDOT, 2:17–29. 256 Hess (1996) 292.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 261

9/18/14 9:20 AM

262

D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34)

25 The anxiety had roots in a theological issue, the definition of the Promised Land. The geographical feature of the Jordan River could easily take on theological significance as a boundary of God’s people (cf. Ezek 48). This would relegate everyone east of the Jordan to other lands with other gods (cf. Deut 32:8; 4:19). This is the other side of the argument of the accusers, who supposed that the East Jordan group had fallen away to other gods. The countercharge from the East Jordan tribes is, “you (pl.) are arbitrarily cutting us off from worshiping Yahweh.” 26–27 The East Jordan tribes interpret their altar as a perpetual witness that they do belong to Yahweh, a witness, which, if accepted, would avoid future confrontations on the subject. The Jordan is a symbol of separation. The altar is a symbol of unity. The sacrifices differ significantly here, the private ‫ זבח‬and the final ‫שׁלמים‬ being separated. Also this verse, read in isolation, can be read in two ways, for it could be interpreted as presupposing that the altar of witness would also be an altar of sacrifice. This may be the oldest level of tradition in the narrative. 28 The altar is patterned on the one used by the children of Israel, that is, the one in Shiloh, since that altar was patterned after God’s model (cf. Exod 25:9– 40). Here the East Jordan altar is explicitly limited to the witness function, sacrifice being excluded. 29 The defense testimony closes with an oath of innocence based on pure motives. This actually takes judgment from the hand of humanity and gives it to God, as did the opening oath (vv 22–23). 30 The commission is satisfied with the defense testimony. “It was good in the eyes of” is a formula accepting proposals or testimonies (Gen 41:37; Lev 10:20; Deut 1:23; 1 Sam 18:5; 2 Sam 3:36; 18:4; 1 Kgs 3:10; Esth 1:21; 2:4; cf. Gen 45:16; Lev 10:19; Esth 2:9). Phinehas “emerges as a thread weaving its way through the story of Israel. . . . Each time he appears there is a question of cultic purity and national survival.”257 31 The agreement shows that God has made the judgment (cf. vv 22–23, 29) and thus that God is present among them. This is precisely the theme dominating Josh 1 (vv 5, 9, 17). Amidst the arguments of people, the promised presence of God reveals itself and brings peace. By proving their innocence, the East Jordan tribes have delivered all Israel from the threatened punishment (cf. vv 18, 20). Separated by accusations and misunderstandings, the tribes are joined as the accused deliver the accusers. 32 The commission did not have the final word. They had to make their report to the children of Israel as a whole. The report was accepted with thanksgiving to God. Notice that when humans bless God, it simply means to give thanks for his blessings (Gen 24:27, 48).258 A situation that threatened war and total destruction resulted in worship and a new relationship of trust. 33 One of the strongest terms in Joshua describes what did not happen. They quit talking about any plans “to destroy” (‫ ) ְל ַשׁ ֵחת‬or, with KBL, “to annihilate” the land of the tribes east of the Jordan. As Hubbard emphasizes, the meaning of the word is “evocative of terror, horror, and despair.”259 The good sense that prevailed 257 Organ, CBQ 63 (2001) 217. 258 G. Wehmeier, Der Segen, 160– 62. 259 Hubbard, 494.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 262

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Explanation

263

prevented the most disastrous happening of the entire book of destruction. Still, the tribes west of the Jordan will not give the name Israel to the land east of the Jordan. Hubbard suggests the possibility that “in the end a Cisjordanian perspective still prevails,”260 though the book of Judges might give support to such a separation. Hubbard attempts to show within the book an “association of Yahweh with Canaan and of Moses with Transjordan.”261 34 The altar functions as a witness to both groups, not just of national unity. The function is much greater. It shows that the unifying factor is Yahweh. Even more, the altar witnesses to the divinity of Yahweh, a divinity proved by his presence in transforming a situation that threatened war and total destruction into a new relationship of unity and trust. Even then, all was not resolved. As Hubbard explains: “Despite having heard east-bank concerns, west-bank Israel remains isolationist and separatist.”262 Again, “the biblical text denies us full knowledge of how the tribes regarded each other.”263

Explanation “The conquest of the land of Israel reported in the book of Joshua results ironically in a divided land.”264 The passage opens up new light on the struggles through which God had to lead his people before they could join one another in worship and proclamation of his deity. The problem was not simply the enemy who possessed the land (Josh 1–12). It was not simply jealousy among tribes and desire for more land (Josh 17:14–18). The unified problem was threatened warfare among the tribes themselves because they could not trust one another and because they accused one another of apostasy. “A certain skepticism and cynicism— actually, of each group toward the other— pervade this chapter.”265 Still much truth lies in Assis’s assertion that “the main point in their discourse is not an accusation rather the establishment of the concept of the tribes’ mutual responsibility.”266 Such accusation was not based on creedal statements. Rather, it was based on different modes and places of worship. Behind it all lay not only religious but also political and professional motivations. Here the basic nature of the Israelite legal system prevailed, as it called for the parties to seek to arbitrate their disputes and avoid fights in the courts or on the battlefields. Both parties, each from its own perspective, offered compromised solutions. The accusers listened to the reasoning of the defendants, even when this meant admitting implicitly their own possible guilt, namely, that they could well have denied the other group the right to worship God. A compromise was reached that reunited the people of God and led them to bless his holy name. The resulting narrative underlines several major points:267 unity of Israel, the faithfulness of Yahweh to an obedient Israel, Israel’s need to love God, worship centered on only one sanctuary, admission to worship based 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267

Ibid. Ibid., 496– 97. Ibid., 498; cf. Assis, SJOT 18 (2004) 229– 30. Hubbard, 498; cf. Judg 5. Knight, “Joshua 22,” 51. Ibid., 62. ZAW 116 (2004) 537. Pressler, 107–11.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 263

9/18/14 9:20 AM

264

E. The Commander’s Concluding Charge (23:1–16)

on loyalty to God not on geography, and a model of dealing with disagreements through arbitration and negotiation. Central to all this, as Hawk points out, is “the difficulty of defining Israel in terms of territory, ethnicity, or obedience to Yahweh. The conflict surrounding the altar at the Jordan hinges on different notions of what constitutes Israelite land.”268 Soon after the agreement was reached, the parties involved disappeared from historical importance. The altar of Shiloh was destroyed. The Transjordanian tribes lost more and more of their independence to conquering enemies. The tradition, however, lived on. New generations found God speaking to them in new ways through the old tradition. Each could emphasize a different aspect— the mode of worship, the place of worship, the tribal connections, the geographical boundaries, the definition of people of God and place of God, the charges of apostasy. Each generation interpreted the tradition in light of its new circumstances, from the division of the monarchy to the ever- developing schism between Jerusalem and the Samaritans. The major interpretation came when the material was placed in its present literary context, closing out the action of the conquest and serving as a bridge to the ups and downs of the Judges. As such, it becomes the example of how Israel should settle its tribal, religious, political, and legal conflicts. It gives a final definition of the unity of Israel as the twelve-tribe people of God on both sides of the Jordan River. Most of all, it identified Yahweh as the God, a claim proved by his presence in unifying the disputing people of Israel, giving a separated people his blessing instead of his wrath. The chapter became the illustration of how the blessings and curses of God (Deut 27–28) worked out in the history of God’s people. It showed that the determining factor was neither the place of the cult nor the geographical location of the peoples. Cult and geography could separate. Proclamation of Yahweh as the present God unified.

E. The Commander’s Concluding Charge (23:1–16) Bibliography Aurelius, E. “Zur Entstehung von Josua 23–24.” In Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Ed. J. Pakkala and N. Nissinen. Publication of the Finnish Exegetical Society 93. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. 95–114. Baltzer, K. Das Bundesformular. WMANT 4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960. 71–73. Becker, U. “Endredaktionelle Kontextvernetzungen des Josua-Buches.” In Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur ‘Deuteronomismus’-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Ed. M. Witte, K. Schmid, D. Prechel, and J. C. Gertz. BZAW 365. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006. 141–61. Blum, E. “Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: ein Entflechtungsvorschlag.” In Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. Louvain: Peeters (1997) 181–212=reprint in Textgestalt und Komposition. FAT 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. 249–80. Bright, J. The Authority of the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1967. 241–51. Carriére, J.-M. “L’historiographie deutéronomiste: une manière d’écrire 268 Hawk (2010) 201; cf. Earl, 182.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 264

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Bibliography

265

l’historie.” In Comment la bible saisit-elle l’histoire: XXIe Congrès catholique française pour l’étude de la bible (Issy-les-Moulineaux, 2005). Ed. D. Doré. Paris: Cerf, 2007. 115–54. Cross, F. M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1973. Floss, J. P. Jahwe dienen—Göttern dienen. BBB 45. Bonn: Hanstein, 1975. 331–34. Halbe, J. Das Privilegrecht Jahwes: Ex. 34, 10–26. FRLANT 114. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. 347–49. Hollenberg, J. “Die deuteronomischen Bestandtheile des Buches Josua.” TSK 1 (1874) 462–506. Holmes, S. Joshua, the Hebrew and Greek Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1914. House, P. R. “Examining the Narratives of the Old Testament Narrative: An Exploration in Biblical Theology.” WTJ 67 (2005) 229–45. Joüon, P. “Notes philoloques sur le texte hébreu de Josué 6,18; 10,13; 23,13 . . .” Bib 9 (1928) 161–66. Koopmans, W. “Josh. 23 and 24 Again: A Response to Klaas Spronk.” In Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose. Ed. J. C. de Moor and W. G. E. Watson. AOAT 42. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. 261–64. ———. “The Poetic Prose of Joshua 23.” In The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry. Ed. W. van der Meer and J. de Moor. JSOTSup 74. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. 83–118. Latvus, K. God, Anger, and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and Judges in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings. JSOTSup 279. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Lubsczyk, H. Der Auszug Israels aus Ägypten. ETS 11. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1963. 138–45. 2nd ed. AnBib 21A. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978. 203. Nentel, J. Trägerschaft und Intentionen des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks: Untersuchungen zu den Reflexionsreden Jos 1; 23; 24; 1 Sam 12 und 1 Kön 8. BZAW 297. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000. Noort, E. “War in the Book of Joshua: History or Theology?” In Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook. Ed. F. V. Reiterer, P. C. Beentjes, N. Calduch-Benages, and B. G. Wright. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. 69–86. Noth, M. Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948. Perlitt, L. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. WMANT 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. 19–22. Römer, T. “Das doppelte Ende des Joshuabuches: Einige Anmerkungen zur aktuellen Discussion um ‘deuteronomistiches Geschichtswerk’ und ‘Hexateuch.’” ZAW 118 (2006) 523–48. ———. The So-called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Rösel, H. N. “Lässt sich eine nomistische Redaktion im Buch Josua feststellen?” ZAW 119 (2007) 184–89. ———. “Die Überlieferungen vom Josua ins Richterbuch.” VT 30 (1980) 342–50. Rudolph, W. Der ‘Elohist’ von Exodus bis Josua. BZAW 68. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1938. 240–44. Schmitt, G. Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes. BWANT 91. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970. 148–50. Smelik, W. F. “The Use of ‫ הזכיר בשׁם‬in Classical Hebrew: Josh 23:7; Isa 48:1; Amos 6:10; Ps 20:8, 4Q504 III 4; 1Qs 6:27.” JBL 118 (1999) 321– 32. Smend, R. “Das Gesetz und die Völker.” In Probleme Biblischer Theologie. Ed. H. W. Wolff. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. 501–4. Spronk, K. “The Structure of Joshua 23 and 24: An Evaluation of William Koopmans’ Search for Poetic Prose.” In Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose. Ed. J. C. de Moor and W. G. E. Watson. AOAT 42. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. 251–60. Van Seters, J. “Deuteronomy between Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic History.” HvTSt 59 (2003) 947–56. Weinfeld, M. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Wenham, G. J. “The Deuteronomic Theology of the Book of Joshua.” JBL 90 (1971) 140–48. Wilms, F. E. Das Jahwistische Bundes Buch in Exodus 34. SANT 32. Munich: Kösel, 1973. 194–96. Winther-Nielsen, N. A Functional Discourse Grammar of Joshua: A Computer-Assisted Rhetorical Structure Analysis. ConBOT 40. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1995.

Translation 1Many

days after Yahweh had given rest to Israel from all their enemies all around, when Joshua became old in years, 2Joshua called to all a Israel, to their elders, and to their heads,

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 265

9/18/14 9:20 AM

266

E. The Commander’s Concluding Charge (23:1–16)

and to their judges and to their officials. He said to them, “I have become old; I have increased in years. 3But you (pl.) have seen all that Yahweh your a God has done to all these nations on your behalf, because Yahweh your God it is indeed who has fought for you (pl.). 4See, I have allotted to you (pl.) these remaining nations as an inheritance for your tribes, from the Jordan and all the nations that I have cut off a and the great sea at the going down of the sun. 5But Yahweh your God is the one who will push them out on your behalf. a He will dispossess them from before you (pl.) that you (pl.) may possess their land just as Yahweh your God spoke to you (pl.). 6You (pl.) must have great courage to obey carefully all that is written in the book of the Torah of Moses so as not to turn from it to the right nor to the left 7and so as not to mix with these nations, these a remaining with you (pl.). The name of their gods you (pl.) shall not call to memory nor shall you (pl.) swear b (by them), nor shall you (pl.) serve them, nor shall you (pl.) bow down in worship to them. 8But you (pl.) stick to Yahweh your God just as you (pl). have done until this day. 9Yahweh has dispossessed from before you (pl.) great and mighty nations, but as for you (pl.), no man has stood before you (pl.) until this day. 10One man from you (pl.) pursues a thousand, for Yahweh your God it is he indeed who has fought for you (pl.), just as he spoke to you (pl.). 11You (pl.) must guard yourselves a carefully to love Yahweh your God, 12for if you (pl.) ever turn away and stick with the rest a of these nations who remain with you (pl.) so that you (pl.) would relate yourself in marriage with them and would mix with them and they with you (pl.), 13be fully aware that Yahweh your God a will no longer continue to dispossess these nations from before you (pl.). They will become for you (pl.) a trap and a snare b and a whip in your sides and thorns in your eyes until you (pl.) wander away lost off of this good land that Yahweh your God has given to you (pl.). 14But as for me, right now today I am going the way of all the earth. You (pl.) know with all your hearts and with all your being that not one word has fallen from all the good a words that Yahweh your God spoke concerning you (pl.). They all b have come to pass for you (pl.). 15Not one word has fallen from among them. And it will be the case that just as every good word that Yahweh your God a spoke to you (pl.) has come on you (pl.), just so Yahweh will bring on you (pl.) every evil word until he has destroyed you (pl.) from upon this good land which Yahweh your God has given to you (pl.). 16When a you (pl.) transgress the covenant of Yahweh your God that he commanded you (pl.) and you (pl.) go off and serve other gods and bow down in worship to them, then the anger of Yahweh will burn against you (pl.), and you will quickly wander away lost from upon this good land that he has given to you (pl.).” b

Notes 2.a. LXX adds traditional “sons of.” 3.a. LXX quite consistently reads 1st pers. pl. for 2nd pers. pl. of mt in this chapter. 4.a. The text of v 4b is problematic, changing from reference to the future allottment of remaining nations to a boundary description to a reference to past destruction of nations, and back to a boundary description. LXX witnesses the same text. Working from the Vg., Grätz, followed by Steuernagel, has suggested that “all the nations that I have cut off” be transposed before “from the Jordan” and that “and unto the” be added before “great sea.” Fritz agrees with the latter, adding ‫ ועד‬to the text. Holmes notes that Jerome’s text appears to have been more confused than ours. Holmes (Joshua; cf. Fritz and Nelson) thus suggests seeing “all the nations . . . cut off” as a pre- LXX gloss. He may be correct, but we must be clear that this is a literary judgment, not one based on textual evidence. The phrase has its apparent origin in Deut 12:29; 19:1, where it stands in close connection to ‫ירשׁ‬, “dispossess.” Perhaps it represents an early gloss to v 5 that has been accidentally copied from the margin into v 4. This may be supported by the textual dis-

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 266

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

267

turbances that have affected v 5. Nelson follows MT as the shorter reading, saying that OG conflates MT and Syr. 5.a. LXX reads: “But the Lord (y)our God will push them out from before us (you), until that they should perish. He will send against them the wild beasts until they utterly destroy them and their kings from before you. You will possess their land, just as the Lord, our God, said to you.” Hollenberg (TSK 1 [1874] 462– 506) suggests that LXX has the proper text, which has fallen from MT through homoioteleuton. Holmes (Joshua) counters that it is a deliberate work of a Heb. scribe who summarized the omitted words with ‫הורישׁ‬ ‫אתם מלפניכם‬, “he will dispossess them from before you.” Steuernagel points to Deut 7:20 as the source, to which Soggin adds Exod 23:28. A much more likely candidate is Lev 26:22, in which ‫ הכריתה‬also occurs (cf. previous Note). The reference to the kings might be corruption from the Leviticus passage or midrashic joining to Josh 10:40; 11:12, 17; Deut 7:24. Only one thing is clear. The tradition has interpreted the passage to the extent that the original reading cannot be recovered. Nelson retroverts OG, saying it could have been lost by haplography in MT, while MT material absent from OG may also represent haplography. 7.a The expression ‫בגוים האלה הנשׁארים האלה אתכם‬, “with these nations, these remaining with you,” is awkward and probably the result of conflation (R. Boling, “Some Conflate Readings in Joshua- Judges,” VT 16 [1966] 296– 97; Nelson). 7.b. Conflation may also explain the presence of the two hipʿil forms, “not call to memory” and “not swear by.” The latter must be read as nipʿal (cf. Syr., Vg., Tg.; Fritz). LXX omits the latter form altogether. Nelson reads MT, saying OG lost “do not swear” by haplography. Smelik (325) examines as many extrabiblical instances of ‫ הזכיר‬as he could find and concludes: “The use of this verb in extrabiblical swearing probably implies that ‫ רהזכי‬is not a homonym but a special usage of the otherwise common verb ‫זכר‬, “remember, mention” in the (secondary) sense of “swearing.” Smelik (327) concludes convincingly that “‫ ”םשׁב הזכיר‬functions as a kind of swearing, with mutual obligations to be fulfilled.” 11.a. MT reads literally, “and you should guard yourselves exceedingly for your souls.” LXX has no equivalent for the idiomatic usage of “for your souls.” 12.a. MT again represents a conflated text. Cf. Note 7.a. Considerable Heb. evidence supports reading “all” in place of “the rest.” LXX omits the word. The tradition found various ways of emphasizing this important point. Nelson reads OG from LXX B, seeing MT as conflation of OG and Syr. 13.a. LXX does not witness “your God,” which may be a later usage of a familiar refrain. 13.b. ‫שׁטט‬, “snare,” occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible and is evidently a copying error for the similar ‫שׁטים‬. See Fritz. 14.a. “Good” does not appear in LXX. It represents the addition of a familiar phrase on the basis of v 15, where it is necessary in light of the explicit opposition to the “evil word.” Nelson accepts MT, seeing in OG haplography, homoioteleuton, scribal correction, and free translation. 14.b. LXX and Vg. reflect textual variations in the last half of the verse, in which expansion, dittography, or both have occurred. 15.a. LXX omits “your God” the two times it appears in this verse but adds it the one time it does not occur, showing again the flexibility of the copying tradition in using divine titles. 16.a. The form of v 16 is not that of a conditional sentence. Rather, it is a complete sentence in itself. V 16a is then a temporal clause for which v 16b forms a proper main clause. Nelson sees a conditional sentence beginning with an inf. const. as in 2 Sam 7:14, but Younger’s classification as a temporal clause reflects the more normal use of the preposition ‫בּ‬. 16.b. LXX omits the final half of the verse, which is an abbreviated version of Deut 11:17. Holmes (Joshua) argues that the verse must be a late insertion by an editor who did not understand that v 16 was the protasis of v 15 without which v 15 becomes an unconditional threat. Such exegetical decisions cannot serve as the basis of textual ones. Latvus (God, Anger, and Ideology, 32– 33) supports Holmes but without strong arguments. Nelson accepts MT, seeing OG losing the last half of the sentence through haplography. It is possible that the original writer intended an unconditional threat. The evidence appears to favor the MT as original, though it is not impossible to understand v 16a as an interpretation of v 15b, which then, itself, was interpreted through v 16b.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 267

9/18/14 9:20 AM

268

E. The Commander’s Concluding Charge (23:1–16)

Form/Structure/Setting The temporal clause of v 1 marks the beginning of a new narrative. The threat of vv 15–16 closes the narrative content. For this reason, I divide the exegesis at this point, though as Creach points out, “it is appropriate to see these chapters [23–24] as complementary, creating a single ending to the book.”269 The complementary nature is shown by the imperfect consecutive opening chap. 24 and by the lack of a true closing marker at the end of chap. 23. The grammar of Josh 24:1 connects this chapter closely to the preceding, so that one might well argue that the two chapters form a unit. Thus Winther-Nielsen writes of “stage: covenant address (23:1–15), episode: covenant dialogue (24:1–24), and closure: covenant making (24:25–28).”270 Both chapters prepare Israel for the future without Joshua, one in sermonic fashion, the other in dialogue pointing to ritual, participatory fashion.

Tradition Chap. 23 rests on the tradition of the law in Deuteronomy as the following table illustrates without being exhaustive. Much of the language is key to Deuteronomy even if Tetrateuch examples can also be shown as seen below and as samples outside the Enneateuch could be shown. The language is neither totally unique to Deuteronomy nor to the Deuteronomistic history; nor is it consistent in repeating precisely the same phraseology every time as easily seen in the use of both ‫ אדמה טובה‬and ‫ ארץ טובה‬for the “good land.” The writer has obviously learned not only scribal practices but also creative writing somewhere within Israel’s education system. He uses both synominal phrases to sum up the past message in Joshua, to picture the present situation thus far described, and to look into the future crisis situation. The message receives neither temporal nor geographical space, thus elevating it above all limitations and letting it apply to Joshua’s generation and the “seed” of each ongoing generation. The chapter also uses the literary tradition of the farewell (death- bed) speech or sermon placed at the end of a literary structure to summarize the literary section and form a bridge to the next major section of the literary piece. Thus Jacob (Gen 49) recalls the rise of the patriarchal tribes and points to the future of each of them transposing the story to the Exodus narrative. Moses (Deut 32–33) similarly warns the nation of its future obligations to God’s law and then pronounces his blessings on each of the tribes as they prepare for conquest under Joshua. Joshua then speaks from the perspective of faith in Yahweh, praising all Yahweh’s fighting for Israel, before turning to speak of the future and the dangers it holds for a disobedient Israel. This literary structure calls the reader (audience) to reflect on the traditions of history as they show the greatness of Yahweh and to face personal responsibility to occupy the land, stay true to Yahweh, and fight back the temptation offered by the nations who remain. It makes much more literary, historical, and theological sense to treat chap. 23 as a literary unity replaying history from two perspectives 269 Creach, 113. 270 Functional Discourse Grammar, 324.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 268

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

269

and then calling the nation to covenant responsibility. The speech tradition and the covenant tradition may well come from different sanctuaries and their cultic rituals. A literary artist has combined them to bring out the seriousness of the decisions Israel faces and to call them to specific cultic action in face of those decisions.

Table 23.1. Deuteronomic Tradition in Joshua 23 Joshua 23

Hebrew Term

Occurrences in Deuteronomy

Relevant Occurrences in Joshua–Kings

v1

‫נוח‬, “rest”

Deut 3:20; 5:14; 12:10; Josh 1:13, 15; 21:44; 1 25:19 Sam 25:9; 2 Sam 7:11; 1 Kgs 5:4

v 2; cf. Exod 18:25; Num 1:4, 16; 7:2; 10:4; 17:3; 25:4; 30:1; 31:26; 32:28; 36:1

‫ראשׁ‬, “head”

Deut 1:13, 15; 5:23; 29:10; 33:5, 21

Josh 14:1; 19:51; 21:1; 22:14, 21, 30; 23:2; 24:1; Judg 10:18; 11:8, 9, 11; 1 Sam 15:17; 2 Sam 22:44; 23:8, 13, 18; 1 Kgs 8:1

cf. Exod 3:16, 18; 4:29; 12:21; 17:5, 6; 18:12; 19:7; 24:1, 9, 14; Lev 4:15; 9:1; Num 11:16, 24, 25, 30; 16:25

‫זקן‬, “elder”

Deut 5:23; 19:12; 21:2–4, 6; 21:19, 20; 22:15–18; 25:7–9; 27:1; 29:10; 31:9, 28

Josh 7:6; 8:10, 33; 20:4; 23:2; 24:1, 31; Judg 2:7; 8:14, 16; 11:5–11; 21:16; 1 Sam 4:3; 11:3; 15:30; 16:4; 30:26; 2 Sam 3:17; 5:3; 2 Sam 12:17; 17:4, 15; 19:12 (11); 1 Kgs 8:1, 3; 12:6, 8, 13; 20:7, 8; 21:8, 11; 2 Kgs 6:32; 10:1, 5; 23:1

cf. Exod 2:14; 18:13; Num 25:5

‫“ שׁופט‬judge”

Deut 1:16; 16:18; 17:9, Josh 8:33; 23:2; 24:1; 12; 19:17, 18; 21:2; Judg 2:16–19; 4:4; 1 25:1, 2 Sam 8:2; 2 Sam 7:11; 15:4; 2 Kgs 23:22

cf. Exod 5:6, 10, 14, 15, 19; Num 11:16

‫שׁוטר‬, “official, foreman”

Deut 1:15; 16:18; 20:5, Josh 1:10; 3:2; 8:33; 8–10; 31:28 23:2; 24:1

‫יהוח נלחם‬, “Yahweh

Deut 1:30; 3:22

Josh 10:14, 42; 23:3, 10

Deut 4:20–21, 38; 9:26, 29; 10:9; 12:9, 12; 14:27, 29; 15:4; 18:1–2; 19:10, 14; 20:16; 21:23; 24:4; 25:19–26:1; 29:8; 32:9

Josh 11:23; 13:6–8, 14, 23, 28, 33; 14:2–3, 9, 13–14; 15:20; 16:5, 8–9; 17:4, 6, 14; 18:2, 4, 7, 20, 28–19:2; 19:8–10, 16, 23, 31, 39, 41, 48–49, 51; 21:3; 23:4; 24:28, 30, 32; Judg 2:6, 9; 18:1; 20:6; 21:23–24; 1 Sam 10:1; 26:19; 2 Sam 14:16; 20:1, 19; 21:3; 1 Kgs 8:36, 51, 53; 12:16; 21:3–4; 2 Kgs 21:14

v 3; cf. Exod 14:14, 25

fights (for Israel)” v 4; Gen 31:14; 48:6; Exod 15:17; Num 16:14; 18:20–21, 23–24, 26; 26:53–54, 56, 62; 27:7–11; 32:18–19, 32; 33:54; 34:2, 14–15; 35:2, 8; 36:2–4, 7–9, 12

‫נחלה‬, “inheritance”

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 269

9/18/14 9:20 AM

270

E. The Commander’s Concluding Charge (23:1–16) Joshua 23

Hebrew Term

‫כרת גוים‬, “cut off

Occurrences in Deuteronomy

Relevant Occurrences in Joshua–Kings

Deut 12:29; 19:1

Josh 23:4

Deut 9:3–5; 11:23; 18:12

Josh 8:7; 14:12; 23:5, 9, 13; Judg 1:19; 11:23–24; 1 Sam 2:7; 1 Kgs 14:24; 21:26; 2 Kgs 16:3; 17:8; 21:2

nations” cf. Num 32:21

v5

‫הדף‬, “push out, drive out”

cf. Gen 24:51; Exod 7:13, 22; 8:15, 19; 9:12, 35; Num 5:4; 16:40; 27:23 v6

Deut 6:9; 9:4; Josh 23:5

‫כאשׁר דבר יהוה‬, “just as Deut 1:21; 2:1; 6:3, 19; Josh 4:8; 14:12; 23:5; Yahweh said”

9:3; 10:9; 27:3; 31:3

Judg 2:15; 1 Kgs 5:5; 8:20; 2 Kgs 24:13 Josh 1:7; 23:6

‫חזקתם מאד לשׁמר‬, “hold on tight to keep”

Josh 8:31; 23:6; 2 Kgs 14:6

‫כל הכתוב‬, “all that is written”

Josh 1:8; 8:34; 23:6; 2 Kgs 22:13

‫ספר תורת משׁה‬, “book of the Torah of Moses”

v7

‫סור ימין ושׂמאל‬, “turn to right or left”

Deut 2:27; 5:32; 17:20

Josh 1:7; 23:6; 1 Sam 6:12; 2 Kgs 22:2

‫לא עבד‬, “do not serve

Deut 7:16

Josh 23:7; Judg 10:6; 2 Kgs 17:35

(other gods)” cf. Exod 20:5; 23:24; 32:8; 34:14; Lev 26:1; Num 25:2

‫לא תשׁתחוו‬, “do not

v8

‫דבק‬, “to cling (to

cf. Gen 26:33; 32:32; 47:26; 48:15; Exod 10:6; Num 22:30

‫עד היום הזה‬, “unto this

bow down (to other gods)”

Yahweh)”

v. 9

day”

‫ירשׁ יהוה‬, “Yahweh dispossessed”

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 270

Deut 4:19; 5:9; 8:19; 11:16; 17:3; 29:26; 30:17

Josh 23:7, 16; Judg 2:12, 17, 19 1 Kgs 9:6, 9; 11:33; 16:31; 22:53; 2 Kgs 17:16, 35; 21:3, 21 Deut 4:4; 10:20; 11:22; Josh 22:5; 23:8, (12); 13:4; 30:20 2 Kgs 18:6

Deut 2:22; 3:14; 10:8; 11:4; 29:4; 34:6

Deut 11:23

Josh 4:9; 5:9; 6:25; 7:26; 8:28–29; 9:27; 13:13; 14:14; 15:63; 16:10; 22:3, 17; 23:8–9; Judg 1:21, 26; 6:24; 10:4; 15:19; 18:12; 19:30; 1 Sam 5:5; 6:18; 8:8; 12:2; 27:6; 29:3, 6, 8; 30:25; 2 Sam 4:3; 6:8; 7:6; 18:18; 1 Kgs 8:8; 9:13, 21; 10:12; 12:19; 2 Kgs 2:22; 8:22; 14:7; 16:6; 17:23, 34, 41; 20:17; 21:15 Josh 23:9; Judg 11:24; 1 Kgs 14:24; 21:26; 2 Kgs 16:3; 17:8; 21:2

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting Joshua 23

Hebrew Term

Occurrences in Deuteronomy

271 Relevant Occurrences in Joshua–Kings Josh 10:8; 21:44; 23:9

‫לא עמד אישׁ‬, “no man can stand (against you)” v 11 v 12

Yahweh”

Deut 6:5; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:3; 19:9; 30:6, 16, 20

Josh 22:5; 23:11; Judg 5:31; 1 Kgs 3:3

‫התחתן‬, “intermarry

Deut 7:3

Josh 23:12; 1 Sam 18:21–23, 26–27; 1 Kgs 3:1

Deut 7:16

Josh 23:13; Judg 2:3; 8:27

Deut 1:20, 21, 25; 2:12, 29, 31, 36; 3:18, 20; 4:1, 21, 40; 5:16; 9:6; 11:9, 17, 21, 31; 12:1, 9; 15:4, 7; 16:5, 18, 20; 17:2, 14; 19:1, 2, 10, 14; 20:16; 21:1, 23; 24:4; 25:15, 19; 26:1, 2, 3, 10; 27:2, 3; 28:8, 11, 52; 31:7

Josh 1:11, 15; 2:9, 14, 24; 5:6; 6:16; 8:7; 10:30, 32; 11:8, 23; 12:6; 18:3; 21:43; 23:13, 15; Judg 1:2

caused to destroy (Israel or the enemies)”

Deut 1:27; 2:21; 4:3; 6:15; 7:4, 24; 9:3, 8, 14, 19–20, 25; 28:48, 63; 31:3–4; 33:27

Josh 7:12; 9:24; 11:14, 20; 23:15; 24:8; 2 Sam 22:38; 1 Kgs 13:34; 2 Kgs 21:9

‫עבר ברית‬, “transgress

Deut 17:2; 29:12

Josh 3:6, 11, 14, 17; 4:7; 6:8; 7:11, 15; 23:16; Judg 2:20; 2 Sam 15:24

‫אהבה את־יהוה‬, “love

(with Canaanites)” v 13; Exod 10:7; 23:33; 34:12

‫מוקשׁ‬, “snare (other

cf. Exod 12:25; 20:12; Num 10:29; 32:7, 9

‫הארץ אשׁר יהוה נתן‬ ‫לכם‬, “the land that

gods)”

Yahweh gives you” (different tenses)

v 15; Lev 26:30

v 16

‫שׁמיד‬, “he (Yahweh)

the covenant (or enter)”

Source and Redaction Every verse of the chapter displays Deuteronomistic theology and vocabulary.271 The only remaining literary question appears to address the number of Deuteronomists involved or the stage of Deuteronomistic activity at which the chapter was written.272 Here opinions vary greatly. Römer explains the central key for separating chaps. 23 and 24, finding redactional elements in chap. 23 and portraying chap. 24 as much later and Deuteronomistic: “Since the introductory speech, as well as other texts in Joshua, insists on a total conquest, one may conclude that the primitive form of the farewell speech in Josh 23 reflected the same ideology, and that the text was reworked later in order to modify this ideology.”273 In other words, one generation of Deuteronomists argued with and altered, if not contradicted, the theology of previous generations of Deuteronomists while

271 Cf. the lists of M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320– 59. 272 Cf. Smend, “Das Gesetz”; Halbe, Privilegrecht. 273 So- called Deuteronomistic History, 117.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 271

9/18/14 9:20 AM

272

E. The Commander’s Concluding Charge (23:1–16)

retaining both views in the text. Such a view extends one theological school of thought over centuries. It appears better to me to posit the possibility of one writer or a group of contemporary writers trained in the same scribal system creating a more complex narrative with literary depth and somewhat different perspectives than positing ongoing Deuteronomists at work centuries apart correcting what previous Deuteronomists had created. More recently such investigation into Deuteronomistic editorial work has encountered issues with Noth’s Deuteronomistic history. Römer remarks that the current exegetical climate is skeptical of a Deuteronomistic history even to the point of denying its existence.274 For Römer, the files are not yet closed. Still he can report a consensus on chap. 23:275 it is Deuteronomistic and unified but still not a part of the basic Deuteronomistic work because the latter has a total conquest, while chap. 23 has people who remain. Even in chap. 23, for Römer vv 4– 8 stand in tension with v 9 over future victories in contrast to past victory, vv 4– 8 being an even later Deuteronomistic insertion. The basic text of chap. 23, for Römer, consists of vv 1–3, 9, 11, 14–16a. Becker attempts to trace the chapter’s compositional histor y (Entstehungsgeschichte).276 He limits the original kernel to vv 1– 3, 14b–16a, formulated as a farewell speech of Joshua. Literarily this original base served to introduce chap. 24. This basic text of chap. 23 joins to the summary statement of Josh 21:43– 45, which originally stood directly before Josh 24. An expansion layer then added the people-that-remain theme (vv 4, 12, 13). This all means for Becker that chap. 23 presupposes the existence of the base text of chap. 24 and refers back to the Pentateuch and forward to the books of history.277 Latvus summarizes the basic redaction- critical methodology of Europe, basing the understanding of Josh 23 on its dealing with the remaining nations over against chap. 1 and 21:43– 45 that talk of the promise and capture of the entire land. Latvus explains that “clear tensions in the content especially, as well as repetitions and other disturbances of the coherence of the text, are indicators of redactional activity.”278 Thus, for Latvus v 5 looks at future victories while v 9 has past tense. Vv 1– 5 and 6– 8 have different attitudes toward the remaining nations and to the relationship with God on trust or on law obedience. Vv 11–13 show the same spirit as vv 6– 9. Vocabulary and syntax connect vv 15–16 to the secondary additions. Septuagint’s minus in v 16b shows an even later addition to the original text. This leaves vv 1– 5, 9b–10, 14 supplemented by vv 6– 9a, 11–13, 15–16a and then 16b. Dependent on 21:43– 45, the core of chap. 23, for Latvus, is later than Dtr history but earlier than DtrN, to which the redactional layer belongs.279 Nelson observes that “chap 23 actually witnesses to the mixed and complex ideology inherited by DH from Deuteronomy.” He then notes that dividing the chapter between a pre- exilic and an exilic author “does not remove the tension completely.”280 274 275 276 277 278 279 280

ZAW 118 (2006) 528. Ibid., 529. “Endredaktionelle Kontextvernetzungen des Josua- Buches,” 150– 51. Ibid., 151. God, Anger, and Ideology, 28– 31 (quote on p. 31). Ibid., 34. Nelson, 259, n 6.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 272

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

273

Rösel moves from a DtrN source based on Smend to a redaction- or traditioncritical method that posits that chap. 23 is a very late Deuteronomistic insertion, seeking to replace chap. 24 as the ending of the book but giving no indication of a thoroughgoing DtrN.281 Still, with Noth, Wüst, and Cortese, Josh 23:1 is original, copied by Josh 13:1.282 Chap. 23 sees land yet to be conquered and ties to Judg 2, while chap. 24 sees the land as already conquered and ties to the death report at the end of the chapter. For Rösel, chap. 24 must be older than chap. 23.283 Van der Meer concentrates on chaps. 6– 9 but examines in some detail theories of redaction, especially Smend’s.284 He accepts only DtrN and a Priestly redactor as true redaction layers. He rejects other recent suggestions as having “a relatively small textual and conceptual basis” and not having extensive scholarly acclaim. His own acceptance of Smend’s DtrN might well fail the first criterion, having only fourteen verses in Joshua outside chap. 23 but including the much- debated Josh 8:30–35 (536). Van Seters brackets out Judg 1:1–2:5 as an interruption in the Deuteronomistic history.285 The original text comprised Josh 23:1–Judg 2:6–10. Josh 24 is an addition that joins to 24:28–31 (32) at an earlier level than Judg 1:1–2:5. V 33 is a Priestly addition making Eleazar equal with Joshua. V 32 connects the story back to the patriarchal age (Gen 50:24–26 J) and the exodus (Exod 13:19). V 31 shows the writer’s intention of tying Joshua and Judges together. (The rearrangement of the text in Judg 2:6–9—a resumptive repetition of Josh 24:28–31—was necessary to fit Judg 1:1– 2:5 into its present position.) Van Seters concludes, “The Hexateuch is a scholarly fantasy and all the redactors invented to support it are likewise mere fantasies of scholarly ingenuity.”286 The need to take such desperate measures with a simple sermonic text as chap. 23 rests on assumptions I no longer share. Human writers, this one included, are seldom consistent in what they write. A major reason is an attempt to create perspective. Looking back at the whole picture to describe Israel’s remarkable achievements, the writer underlined the completeness of the “conquest” and the faithfulness of God. As Younger points out,287 some literary hyperbole is needed to express this position and to follow literary practices of the day. From the perspective of gaining territory and following God, the Israelites can report, “mission accomplished.” The writer records more than battle reports. He also attempts to describe Israel’s present position and its future decisions. The emphasis shifts from the battlefield results to the results of Israel’s spiritual battle. Will Israel join the people of the land in their previously “successful” religious practices? Or will Israel remain faithful to Yahweh, a seeming newcomer to Canaan. Here the ultimate editor taps

281 ZAW 119 (2007) 184– 89. 282 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte; Wüst, Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Texten des Alten Testaments; and Cortese, Josua 13–21: Ein priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. 283 Rösel, 188. 284 Van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation, 149. 285 HvTSt 59 (2003) 952. 286 Ibid., 955. 287 Ancient Conquest Accounts.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 273

9/18/14 9:20 AM

274

E. The Commander’s Concluding Charge (23:1–16)

into different traditions to warn Israel of the consequences of future decisions in this spiritual area of life. Yahweh has provided the battle plan for spiritual life. Will Israel “fall in”?

Form The form of the chapter may be approached from two perspectives. The opening verse connects it with the deathbed blessings of the patriarchs (Jacob, Gen 48– 49; Joseph, Gen 50:22–26; Moses, Deut 33 and the book of Deuteronomy; David, 2 Sam 23:1–7; 1 Kgs 2:1– 9).288 Nelson makes a finer distinction and calls this paraenetic speech a farewell testament in line with Deut 31 and 1 Kgs 2.289 Hubbard lists five characteristics of such speeches: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Speaker is responsible leader of God’s people Occasion of speech is approaching death of leader Speeches prepare people for life without the leader Except in Joshua 23, the speeches serve to legitimize a new leader Speeches use past history to give authority to new calls for obedience in present and in future.290

Nentel finds five elements connected with farewell speeches: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Gathering of the audience Confirmation of the approaching death Historical summary Paraenesis A prophetic view of the future291

Römer sees his original text of Josh 23 fitting the form better than Nentel’s application of it to the entire chapter.292 Römer also prefers to see Deuteronomy in miniature here in ch 23, leading to agreement with Lohfink that originally Deuteronomy and Joshua were published together, with a direct transition to Samuel.293 The content and form of chap. 23, however, are distinctive, having many connections with the “covenant formulary”:294 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Antecedent history, vv 3– 5 Statement of substance (or basic principle), vv 6– 8 (Transformed) blessing, vv 9–10 Restatement of basic principle, v 11 Curse, vv 12–13, 15–16

The content thus relates to that of a covenant-renewal ceremony, but again in a distinctive manner. The liturgy of covenant renewal has become the sermon of a dying leader. Baltzer relates this covenant/sermonic language to the Hittite vassal 288 289 290 291 292 293 294

Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 11–14. Nelson, 255; Cf. Hubbard, 527, n. 41. Hubbard, 529– 30. Trägerschaft und Intentionen, 40. ZAW 118 (2006) 534. “Zum ‘kleinen geschichtlichen Credo.’” Baltzer, Das Bundesformular; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 274

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

275

treaties, in which the aged king appoints his successor and secures the allegiance to him from the next generation.295 Baltzer fails to note, however, that Josh 23 does not mention a successor. Rather the burden for success is placed strictly on the congregation. He does note that blessing and curse have become successive events in history. The content of covenant renewal has become the sermonic blessing of the patriarch in a unique way, for the final and dominating word is a curse, not a blessing. Koopmans on the basis of his analysis of Josh 23 as poetic narrative concludes: It is dubious that Josh. 23 was ever intended to simulate the structure of ancient treaty texts. The emphasis upon covenant is of great significance, but with primary emphasis placed upon Yahweh’s word which has been faithfully fulfilled in the first stages of the conquest of the land, and which will become a curse to Israel actualized via the remaining nations, in the case of failure to uphold his law.296 Koopmans thus analyzes Josh 23 as a farewell sermon (Abschiedspredigt) appropriate for Israel’s ongoing worship. Nelson denies any connection to the treaty tradition, seeing any similarity as slight and probably resulting from a general correspondence in literary and rhetorical purpose. Latvus offers something of a compromise solution. He writes, “Clearly it would be an exaggeration to claim that Joshua 23 imitates the treaty patterns, but, on the other hand, the basic structure of the chapter echoes slightly the most important units of the treaty: historical introduction, treaty stipulations and curses.”297 Latvus relegates all covenant elements to secondary insertions.298 If present at all in Josh 23, the treaty elements are faint indeed. Antecedent history (vv 3– 5) has more to do with future expectations than with past history with no concrete battles cited. Basic principle (vv 6– 8) is expressed in imperatives. The blessing is transformed (vv 9–10). No word for “bless” or for “curse” appears in chap. 23. The reference points out past reality without entering the realm of future. The restatement of the basic principle (v 11) moves from obedience to law and remaining committed to God to the personal relationship of love for God. The curse (vv 12–16) comes closer to treaty style than the other elements, still without any word of curse but only an if . . . then formulation. The function and literary setting of chap. 23 prove easier to discern than the complex form. V 1 incorporates the chapter editorially into the larger narrative via resumptive repetition of Josh 13:1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 295 296 297 298

Community and leaders assembled for old man (v 2) Israel’s reported witness to salvation history (v 3) Mission described (v 4) Future as promise (v 5) Future as imperative to obey with illustrations (vv 6–7) Encouragement to stick to Yahweh (v 8) Testimony to Yahweh’s acts and power (vv 9–10) Central imperative (v 11)

Das Bundesformular. “Poetic Prose of Joshua 23,” 117. God, Anger, and Ideology, 30– 31. Ibid., 35.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 275

9/18/14 9:20 AM

276

E. The Commander’s Concluding Charge (23:1–16)

9. 10. 11. 12.

Future as disobedience and threat (v 13) Closure repeating opening statement (v 14) Closure showing logic of divine punishment (v 15) Summary threat for covenant violation (v 16)

Vv 2–16 report a farewell speech quite distinct in content and form from that of Jacob (Gen 47– 49) and of Moses (Deut 32–33). Jacob’s farewell address represents tribal blessings, while Moses sings a lawsuit (rîb) against his people, including a negative narration of their history. There follows Moses’ tribal blessings. Joshua’s imperative- driven farewell address is founded on the audience’s generalized historical experiences and applies to the nation as a whole, not to individualized tribes. Moses’ lawsuit ends in certain judgment, parallel to the final temporal clause in Josh 23:16, but Moses pronounces judgment on Israel’s enemies, whereas Joshua stops with judgment on Israel. Moses and Jacob bless the people, while the function of Joshua’s speech is to warn a people of judgment to come. Jacob and Moses alternate second- and third- person address, while Joshua is consistently second person. The farewell discourses of Moses and Jacob are normally read as poetry, while Joshua’s is closer to classical prose, though Koopmans argues that Josh 23 is a kind of exalted prose with many poetic characteristics.299 The narrative setting thus leads to the designation “farewell speech” or “farewell sermon.” For Joshua, the content leads to a call to obedience in face of divine judgment to come. In this call to obedience, Joshua employs contrast skillfully, especially in relationship to the subjects of clauses: Verse(s)

Subject

2

I

3

You

4

I

5

Lord

Pf. consec. as impv.

6–8

You

Negative purpose + Impv.: positive disjunctive & negative

9

Lord

Impf. consec. + negative pf.

10

You/the Lord

11

You

(Impv.: positive pf. consec. as impv.

12

You

Disjunctive condition; see v 8 Inf. abs. + impf. + negative

13

You

13b

Nations

14

I

Syntax Note Impf. consec. Disjunctive Call to attention

Disjunctive + impf. +part. +pf.

Pf. consec. Surprise clause

14b

You

Pf. consec.

14c

Lord

Pf.

15

Lord

Comparative clause

15b

Lord

Impf. comparative (contrast good/evil)

16

You

Temporal (conditional?) clause

299 “Poetic Prose of Joshua 23.”

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 276

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

277

In general terms, Josh 23 represents the farewell speech genre, but it goes its own way in content, standing closer to prophetic speech than to the addresses of Jacob or Moses.

Structure Latvus maintains that chap. 23 has an introductory exposition setting the scene and the characters.300 A historical survey follows in vv 2b– 4. An unconditional promise of victory appears in vv 5, 9–10, each section followed by exhortation to obedience of Torah, love of Yahweh, and renunciation of any ties with the nations (vv 6– 8, 11– 13). Vv 14–16 bring the contrasting scene of past perfect faithfulness by Yahweh to his promises with future possibility of dire events should Israel break the covenant. Knauf finds no conclusion for the speech of Josh 23.301 He suggests that the conclusion appears in Josh 24 as shown by 23:2 copying 24:1. Also, Judg 2:6–23 continues the speech of Josh 23 and introduces the troubles Joshua predicted. Knauf also claims that the other nations are pictured differently in Josh 23, being the surrounding nations, not the unconquered inhabitants of the land. Thus, for Knauf, Josh 23 ties together what does not belong together conceptually. Nelson finds a “characteristic rhetorical and homiletical style, marked by repetition and piling up synonymous expressions.”302 He thus determines that the chapter “does not lend itself to structural analysis.” In spite of that, he then sets out an introduction (vv 1–2) and two sections (vv 3–13 and 14–16), each beginning with an allusion to Joshua’s approaching death with three rhetorical movements (vv 3– 8, 9–13, 14–16). The movements lead from summary statements of the book’s content to motivational encouragement. In addition, they move from injunctions (vv 6– 8), to conditional threat (vv 11–13), to totally conditional and ominous threat (vv 15– 16). On a larger scale, Nelson finds chap. 23 a perfect match for the other summary sections of the Deuteronomistic history (Deut 1– 3; Josh 1; 1 Sam 12; 2 Sam 7; 1 Kgs 8), looking both backward at promise, conquest, and allotment and forward to possible threats.303 More specifically, “chap 23 modifies the totally positive outlook of 21:43– 45 to conform to the reality of the rest of Israel’s story.” Hawk breaks the chapter into an introduction (vv 1–2a), main body of exhortation (vv 2b–11), and concluding warning (vv 12–16).304 He subdivides the main body into vv 3– 8, praising Yahweh for past, present, and future works, and vv 9–11, which calls on Israel to love Yahweh who fought for Israel. Borrowing from these insights, I propose that a structural analysis of chap. 23 looks something like the following, noting that a speech contains the elements of narrative structure: Exposition (v 1— disjunctive temporal clause): Joshua’s age Complication (vv 2– 5—Impf. consec.): Joshua summons Israel and its leaders Crisis (vv 6–11— speech or dialogue changes to imperative with perf. consec.): Continue obeying law of Moses 300 301 302 303 304

God, Anger, and Ideology, 29– 30. Knauf, 189. Nelson, 255. Ibid., 258– 59. Hawk (2010) 221.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 277

9/18/14 9:20 AM

278

E. The Commander’s Concluding Charge (23:1–16)

Resolution (vv 12–13— Conditional impf. consec with inf. consec.): With warnings for future Ending (vv 14–16— ‫ וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬Attention clause): Warning on breaking the covenant, then when Joshua dies The structure here gives complexity to a tense situation, elongating the crisis, offering no resolution at the present moment, and summarizing the warning with a sermonic formulaic temporal clause tersely laying out the consequences when Israel passes over or transgresses the covenant. The temporal changes may also be used as structural markers in this creative use of literary structure. 1. Past rest (v 1) 2. Present aged leader (v 2) 3. Past testimony (v 3) 4. Present allotment of nations to tribes (v 4) 5. Future painted with optimism (v 5) 6. Present ongoing call to obedience in positive action and negative avoidance (vv 6–7) 7. Present call to continue past obedience in future (v 8) 8. Past testimony to divine faithfulness and victory (vv 9–10) 9. Present call to central positive imperative (v 11) 10. Present warning of consequences of future turning away (vv 12–13) 11. Present crisis reiterated: Joshua’s departure and Israel’s testimony about the past (v 14) 12. Future logical consequences— destruction—for God’s people (v 15) 13. Present summary: transgress covenant, lose land for future (v 16) House describes the narrative summaries that give theological directions to the reader of biblical narrative.305 Joshua 23—24 form an essential member of House’s list of summaries: “Joshua has shaped this narrative of Israel’s past as a journey from a foreign land to a land of promise by the descendants of persons who worshiped other gods. Just as Abram made that journey from idolatry to faith in one God so Israel must make the same journey at this point in time. Israel’s future depends on the acceptance of this journey as their own.”

Setting “The lack of a specific date when Joshua spoke the words allows the reader to grasp what is really important to know about the setting, namely, that the speech came when the promised ‘rest’ had been given to Israel.”306 Josh 23 explains why God has brought the curse upon Israel. Perlitt outlines an arc of tension running from Josh 23 to 2 Kgs 17, where the curse is realized.307 The arc of tension runs even further, though. It connects to 2 Kgs 21:1–16; 23:26–27, where the curse of Josh 23 is realized more fully. But Josh 23 has also a narrower arc of tension, which runs to Judg 2, particularly vv. 6–23, and 3:1– 6, where the transgression of the covenant 305 “Examining Narratives,” 236. 306 Creach, 115. 307 Bundestheologie, 48.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 278

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

279

begins and the curse is initiated (cf. especially vv 20–23). Josh 23 thus plays a key role in the biblical story. It foreshadows the remainder of the history of Israel, placing that history under the dark shadow of curse from its very inception. The chapter not only points forward. It also has backward connections. As in Exod 19:4– 6, where Israel looks back to the exodus, so in Josh 23:3– 4 Israel looks back at the conquest. As in Exod 23:23– 33 God promises Israel to drive out their enemies and commands Israel not to worship other gods, so in Josh 23:5–13. As Exod 33:1– 3 illustrates the curse of divine wrath, so Josh 23:13, 15–16 threatens such a curse on Israel. As Exod 34 depicts the covenant with Israel based on God defeating the enemies and Israel refraining from any contact with the gods of the enemies, so Josh 23 presupposes such a covenant and the dire consequences of disobedience. This is the theology preached in the entire book of Deuteronomy, which climaxes in the blessings and curses of chaps. 27–29. This theology introduces the book of Joshua (especially 1:1– 9). Finally, the setting of Josh 23 repeats that of chap. 13, an aged Joshua facing Israel with much land yet to be divided. In the extended view of the setting of Joshua, I agree with Pitkänen, who writes: The author interprets his fairly non- technical sources from a deuteronomistic viewpoint (note however that some priestly features are nevertheless included in his sources as well). . . . It is logical to think that at least a substantial part of the book of Joshua dates from the pre-monarchic period when Shiloh was the main sanctuary in Israel.308 Josh 23 is thus a centerpiece, taking up the themes stretching from Sinai onward and casting their light into the period of the judges, the divided monarchy, and the Babylonian exile. As such, Josh 23 may be understood as the theological explanation of the history of Israel herself.

Table 23.2. Joshua 23 Form and Narrative Elements Narrative: Road to disaster Element

Passage

Marker

Genre: Farewell address Element

Passage

Marker

Exposition: Joshua’s age

v1

Disjunctive temporal clause

Editorial introduction

v1

Temporal clause; resumptive repetition from 13:1

Complication: Joshua summons Israel, leaders

vv 2–5

Impf. consec.

Leaders summoned

v2

Leaders list

Change or crisis: continue obeying law of Moses or face destruction

vv 6–15

Speech changes to imperative

Call to remember

v3

Disjunctive +

‫ראה‬

308 Pitkänen, 380.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 279

9/18/14 9:20 AM

280

E. The Commander’s Concluding Charge (23:1–16) Narrative: Road to disaster Element

Passage

Resolution (impf. consec.)

{left open for future}

Ending/ denouement: If you break the covenant, then . . .

v 16

Marker

Genre: Farewell address Element Call to future

Passage vv 4–5

Marker

‫ ראה‬impv. + 1st pers. pf. + boundaries + disjunctive + Yahweh as subject

Formulaic

Call to obedience: negative and positive

vv 6–8

Impvs. + Torah

Motivation for obedience

vv 9–10

Yahweh’s deeds

Central call for character

v 11

Love Yahweh

Warning for disobedience

vv 12–13

‫ כי אם‬+ illicit actions + Yahweh’s threat

Personal motivation

vv 14–15

Personal situation + testimony to divine faithfulness to fulfill blessing and curse

Final prediction

v 16

When you trespass covenant, expect this warning to be realized.

Comments 1 Unlike other narrative texts, Josh 23 has no specific setting in time or space. It simply connects to Josh 13:1, when Joshua was old, and 21:44, when God had given rest. Howard sets the narrative in “a time many years after the events in chaps 13–21 and even 22.”309 Relating it to Caleb’s life (14:10), Howard pushes the concluding speeches to twenty- five years after conquest and distribution.310 The setting thus marks Israel at the moment she had dreamed of from the exodus onward (Exod 33:14). But it also marks the crisis of leadership transition. The message that follows is at the same time one for prosperity and also for crisis. 2 Joshua speaks to all Israel. He attempted in chap. 1 to unite east and west. The amazing accusations and mediations of chap. 22 finally brought unity, at least until the judges come along. The list of leaders joins those of the first half of the 309 Howard, 419. 310 Ibid., 420.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 280

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

281

book— elders (Josh 6:21; 7:6; 8:10, 33; cf. 20:4), judges (8:33),311 and officials (1:10; 3:2; 8:33)— with those of the second half—heads (14:1; 19:51; 21:1; 22:14, 21, 30). Interestingly, here chiefs and priests receive no mention. The setting is a meeting of the “secular” leaders of the community. 3 Joshua begins by defining Israel by looking at her history. The people of Israel have seen all that God has done for them. Joshua does not have to create narratives for them to learn and accept. Yahweh fights for the people of Israel against all the nations (Exod 14:14, 25; Deut 1:30; 3:22; 20:4; Josh 10:14, 25, 29, 42), thus fulfilling his promise to be with them (contrast Exod 33:1–3 and Josh 1:5, 9, 17). Without divine presence and assistance in battle, Israel has no identity. This summarizes chaps. 1–12. 4 Despite Israel’s triumphs, she had a nagging problem. Enemies remain in the land God has given to her (Josh 13:1–7), precisely in the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean (cf. the problem of chap. 22). Just as God had portioned out the land to the tribes (vv 14–19), so he now has apportioned out the nations (cf. 13:6, the only other appearance of the hipʿil of the verb ‫( נפל‬cause to fall, allot) in Joshua).312 This represents the other side of the picture from that painted in Josh 21:43– 45. God has faithfully shown his power over all enemies. A broad perspective brings assurance and calls for praise to God. The more closely focused perspective modifies the picture. Israel has the land, but some of it remains to be settled and possessed. In addition, Israel still has nagging enemies. Judg 1:1–3:6 takes up the same problem from other perspectives (cf. Exod 23:27–31). Israel serves a God who can give them all God has promised. Israel also lives in a historical condition in which Israel has not taken the initiative to drive out the enemies and possess the whole land. Joshua can no longer fight for the people of Israel and help them gain power over all the Promised Land. He has allotted the various enemies to the various tribes. Now it is time for Israelite action without Joshua. They must trust God and follow the Divine Warrior to complete their mission. 5 God’s promise to drive out the remaining nations takes up the promises of Deut 6:19 and 9:3– 4. To “dispossess them” reaches back to Exod 34:24; Num 32:21; Deut 4:38; 9:4– 5; 11:23; 18:12; Josh 3:10; 13:6 (cf. Judg 11:23). The promise to “possess them” takes up the language of the promise to Abraham in Gen 15:7 (cf. 22:17; 24:60; 28:4). This is underlined in Lev 20:24. The fulfillment of the promise began in Num 21:24, 35, but it remains the overarching promise repeated in Num 33:53 and the task of Israel throughout Deuteronomy (1:8, 21, 39, and over sixty times). It is not surprising that Joshua’s marching orders are to go and possess the land (1:11, 15). At the end of the conquest, he still faces more land to possess (13:1) and implores the tribes to possess the land (18:3). The concluding summary is likewise in terms of possession (21:43), but even then the task remains (23:5). Israel saw that God fulfilled his promises but that he constantly was placing a new task before the people. Nelson states, the “complete fulfillment of the promises is not denied but extended into the open future.”313 6 The task is not, however, stated in military terms, but in terms of obedience to God’s will (Josh 1:7– 8; Exod 24:7; Deut 28:58, 61; 29:19–20, 26 [29:20–21, 27]; 30:10; 311 Cf. K. W. Whitelam, The Just King, JSOTSup 12 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979) 198. 312 Cf. Latvus, God, Anger, and Ideology, 34. 313 Nelson, 261.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 281

9/18/14 9:20 AM

282

E. The Commander’s Concluding Charge (23:1–16)

31:24, 26; Josh 8:31, 34; cf. Exod 34:27–28). This is a straight and narrow path. Israel must not stray in any direction. 7 The major concern of Deuteronomy’s law is summarized. Israel’s identity hangs on her uniqueness. Whereas the nations serve many gods, she serves only one. To avoid all temptation from the nations’ gods, Israel must avoid all contact with the nations. Specifically, Israel is not to call to remembrance the names of their gods (Exod 23:13; Isa 26:13), that is, to praise them and to acknowledge their divine power. If the MT is correct (cf. Notes), Israel is not to take oaths in the name of other gods (cf. Deut 6:13; 10:20), that is, to call upon other gods to guarantee the fulfillment of promises, for this is at the same time a recognition of the power of the god.314 Israel is to serve only Yahweh (Exod 3:12; 20:5; 23:24–25, 33; Deut 4:19, 28; 6:13; 7:4, 16; 8:19; 10:12, 20; 11:13, 16; 12:2, 30; 13:5, 7, 14; 17:3; 28:14, 36, 47, 64; 29:17, 25; 30:17; 31:20; Josh 22:5, 27). Such service includes cultic worship (cf. especially Num 4, 8, and 18), but extends to the total binding of oneself as a servant to God (cf. Deut 28:47– 48).315 Finally, Israel must not bow down in worship to other gods (Exod 20:5; 23:24; 32:8; 34:14; Lev 26:1; Num 25:2; Deut 4:19; 5:9; 8:19; 11:16; 17:3; 29:25; 30:17). Here is Yahweh’s claim to the absolute allegiance of the people, a claim totally unique in Israel’s environment, where all of the surrounding peoples worshiped many gods, even though the national god was seen as the chief god or the king of the gods. Hubbard sums up the problem: “The very sensuality of Canaanite fertility rituals also probably attracted Israelites. The twin appeals to relevance and to sexual pleasure tempted them to participate even if they never formally renounced loyalty to Yahweh.”316 For Israel, Yahweh claimed to fulfill all the functions for which other nations needed a multitude of gods. The problem was that Israel could never really come to believe the claim totally. Israel constantly sought the favors of the gods who had claimed to give fertility to the land long before Israel entered it or the gods who seemed at the moment to have military power. In all circumstances, Yahweh demanded absolute allegiance of his “slave people” if they did not want to return to the slavery in Egypt. 8 The writer uses an oath formula to call upon Israel to cling to Yahweh (cf. Deut 10:20; 11:22; 13:5; 30:20; Josh 22:5). The other choice is for the sicknesses of Egypt to cling to Israel (Deut 28:60). The writer encourages Israel by noting that she had succeeded in such total loyalty up to this point. Such language is applicable only to the conquest generation, being just the opposite of the wilderness generation and all succeeding ones. 9 A historical review similar to v 3 is inserted as a reason for maintaining total loyalty. Yahweh’s actions have proved his claims. The promise of Josh 1:5 has been fulfilled. 10 The blessings of Deut 28:7 and 32:30 have been realized. God has fought for Israel (cf. v 3). The repeated refrain is that God has kept his word. Yahweh is trustworthy, faithful, to be believed and obeyed. 314 C. A. Keller, THAT, 2:860– 61; cf. Jer 5:7; 12:16; Zeph 1:5. 315 See Floss, Jahwe dienen. 316 Hubbard, 525.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 282

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

283

11 The point of the entire oration comes somewhat unexpectedly. In a context of fighting and demands, the expected response is loyal love (cf. Josh 22:5).317 Such love is more than emotion, more than robotic obedience. It is total devotion and total desire and willingness to please the God you love by serving, not demanding. 12 The reverse response is to cling to other gods (cf. v 9). The result would be a new people, a mixture of the remaining nations and Israel. But this people would not be the people of Yahweh. Israel must do everything in her power to avoid losing her unique identity. The only way to retain the identity is through absolute loyalty to Yahweh. Solomon found the truth of this claim, to his despair (cf. 1 Kgs 11). 13 With this verse, the mood changes dramatically. The imperative call to obedience moves to threatened punishment for disobedience. As with the entire chapter, the remaining nations take center stage. They represent the threat. God has promised to take care of that threat (vv 4– 5). He has asked Israel to ignore the threat and the temptation that comes with it (vv 7, 11–12). If Israel does not do her part, then God will not do his. Such is the danger of freedom. God seeks our free response of love and does God’s part to deserve and receive the divine love. God does not force attentions upon us. But the person who ignores God’s claims finds God’s punishment. Here the punishment fits the crime. Mixing with the nations brings further opportunities for such mixing. God refuses to drive the nations out (contrast v 5). When they remain, they are troublesome temptations for further mixing, for further loss of Israel’s unique identity, and thus for further punishment. The result is that Israel loses her land and wanders away lost, the same fate that befell the original ancestor (Deut 26:5; ‫אבד‬, “to wander aimlessly, lost”; “to perish,” as here; cf. Lev 26:38; Deut 4:26; 7:20; 8:19, 20; 11:17; 28:20, 22; 30:18). Kitz refers to God’s residual rights to the land, that is, the divine right to take the land back from a disobedient Israel and give it to whomever God pleases.318 Israel too easily claimed God’s gift as one in perpetuity. Joshua reminds them it is a gift of grace that can be rescinded. Joshua thus gives nothing new to Israel. The people have known the land situation all along. God has constantly warned them; they are at fault; they do not listen. Thus they lose the gift of God. 14 “Joshua’s grim last word (vv 14–16) pronounces the central warning of the deuteronomistic program.”319 Amid the threat, Joshua adds a poignant plea. Will the people not listen to the voice of an old, dying man? Can they not accept his personal testimony? If not, can they not look deep within themselves and accept the reality of what they know? God has failed in nothing. Everything Yahweh said, Yahweh has done. God has been, is, and will be faithful. What is Israel’s response? Here, “the careful obedience that was laid upon Joshua as an individual at the start of the book (1:7– 8) now becomes the duty of the entire people and their collective leadership (1:7– 8; 23:6, 11).”320 15 Joshua quickly notes the reverse side of the picture. Pressler compares this verse with the summary of Josh 21:45. The same fact— God’s faithful fulfillment 317 318 319 320

Howard, 423. “Undivided Inheritance and Lot Casting,” JBL 119 (2000) 605– 6. Nelson, 257. Ibid., 258.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 283

9/18/14 9:20 AM

284

E. The Commander’s Concluding Charge (23:1–16)

of God’s promises— can sound victorious (21:45) or somber and menacing (23:15) depending on the context. Not only do God’s good, pleasing promises come true, but Yahweh has the power and the will to bring “evil words” to pass. Here all the threats of Deuteronomy and particularly the curses of Deut 28:15– 68 stand at the center of attention. Yahweh’s major gift to Israel has been the land. It is precisely this gift (v 13) that God will take away. Now Israel must realize that “Joshua may die, but God will not change.”321 16 V 16 summarizes the threat in terms of God’s wrath aroused by a broken covenant, ending the theological summary precisely where chap. 7 began (cf. 7:1). Römer sees the content of the covenant mentioned here as the stipulations in Deuteronomy.322 Aurelius points simply to the first commandment.323 The present emphasis is certainly on the first commandment, but in the larger context “covenant” points back to Sinai/Horeb and the covenant made there (Exod 19–24). Again, the cause of divine wrath centers on broken loyalties, serving other gods, worshiping them (cf. v 7). The warning of Deut 6:15; 7:4; 11:17; 29:24–27 (29:25– 28) is pictured as historical reality in terms similar to Deut 31:16–18. Warning has become almost certain. The gods of the nations appear as an almost irresistable temptation for Israel. “The peoples of the land no longer threaten Israel by their military power but by their mere presence.”324 Everything that has been gained stands to be lost. At the beginning of the book, Israel stood outside the land and had before them every opportunity for life. At the end, they stand within it, still with all those opportunities, yet also facing the possibility of losing everything.325

Explanation Hawk points out three marks of Israelite identity that rest in these brief verses: “ethnic separation, possession of land, and devotion to God through obedience to the Torah of Moses. They appear in such a way, however, as to highlight the tension between Yahweh’s faithfulness and Israel’s fickleness.”326 In the context of Joshua’s day, the message is a doom- laden warning. Rest is not the final word for life in the land. Temptation lurks in the presence of the gods of the peoples remaining in the land. Blessing can last only as long as total faithfulness to Yahweh lasts. When Israel begins to experiment with other gods, trying to be like the nations and worship every god possible, doom is imminent. Doom means loss of the promised and given land. Doom means aimless wandering, searching for a home like the ancient patriarchs. Doom means destruction, death, disintegration of the people of God.

321 Hess (1996) 298. 322 ZAW 118 (2006) 533. 323 Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Enneateuch, BZAW 319 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007) 99. 324 Hawk (2010) 223. 325 McConville and Williams, 88. 326 Hawk (2010) 222.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 284

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Bibliography: Covenant

285

For Israel in the monarchical period, the message was even graver. Marriage and mixing with the nations began with Solomon, resulting in mixing with foreign gods, just as our passage predicts. Doom also began with the division of the kingdom. Could total destruction be far behind? When the north has fallen, can Judah have hope to escape? No! Manasseh seals her doom. The message is particularly meaningful for exiled Israel. Doom has come. The people of God have been taken to a foreign land. Does this mean their God has fought and lost? Must Israel search for another god, one who can fight and win with modern weaponry and in modern political reality? You are asking the wrong questions, says the historian. The answer is not in political power in the short term. The answer is the longer historical perspective. God proved God’s power to conquer long ago. The exile only proves God’s power to be self- consistent, fulfilling “evil words” as well as “good words.” God has found another way to show the divine claim for total allegiance. The question must now be directed to Israel. Have the people learned the lesson of history? Are they ready to face their own disloyalty, their own faithlessness with the gods of the nations? Chap. 23 shows the exiled Israelites and why they are in the position they are in. But that is not the end. One chapter remains to give hints on how to regain her lost position.

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28) Bibliography (Note: The bibliography on Josh 24 is too vast to include in its entirety here. The following list attempts to give the most important materials on the major problems of the chapter.)327

Bibliography: Covenant Barr, J. “Some Semantic Notes on Covenant.” In Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie. Ed. H. Donner, R. Hanhart, and R. Smend. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. 23–38. Buis, P. “Les formulaires d’alliance.” VT 16 (1966) 396–411. Campbell, E. F. “Moses and the Foundations of Israel.” Int 29 (1975) 146–51. Clements, R. E. Old Testament Theology. Atlanta: John Knox, 1978. 96–103. Davidson, R. “Covenant Ideology in Ancient Israel.” In The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological, and Political Perspectives. Ed. R. E. Clements. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989. 323–47. DeClaissé-Walford, N. “Covenant in the Book of Joshua.” RevExp 95 (1998) 227–34. Eichrodt, W. “Darf man heute noch von einem Gottesbund mit Israel reden?” TZ 30 (1974) 193–206. Fohrer, G. “Altes Testament—‘Amphiktyonie’ und ‘Bund’?” TLZ 91 (1966) 801–16, 893–904. Halbe, J. Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex. 34,10–26. FRLANT 114. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. 506–26. Haran, M. “The Berit ‘Covenant’: Its Nature and Ceremonial Background.” In Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Ed. M. Cogan, B. L. Eichler, and J. H. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. 203– 19. Hess, R. S. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker, 327 See Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative, for extensive bibliography, history of research, and critique of previous research.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 285

9/18/14 9:20 AM

286

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

2007. Hillers, D. R. Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1969. Jepsen, A. “Berith: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Exilszeit.” In Verbannung und Heimkehr. Ed. A. Kuschke. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1961. 161–79. Kalluveettil, P. Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1982. Kitchen, K. A. “The Fall and Rise of Covenant, Law, and Treaty.” TynBul 40 (1989) 118–35. Knauf, E. A. “Bundesschlüsse in Josua.” In Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque. Ed. T. C. Römer and K. Schmid. BETL 203. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. 217–24. Koch, C. Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des altorientalischen Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. BZAW 383. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008. Kutsch, E. “berit, Verpflichtung.” THAT, 1:339–52. ———. Verheissung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten ‘Bund’ im Alten Testament. BZAW 131. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973. Levin, C. Die Verheissung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt. FRLANT 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Loersch, S. Das Deuteronomium und seine Deutungen. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967. 95–103. Martin-Achard, R. “Trois ouvrages sur l’alliance dans l’Ancien Testament.” RTP 110 (1978) 299–306. Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1979. 64–71. ———. “King and Covenant: A Study of 2 Kings 22–23.” Herm 125 (1978) 34–47. ——— and R. B. Salters (eds). Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. McCarthy, D. J. “Berit and Covenant in the Deuteronomistic History.” In Studies in the Religion and History of Ancient Israel. VTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1972. 65–85. ———. “Berith in OT History and Theology.” Bib 53 (1972) 110–21. ———. “Ebla, horkia temnein, tʿb šlm: Addenda to Treaty and Covenant.” Bib 60 (1979) 247–53. ———. Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions. Oxford: Blackwell, 1972. ———. Treaty and Covenant. 2nd ed. AnBib 2lA. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978. Nicholson, E. W. God and His People, Covenant, and Theology in the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986. Nötscher, F. “Bundesformular und ‘Amtsschimmel.’” BZ 9 (1965) 181–214. Oden, R. A., Jr. “The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Israel.” In Ancient Israelite Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. 429–47. Otto, E. “Welcher Bund ist ewig? Die Bundestheologie priesterlicher Schriftgelehrter im Pentateuch und in der Tradentenprophetie im Jeremiabuch.” In Für immer verbündet. Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel. Festschrift für Frank-Lothar Hoßfeld. Ed. C. Dohmen and C. Frevel. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 211. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007. 161–70. Schmidt, W. H. Alttestamentlicher Glaube in seiner Geschichte. 2nd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975. 104–7. Van Seters, J. “Joshua 24 and the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament.” In In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. H. Ahlström. Ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer. JSOTSup 31. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. 139–58. Wächter, L. “Die Übertragung der Beritvorstellung auf Jahwe.” TLZ 99 (1974) 801–16. Weinfeld, M. “Berith—Covenant vs. Obligation.” Bib 56 (1975) 120–28. ———. “berîth.” TDOT, 2:253–79. Westermann, C. “Genesis 17 und die Bedeutung von berit.” TLZ 101 (1976) 161–70. ———. Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzügen. ATD Ergänzungsreihe 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. 34–37. Wilms, F. E. Das Jahwistische Bundesbuch in Exodus 34. SANT 32. Munich: Kösel, 1973. 213–33. Zimmerli, W. “Erwägungen zum ‘Bund’: Die Aussagen über die Jahwe berit in Ex. 19–34.” In WortGebot-Glaube. Ed. H. J. Stoebe. ATANT 59. Zürich: Zwingli, 1970. 171–90. ———. Old Testament Theology in Outline. Trans. D. E. Green. Atlanta: John Knox, 1978. 48–58.

Bibliography: Exegesis Agius, J. The Historical Prologue in Jos 24:2–13: A Literary-Critical Analysis. Malta: [PUST], 1976. Alonso Asenjo, J. “Investigación crítica sobre Jos 24,19–20: Análisis de tres expressiones raras y significativas.” EstBib 32 (1973) 257–70. Anbar, M. Josué et l’alliance de Sichem

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 286

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Bibliography: Exegesis

287

(Josué 24:1–28). BBET 25. Frankfurt: Lang, 1992. ———. “Un ‘mot en vedette’ et une ‘reprise’ introduisant une promesse conditionnelle de l’éternité de la dynastie davidique.” VT 44 (1994) 1–9. Angel, H. “‘There Is No Chronological Order in the Torah’: An Axiom for Understanding the Book of Joshua.” JBQ 36 (2008) 3–11. Aurelius, E. Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Enneateuch. BZAW 319. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003. 172–74. Baltzer, K. Das Bundesformular. WMANT 4. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960. 29–37. Translated as The Covenant Formulary in the Old Testament, trans. D. E. Green (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971) 19–27. Becker, J. Gottesfurcht im Alten Testament. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965. 114–15. ———. “Endredaktionelle Kontextvernetzungen des Josua-Buches.” In Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur ‘Deuteronomismus’-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Ed. M. Witte, K. Schmid, D. Prechel, and J. C. Gertz. BZAW 365. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006. 141–61. Blum, E. Die Composition der Vätergeschichte. WMANT 57. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984. 45–61. ———. “Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag.” In Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. Ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust. BETL 133. Leiden: Brill, 1997. 181–212. Brekelmans, C. “Joshua 24: Its Place and Function.” In Congress Volume, Leuven 1989. Ed. J. Emerton. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill. 1–9. Bugg, C. “Josh 24:14–18—The Choice.” RevExp 95 (1998) 279–84. Bulmer, M. The Prophetic Faith. New York: Macmillan, 1949. 13–18. David, R. “Une touche d’ironie en Josué 24,27?” In Bible et Terre Sainte: Mélanges Marcel Beaudry. Ed J. E. A. Chiu, K. J. O’Mahony, and M. Roger. New York: Lang, 2008. 63–71. Diebner, B. J. “Ich aber und mein Haus— wir wollen YHWH dienen (Jos 24:15b): Bemerkungen zum Alten Testament als Buch von rechten Gottesdienst ‘Israels.’” DBAT 17 (1983) 30–80. Edelman, D. “Are the Kings of the Amorites ‘Swept Away’ in Joshua XXIV 12?” VT 41 (1991) 279–86. Floss, J. P. Jahwe dienen—Göttern dienen. BBB 45. Bonn: Hanstein, 1975. 334–71. Frankel, D. “The Deuteronomic Portrayal of Balaam.” VT 46 (1996) 30–42. Giblin, C. H. “Structural Patterns in Jos 24, 1–25.” CBQ 26 (1964) 50–69. Gosse, B. “Abraham père des exilés en Josué 24.” In The Book of Joshua. Ed. E. Noort. Leuven: Peeters (2012) 295–300. Greenspoon, L. J. Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua. HSM 28. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Hollenberg, J. “Die deuteronomischen Bestandtheile des Buches Josua.” TSK 1 (1874) 485–89. House, P. R. “Examining the Narratives of Old Testament Narrative: An Exploration in Biblical Theology.” WTJ 67 (2005) 229–45. Jaroš, K. Sichem. OBO 11. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1976. 129–53. Keller, C. A. “Über einige alttestamentliche Heiligtumslegenden 1.” ZAW 67 (1955) 141–68. Koopmans, W. T. Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative. JSOTSup 93. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Kratz, R. G. Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. 204–8. Kraus, H. J. Gottesdienst in Israel. 2nd ed. Munich: Kaiser, 1962. 160–66. Translated as Worship in Israel. Trans. G. Buswell Richmond: John Knox, 1966. 134–41. Kulp, J. “‘We were slaves’: Rava’s Babylonian Haggadah.” Conservative Judaism 60 (2008) 59–75. Lannoey, B. “Op die dag sloot Jozua een verbond voor het volk te Sichem: Literairkritische studie van Joz. 24,1–28.” Lic. Theol. Leuven, 1987. L’Hour, J. “L’alliance de Sichem.” RB 69 (1962) 5– 36, 161–84, 350–68. Liedke, G. Gestalt und Bezeichnung alttestamentlicher Rechtssätze. WMANT 39. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. 180–86. Lubsezyk, H. Der Auszug Israels aus Ägypten. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1963. 136–43. Mayes, A. D. H. Israel in the Period of the Judges. London: SCM Press, 1974. 34–41. McCarthy, D. J. Treaty and Covenant. 2nd ed. AnBib 2lA. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978. 221–42, 279–84, 290–98. Meer, M. N. van der. Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses. VTSup 102. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Mendenhall, G. E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Bible Colloquium, 1955. 41– 44. Mitchell, G. Together in the Land. JSOTSup 134. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 287

9/18/14 9:20 AM

288

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

Möhlenbrink, K. “Die Landnahmensagen des Buches Josua.” ZAW 56 (1938) 250–54. Mölle, M. Der sogenannte Landtag zu Sichem. FB 42. Würzburg: Echter, 1980. Muilenburg, J. “The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formulations.” VT 9 (1959) 357–60, 364– 65. Müller, R. Königstum und Gottesherrschaft: Untersuchungen zur alttestamentlichen Monarchiekritick. FAT II/3 Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Nelson, R. N. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. 94–98. Nentel, J. Trägerschaft und Intentionen des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks: Untersuchungen zu den Reflexionsreden Jos 1; 23; 24; 1 Sam 12 und 1 Kön 8.” BZAW 297. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000. Newsom, C. A. “Rhyme and Reason: The Historical Résumé in Israelite and Early Jewish Thought.” In Congress Volume, Leiden 2004. Ed. A. Lemaire. VTSup 109. Leiden: Brill, 2006. 215–33. Nihan, C. “The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua.” In Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Ed. G. N. Koopers and B. M. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns (2007) 187–223. Noort, E. Das Buch Josua: Forschungsgeschichte und Problemfelder. EdF 292. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998. ———. “Zu Stand und Perspektiven: Der Glaube Israels zwischen Religionsgeschichte und Theologie: Der Fall Josua 24.” In Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism: Festschrift für A. S. van der Woude. Ed. F. G. Martínez et al. Leiden: Brill, 1998. 82–108. Noth, M. Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930. 133–40. Perlitt, L. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. WMANT 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. 239–84. Polaski, D. C. “What Mean These Stones? Inscriptions, Textuality and Power in Persia and Yehud.” In Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period. Ed. J. L. Berquist. SemeiaSt 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2007. 37–48. Popovic, M. “Conquest of the Land, Loss of the Land: Where Does Joshua 24 Belong?” In The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort. Ed. J. van Ruiten and J. C. de Vos. VTSup 124. Leiden: Brill, 2009. 87–98. Pury, A. de, T. C. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi, eds. Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. JSOTSup 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Ringgren, H. “Der Landtag in Sichem.” In Nachdenken über Israel, Bibel und Theologie. FS K. D. Schunck, ed. H. M. Niemann et al. BEATAJ 37. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1994. 89–91. Rofé, A. “The Editing of the Book of Joshua in the Light of 4QJosha.” In New Qumran Texts and Studies. Ed. G. Brook and F. Martínez. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. 73–80. ———. “The End of the Book of Joshua according to the Septuagint.” Hen 4 (1982) 17–35. ———. “The Formcritical Problem of the Hexateuch—Revisited.” In Alte Testament—ein Geschichtsbuch? Ed. E. Blum, W. Johnstone, C. Markschies. Münster (2005) ———. “The assembly at Shechem (Joshua 24, 1–28, 31): the text, literature and history. In Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, July 29-August 5, 1997. Ed. R. Margolin. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies (1999) 17–25. Römer, T. “Das doppelte Ende des Joshuabuches: Einige Anmerkungen zur aktuellen Discussion um ‘deuteronomistiches Geschichtswerk’ und ‘Hexateuch.’” ZAW 118 (2006) 523–48. ———. “La mort de Moïse (Dt 34) et la naissance de la Torah à l’époque perse.” FoiVie 103 (2004) 31–44. Römer, T. C., and M. Z. Brettler. “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch.” JBL 119 (2000) 401–19. Römer, T. C., and A. de Pury. “Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Issues.” In Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. JSOTSup 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. 24– 143. Rösel, H. “Erwägungen zu Tradition und Geschichte in Josh 24: Ein Versuch.” BN 22 (1983) 41–46. Rösel, M. “The Septuagint-Version of the Book of Joshua.” SJOT 16 (2002) 5–23. Rudolph, W. Der ‘Elohist’ von Exodus bis Josua. BZAW 68. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1938. 244–53. Schmid, K. Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments. WMANT 81. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999. Schmidt, W. H. Alttestamentlicher Glaube in seiner Ge-

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 288

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Bibliography: Shechem Archaeology

289

schichte. 2nd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975. 18, 102–4. Schmitt, G. Der Landtag von Sichem. AzTh 15. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1964. Seebass, H. Der Erzvater Israel. BZAW 98. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1966. 5–8, 87–102. Sellin, E. Gilgal: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Einwanderung Israels in Palästina. Leipzig: Deichert, 1917. 50–56. Smend, R. “Das Gesetz und die Völker.” In Probleme Biblischer Theologie. Ed. H. W. Wolff. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. 503–4. Sperling, S. “Joshua 24 Re-examined.” HUCA 58 (1987) 119–36. Stockton, E. D. “Fortress Temple of Shechem and Joshua’s Covenant.” AJBA 1 (1968) 24–28. Tov, E. “Midrash-Type Exegesis in the lxx of Joshua.” RB 85 (1978) 50–61. ———. “The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture.” In Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Ed. C. Evans and E. Tov. Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. Van Seters, J. “Joshua 24 and the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament.” In In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlström. Ed. W. Barrick and J. Spencer. JSOTSup 31. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. 139–58. Vaux, R. de. Histoire ancienne d’Israel. Vol. 1. Paris: Gabalda, 1971. 610–14. Translated in The Early History of Israel. Trans. D. Smith. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1978. 667–72. Vriezen, T. C. “Exodusstudien Exodus I.” VT 17 (1967) 336–38. Waters, B. P. “Appearances.” NICM (National Institute for Campus Ministries) Journal 8 (1983) 125–29. Weinfeld, M. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. 59–66. Wellhausen, J. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 2nd ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1889. 135–36. Zakovitch, Y. “And the Lord Sent Moses and Aaron.” 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. Ed. C. Cohen et al. Vol. 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. 191–99.

Bibliography: Shechem Archaeology Boling, R. G. “Bronze Age Buildings at the Shechem High Place: ASOR Excavations at Tananir.” BA 32 (1969) 82–103. Buhl, R. J. “The Excavation of Tell er-Ras on Mt. Gerazim.” BA 31 (1968) 58–72. Campbell, E. F. “Shechem (City).” IDBSup, 821–22. ———. “Two Amarna Notes: The Shechem City-State and Amarna Administrative Terminology.” In Magnalia dei: The Mighty Acts of God. Ed. F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. 38–54. Campbell, E. F., J. F. Ross, and L. E. Tombs. “The Eighth Campaign at Balaṭah (Shechem).” BASOR 204 (1971) 2–17. Campbell, E. F., and G. E. Wright. “Tribal League Shrines in Amman and Shechem.” BA 32 (1969) 104– 16. Elliger, K. “Sichem.” BHH 3 (1966) 1781–83. Hawkins, R. How Israel became a People. Nashville: Abingdon, 2013. Jaroš, K. Sichem. OBO 11. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1976. 11–66. Jaroš, K., and B. Deckerit. Studien zur Sichem-Area. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1977. Na’aman, N. “The Law of the Altar in Deuteronomy and the Cultic Site Near Shechem.” In Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters. Ed. S. L. McKenzie and T. Römer. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2000. 141–61. Nihan, C. “The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua.” In The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. 187–223. Otto, E. Jakob in Sichem. BWANT 110. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1979. 108–58, 212–18. ———. “Überlieferungen von Sichem und die Ausgrabungen auf tell balāta: Rezensionsartikel zu: Jaroš, K., Sichem (OrBib 11, 1976).” BN 6 (1978) 19–26. Seger, J. D. “Shechem Field XIII, 1969.” BASOR 205 (1972) 20–35. Toombs, L. E. “Shechem, Problems of the Early Israelite Era.” In Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1975). Ed. F. M. Cross. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1979. 69–84. Toombs, L. E., and

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 289

9/18/14 9:20 AM

290

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

G. E. Wright. “The Fourth Campaign at Balâtah (Shechem).” BASOR 169 (1963) 1–26, 32–60. Vogel, E. K. “Bibliography of Holy Land Sites Compiled in Honor of Dr. Nelson Glueck.” HUCA 42 (1971) 76–77. Wächter, L. “Die Bedeutung Sichems bei der Landnahme der Israeliten.” WZR 17 (1968) 411–19. Weippert, H. “Sichem.” BRL2. 293–96. Wilhelm, G. “Ausgrabungen in Tell Balaṭa und Tell er-Ras.” AfO 23 (1969–1970) 183–86. ———. “Ausgrabungen in Tell Balaṭa.” AfO 24 (1973) 213–15. Wright, G. E. Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. ———. “Shechem.” In Archaeology and Old Testament Study. Ed. D. W. Thomas. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. 355–70. ———. “Shechem.” EAEHL. 4:1083–94. Wright, G. R. H. “Co-ordinating the Survey of Shechem over Sixty Years.” ZDPV 89 (1973) 188–96. ———. “Shechem and League Shrines.” VT 21 (1971) 572–603. ———. “Temples at Shechem.” ZAW 80 (1968) 1–35. ———. “Temples at Shechem—A Detail.” ZAW 87 (1975) 56–64.

Bibliography: Short Historical Creed Anbar, M. Josué et l’Alliance de Sichem (Josué 24:1–28). BBET 25. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1992. Brekelmans, C. H. “Het ‘historische Credo’ van Israeel.” TvT 3 (1963) 1–10. ———. “Joshua 24: Its Place and Function.” In Congress Volume, Leuven 1989. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991. 1–9. Carmichael, C. “A New View of the Origin of the Deuteronomic Credo.” VT 19 (1969) 273–89. Childs, B. S. “Deuteronomic Formulae of the Exodus Traditions.” In Hebräische Wortforschung. FS W. Baumgartner, ed. G. W. Anderson et al. VTSup 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967. 30–39. Craigie, P. C. Deuteronomy. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. 321. Cross, F. M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1973. 79–144. Durham, J. I. “Ancient Israelite Credo.” IDBSup, 197–99. Harrelson, W. “Life, Faith, and the Emergence of Tradition.” In Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament. Ed. D. Knight. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. 11–30. Huffmon, H. B. “The Exodus, Sinai and the Credo.” CBQ 27 (1965) 101–13. Hyatt, J. P. “Were There an Ancient Historical Credo in Israel and an Independent Sinai Tradition?” In Translating and Understanding the Old Testament. Ed. H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970. 152–70. Jenks, A. W. The Elohist and North Israelite Traditions. SBLMS 22. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977. 12–16. Kreuzer, S. Die Frühgeschichte Israels in Bekenntnis und Verkündigung des Alten Testaments. BZAW 178. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989. 183–92. Lang, B. “Glaubensbekenntnisse im Alten und Neuen Testament.” Concilium 14 (1978) 499–503. Lohfink, N. “Zum ‘kleinen geschichtlichen Credo’: Dtn 26, 5–9.” TP 46 (1971) 19–39. Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1979. 332–33. McCarthy, D. J. “What Was Israel’s Historical Creed?” LTQ 4 (1969) 46–53. Merendino, R. P. Das deuteronomische Gesetz: Eine literarkritische, gattungs- und überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Dt. 12–26. BBB 31. Bonn: Hanstein, 1969. 346–71. Miller, P. D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. HSM 5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1973. 166–75. Nebeling, G. “Die Schichten des deuteronomischen Gesetzeskorpus: Eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Dt. 12–26.” Diss., Münster, 1970. 238–45. Nicholson, E. W. Exodus and Sinai in History and Tradition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1973. ———. God and His People. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986. 151–63. Rad, G. von. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Trans. E. W. T. Dicken. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1965. 1–78. Richter, W. “Beobachtungen zur theologischen Systembildung in der alttestamentlichen Literatur anhand des ‘kleinen geschichtlichen Credo.’” In Wahrheit und Verkündigung. Ed. L. Scheffczyk et al. Vol. 1. Munich: Schöningh, 1967. 175–212. Rofé, A. “The Form Critical Problem of the Hexateuch—Revisited.” In Das Alte Testament—Ein Geschichtsbuch? Ed. E. Blum et al. Münster: Lit, 2005. 41–46. Rost, L. Das kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1965. 11–25. Thompson, T. L. “The Joseph and Moses Narratives.” In Israelite and Judean History. Ed. J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller. Philadelphia:

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 290

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Bibliography: Tradition

291

Westminster, 1977. 162–66. Van Seters, J. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1975. 142–43. Vriezen, T. C. “The Credo in the Old Testament.” In Studies on the Psalms: Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenschap in Suid-Afrika. Potchefstroom: Pro Rege— Pers Beperk, 1963. 5–17. Wallis G. “Die geschichtliche Erfahrung und das Bekenntnis zu Jahwe im Alten Testament.” TLZ 101 (1976) 801–16. Wassermann, G. “Das kleine geschichtliche Credo (Dtn. 26,5ff) und seine deuteronomische Übermalung.” ThV 2 (1970) 27–46.

Bibliography: Tradition Alt, A. “Josua.” In Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments. Ed. P. Volz, F. Stummer, and J. Hempel. BZAW 66. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1936. 27–29. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichten des Volkes Israel. Vol. 1. Munich: Beck, 1953. 191–92. ———. “Die Wallfahrt von Sichem nach Bethel.” In Alexander von Bulmerincq Festschrift. 1938. 218–30. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichten des Volkes Israel. Vol. 1. Munich: Beck, 1953. 79–88. Anbar, M. “The Assembly at Shechem (Joshua 24): The Story and Its Origin.” In Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, July 29–August 5, 1997, Division A. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999. 5–10 (Heb.). Auerbach, E. “Die grosse Überarbeitung der biblischen Bücher.” In Congress Volume: Copenhagen, 1953. VTSup 1. Leiden: Brill, 1953. 1–10. Bächli, O. Amphiktyonie im Alten Testament: Forschungsgeschichtliche Studie zur Hypothese von Martin Noth. Basel: Reinhardt, 1977. 103–6, 110–14. Clements, R. E. “Baal-Berith of Shechem.” JSS 13 (1968) 21–32. Craigie, P. C. “El Brt. El Dn. (RS 24.278, 14–15).” UF 5 (1973) 278–79. Dus, J. “Mose oder Josua?” ArOr 39 (1971) 16–45. Gottwald, N. K. The Tribes of Yahweh. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979. 550–52, 563–67. Herrmann, S. Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament. BWANT 85. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1965. 78–92. Irwin, W. H. “Le sanctuaire central Israélite avant l’établissement de la monarchie.” RB 72 (1965) 165–71, 182–84. Jaroš, K. Sichem. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1976. 67–127. ———. Die Stellung des Elohisten zur Kanaanäischen Religion. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. 147–73, 213–31, 256–57. Keller, C. A. “Über einige alttestamentliche Heiligtumslegenden.” ZAW 67 (1955) 143–54. Lipin´ski, E. “El-Berith.” Syria 50 (1973) 50–51. Maag, V. “Sichembund und Vätergötter.” In Hebräische Wortforschung: Festschrift W. Baumgartner. Ed. B. Hartmann et al. VTSup 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967. 205–18. Nielsen, E. “The Burial of the Foreign Gods.” ST 8 (1954) 103–22. ———. “Historical Perspectives and Geographical Horizons: On the Question of North-Israelite Elements in Deuteronomy.” ASTI 11 (1977–78) 77–89. ———. Shechem, A Traditio-Historical Investigation. Copenhagen: Gad, 1955. Otto, E. Jakob in Sichem. BWANT 110. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1979. 227–60. Rad, G. von. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Trans. E. W. T. Dicken. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1965. 1–78. Reviv, H. “The Government of Shechem in the El-Amarna Period and in the Days of Abimelech.” IEJ 16 (1966) 252–57. ———. “The Pattern of the Pan-tribal Assembly in the Old Testament.” JNSL 8 (1980) 85–94. Rofé, A. “The Assembly at Shechem (Joshua 24, 1–28, 31): The Text, Literature and History.” In Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, July 29–August 5, 1997, Division A. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999. 17– 25. Rowley, H. H. From Joseph to Joshua: Biblical Traditions in the Light of Archaeology. London: Oxford UP, 1950. 124–29. Sellin, E. Gilgal. Leipzig: Deichert, 1917. 80–94. Soggin, J. A. “The Assembly at Shechem (Joshua 24): The Story and Its Origins.” In Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, July 29–August 5, 1997, Division A. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999. 1–3 (Heb.). Sperling, S. D. “Comments on Moshe Anbar’s Book about Joshua and the Covenant at Shechem.” In Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, July 29–August 5, 1997, Division A. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999. 11–16. Tengström, S. Die Hexateucherzählung.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 291

9/18/14 9:20 AM

292

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

Lund: Gleerup, 1976. Toombs, L. E., and G. E. Wright. “The Fourth Campaign at Balâtah (Shechem).” BASOR 169 (1963) 27–32. Van Seters, J. “Joshua 24 and the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament.” In In The Shelter of Elyon. Ed. W. Barrick and J. Spencer. JSOTSup 31. Sheffield: Sheffield UP, 1984. 139–58. Wijngaards, J. N. M. The Dramatization of Salvific History in the Deuteronomic Schools. OtSt 16. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Wright, G. R. H. “The Mythology of Pre-Israelite Shechem.” VT 20 (1970) 75–82.

Translation 1aJoshua

gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem. b He called the elders of Israel c and and her judges and her officials, and they appeared before God. 2Joshua said to her all the people, “Thus said Yahweh, the God of Israel, ‘Beyond the river your fathers have lived since time immemorial a—Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor— and they served other gods. 3“‘I took your father Abraham from beyond the river and caused him to go through all the land of Canaan. a I multiplied his seed and gave him Isaac. 4I gave a to Isaac Jacob and Esau. I gave to Esau Mount Seir to possess it as an inheritance, but Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt. b 5I sent Moses and Aaron, a and I struck Egypt, just as I did in its midst. b Afterward, I brought c you (pl.) out. 6I brought your fathers a from Egypt, and you (pl.) came to the sea. b The Egyptians pursued after your fathers c with chariots and with horsemen to the Reed Sea. 7They cried out a to Yahweh, and he set darkness b between you (pl.) and between the Egyptians. He brought the sea on it [Egypt]. It covered it [the Egyptians]. Your eyes saw what I did in Egypt. c You (pl.) lived in the wilderness many days. 8I brought you (pl.) a to the land of the Amorites, the ones who dwell beyond the Jordan. They fought you (pl.), b and I gave them into your hand. c You (pl.) possessed their land, and I destroyed d them before you (pl.). 9Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, rose and fought against Israel. He sent and called Balaam the son of Beor a to curse you (pl.). 10But I did not consent to listen to Balaam, and he actually blessed you (pl.). a I delivered you (pl.) from his hand. 11You (pl.) passed over the Jordan and came to Jericho. The lords a of Jericho— the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Girgashites, and Hivites, and the Jebusites—fought against you (pl.). I gave them into your hand. 12“‘I sent the hornet a before you (pl.), and it drove them out from before you (pl.), namely, the two b kings of the Amorites. But it was not by your sword nor by your bow. c 13I gave a to you (pl.) a land in which you b did not exert yourself and cities which you (pl.) did not build, and you (pl.) lived in them. (I also gave) vineyards and olive orchards, which though you (pl.) did not plant, you (pl.) are eating.’ 14“This being the case, fear Yahweh. Serve him totally and faithfully. Turn away from the gods a that your fathers served beyond the river and in Egypt. Serve Yahweh. 15But if it is wrong a in your view to serve Yahweh, then choose for yourselves today whom you (pl.) will serve, either the gods whom your fathers b served, who were beyond the river, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you (pl.) are living. But in any case, I and my house, we will serve Yahweh.” c 16The people answered and said, “Far be it from us, the forsaking of Yahweh to serve other gods, for Yahweh is our God. a 17He is the one who brought us up and our fathers from the land of Egypt, from the house of service, and who did before our eyes these great signs. He protected us in all the way in which we went and among all the peoples through whose midst we passed. 18Yahweh drove out all the peoples, indeed the Amorite living in the land, from before us. a Yes, we also will serve Yahweh, because he is our God.” heads d

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 292

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

293

19Joshua

said to the people, “You (pl.) are not able to serve Yahweh, because a holy God is he, a jealous deity a is he, one who will not forgive your sins and transgressions. 20If you should forsake Yahweh and serve strange, foreign a gods, he will turn and do evil to you (pl.). He will finish you (pl.) off after b having been so good to you (pl.).” 21The people said to Joshua, “No, but it is Yahweh whom we will serve!” 22Joshua said to the people, “You (pl.) are witnesses against yourselves, that you have chosen Yahweh for yourselves to serve him.” They said, “Witnesses.” a 23“This being the case, turn away from the strange foreign gods that are among you (pl.) and stretch out your hearts to Yahweh, the God of Israel.” 24The people said to Joshua, “Yahweh our God a we will serve. His voice we will obey.” 25Joshua cut a covenant for the people that day. He set up for them statutes and judgments in Shechem. a 26Joshua a wrote these words in the book of the Torah of God. He took a huge stone and set it up there under the oak which was in the sanctuary of Yahweh. b 27Joshua said to all the people, “This stone right here will be among us a for a witness since it has heard all the words of Yahweh which he spoke with us. b It shall be among you (pl.) for a witness, c lest you should deny your d God.” 28Joshua sent the people away, each to his inheritance.

Notes 1.a. Soggin’s translation, incorporating several textual variants, displays graphically the complicated textual history of the chapter. We expect no less from such a theologically central chapter. Römer (ZAW 118 [2006] 536) points to late glosses and harmonizations rather than a thorough redaction stratum. Koopmans (Joshua 24, 92– 95, 98–103) shows the extreme differences in research results ranging from excluding the MT with extensive glosses as an adequate textual basis to describing LXX as reflecting extensive curtailment of the original text to eclectic decisions in each case. He sees (247) MT as an expanded text, knowing at times both texts have been expanded and that in many cases different Heb. editions were responsible for differences. 1.b. The LXX tradition obtains consistency here and in v 25 by reading “Shiloh” for “Shechem” in line with Josh 18:1, 8, 10; 19:37; 21:2; 22:9, 12 (cf. Fritz). This represents a quite early textual tradition (cf. Toombs and Wright, BASOR 169 [1963] 28, n. 31) and shows the early tradition’s concern for consistency. It may also represent early antiSamaritan feelings. No attempt to support the LXX as original has gained acceptance (cf. A. G. Auld, “Joshua: The Hebrew and the Greek Texts,” in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 30 [Leiden: Brill, 1979] 14; Holmes, Joshua, 8; Schmitt, Landtag, 9), though Knauf (195) sees it as the older tradition here. 1.c. LXX avoids repetition by substituting “their” for “Israel.” 1.d. LXX omits “their heads” and translates “elders” with a different term than used in Josh 23:2, though the two lists are the same in Heb. 2.a. Here is an example of Heb. ‫עולם‬, often translated “forever,” used in a context referring to the past. The term in itself thus does not cover all time from the beginning to the end. 3.a. LXX does not witness “Canaan,” which is probably a later interpretation using familiar idiomatic language (cf. Holmes, Joshua, 5). 4.a. LXX omits “I gave” as stylistically superfluous. See Nelson; Koopmans, Joshua 24, 251. Koopmans shows that retroversion of the Gk. does not work here. 4.b. LXX adds, “And they became there a nation great and numerous and powerful. And the Egyptians afflicted them.” The note is taken over from MT of Deut 26:5b– 6, adding a note of blessing over against the darkness of the content and the note of blessing on Esau, the ancestor of the proverbial enemy, Edom. Just because the words can be easily retroverted into Heb. is no reason to argue for their originality (against Hollenberg, TSK 1 [1874] 485– 89; Holmes, Joshua; cf. Koopmans, Joshua 24, 242 with n. 360). Nelson does

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 293

9/18/14 9:20 AM

294

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

opt for OG, seeing haplography in the MT tradition but noting that the similarity to Deuteronomy makes possible an explanation as a Gk. expansion. See Tov, RB 85 (1978) 59– 60. 5.a. LXX does not have “I sent Moses and Aaron,” a phrase representing a later phase of the tradition when all authority was derived from Moses and Aaron. The language may in fact be derived from Mic 6:4 (cf. L’Hour, RB 69 [1962]; Soggin; Nelson). Römer (ZAW 118 [2006] 536; cf. Koopmans, Joshua 24, 247) points to 1 Sam 12:8 and Ps 105:26 for this language. Koopmans concludes two Heb. editions were extant. 5.b. “Just as I did in its midst” is variously interpreted and transmitted by the versions (cf. Soggin). The conjunction ‫ כאשׁר‬here may be interpreted either causally, “in accordance with the facts” (or things), or temporally, “when” (cf. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed, 50, §§260, 262). It can be interpreted as a “global reference to all the acts which God performed in Egypt” (Preliminary and Interim Report). The versions introduced the traditional language of signs and wonders. BHS and Fritz point to LXX, Vg., and Syr. to read ‫באתות אשׁר‬, “with the signs that.” Nelson (cf. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle) follows mt here as the more difficult reading and sees LXX A as attempting to alleviate an awkward original, perhaps on the basis of Num 14:11. Römer (ZAW 118 [2006] 536) finds no evidence on which to decide. 5.c. Here LXX changes to 3rd- pers. reference to deity, a pattern maintained with consistency through v 13, possibly for “motives of reverence” (Holmes, Joshua) or due to the use of “sermonic language” (Schmitt, Landtag). More likely, the LXX tradition was coping with the evident change of speakers that occurs unexpectedly in v 14 (MT). LXX transfers the change to v 5. Römer (ZAW 118 [2006] 536) sees the joining of fathers and addressees as a literary attempt to bring the different generations close together. Nelson reads LXX A , seeing MT in vv 5b and 6a as a conflation by MT of “I brought you out” (original reading) and “I brought your ancestors out.” Reference to ancestors is a “pedantic correction.” Römer (ZAW 118 [2006] 536) sees the reference to the fathers as a later addition here, in v 6b, and in v 17a, MT representing the most difficult reading. 6.a. The repetitions of vv 5b and 6a do not appear in the versions (cf. Soggin) and probably represent two variants which have both been incorporated into the text tradition (Schmitt, Landtag).This forms a part of the larger problem in that LXX repeatedly has 1st pers. pl. rather than 2nd pers. pl. in the following section. Since this occurs with pronouns rather than verbs (Rudolph, Der ‘Elohist’), Schmitt thinks it reflects a wrong understanding of a dictated text by a Gk. copyist. It may involve an attempt to identify Joshua more closely with Israel and hang together with the change of speaker effected by LXX in v 5 (see Notes 5.b and 5.c above). Holmes (Joshua) could say that Dillmann and all later scholars take all mention of “the fathers” as a later redaction. 6.b. LXX amplifies with traditional “Red Sea.” 6.c. LXX “our fathers.” See Note 6.a* above. 7.a. LXX reads “we cried.” Cf. Notes 6.a* and 6.c*; Deut 26:7. Koopmans (Joshua 24, 252) suggests an intent to specify Israel, not Egypt, as crying. 7.b. LXX uses two terms, “clouds and darkness,” to interpret the Heb. ‫מאפל‬, a word occurring only here in MT and probably meaning “darkness” (see L. Köhler, “Archaeologische Nr. 20, 21,” ZAW 44 [1926] 62). Nelson and Fritz see possibility of dittography in mt and so strike the initial mem, reading “darkness.” LXX is based on the tradition of Exod 14:20. lxx continues “between us.” See Notes 6.a and 6.c. 7.c. LXX reads “and your eyes saw that which the Lord did in the land of Egypt,” uncharacteristically retaining the 2nd pers. pl. pronoun, but speaking of God in the 3rd pers. (cf. Note 5.c) and adding “land.” 8.a. LXX: “He brought us” (cf. Notes 5.c, 6.a). 8.b. LXX B does not have “they fought you (pl.),” which appears to be based on Num 21:23. The phrase may represent later interpretation underlining the wickedness of the enemy (cf. Note 4.b). Nelson sees the loss as resulting from inner- Gk. haplography. Greenspoon (Textual Studies, 326–27) suggests Gk. homoioarchton between πέραν and παρέδωκεν. 8.c. LXX reads: “The Lord gave them into our hands” (cf. Notes 5.c, 6.a). 8.d. LXX: “you (pl.) destroyed” (cf. Note 6.a). 9.a. LXX omits “son of Beor.” (Holmes, Joshua, notes the similar omission in 22:31, 32.) MT may represent expansion with traditional language. LXX also reads “to curse

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 294

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

295

us” (cf. Note 6.a). Koopmans (Joshua 24, 254) relates that to Num 22:6, 11; 23:7, 8 and the tendency in LXX B to be influenced by parallel texts. 10.a. LXX: “The Lord your (sg.) God [cf. Note 5.c] was not willing to utterly destroy you (sg.). He greatly blessed us [cf. Note 6.a]. He delivered us out of their hands, and he gave them over.” Despite Hollenberg’s (TSK 1 [1874] 485– 89) and Holmes’s (Joshua) textual- error interpretation, we must see that a theological issue was raised by the later tradition. The verse is based on Deut 23:6 (ET 5), which in turn is based on the tradition of Num 22–24, especially 23:11, 27; 24:10. Behind the Gk. tradition is apparently an unwillingness even to use the term ‫שׁמע‬, “to hear, to obey,” with God as subject and man as object (cf. Nelson; Koopmans, Joshua 24, 254). Similarly, the most natural reading of the Gk. is that God is the subject of the blessing, not Balaam. (Vg. and Syr. explicitly use 1st pers.) The addition of the final phrase represents the use of traditional language, perhaps even an alternative reading in the Gk. tradition to the preceding phrase, or a dittography out of v 8 or v 11. 11.a. LXX avoids the connotations of the Heb. Baals, “lords,” of Jericho and uses the more neutral “residents of” (see Koopmans, Joshua 24, 255). Again, 2nd- pers. pronouns become 1st, while the Lord becomes the 3rd-pers. subject (cf. Notes 5.c, 6.a). The different versions give different orders in the list of nations. Römer (ZAW 118 [2006] 537) categorizes the list of nations as grammatically difficult and as an attempt by a late editor to clarify the identity of the lords of Jericho. 12.a. LXX and the early versions render ‫ הצרעה‬as “wasps” or “hornets.” Most modern commentators follow L. Köhler (“Hebräische Vokabeln I,” ZAW 54 [1936] 291; cf. Hess, [1996] 304) in understanding the word to mean “scourge, terror, discouragement.” However, Mayes (Deuteronomy, 188), on Deut 7:20, and B. S. Childs (The Book of Exodus, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974] 446, 451), on Exod 23:28, retain the traditional “hornet.” Clines (DCH, 7:163) includes four entries—“hornet,” “terror,” “dejection, discouragement,” and “pestilence.” Clines makes no final translation choice for any of the biblical texts (Exod 23:28; Deut 7:20). The verse retains the subject and pronoun changes (Notes 5.c and 6.a). 12.b. What is remarkable is the LXX reading “twelve kings” instead of two, which is usually followed in modern scholarship. The “two” tradition comes from Sihon and Og east of Jordan, while the present context refers to the kings mentioned in chaps. 1–11 conquered west of the Jordan. Nelson chooses the MT, though it “results in a baffling text.” Nelson points to Assyrian royal inscriptions (ANET, 279– 81) that refer to twelve kings. Fritz simply deletes “and the two kings of the Amorites” as a gloss not fitting the context. Hubbard (554, n. 29) points to the two coalition leaders— Adoni-Zedek and Jabin from Josh 10:3 and 11:1. The context appears to refer to kings west of the Jordan and thus to a coalition of kings not explicitly named in the opening chapters or to the two western coalition leaders. Edelman (VT 41 [1991] 279– 86) emends the text to read ‫האמרי מלכי‬ ‫נשׂאים‬, “the kings of the Amorites are swept away.” Without textual support, this reading requires too many changes and transpositions to be accepted as very possible, much less probable. Koopmans (Joshua 24, 255– 56) sees a historical summary not limited by chronological concerns and so sees the Transjordanian foes intended here. 12.c. MT, followed faithfully by LXX, has 2nd pers. sg. with the weapons. Most commentators take this as an early gloss, perhaps using language from Gen 48:22; Hos 1:7; 2 Kgs 6:22, none of which exactly duplicates the language. Otherwise, one must use the Syr. as the basis for emendation to pl. suffixes, but certainly the Syr. represents only later accommodation to the context. As it stands, the text can be taken only as a divine aside to Joshua personally or as an attempt to make the emphatic statement more personal. 13.a. LXX retains 3rd-pers. subject but now speaks to “you (pl.).” This removes Joshua from the reception of the land (cf. Josh 19:50; 21:42 LXX). Fritz accepts LXX and other versions with pl. reading as being the reading that fits the context. 13.b. mt again mysteriously reads 2nd pers. sg. LXX and other versions read pl. The sg. may be an accommodation to the preceding 2nd pers. sg. within the copying tradition. Perhaps the sg. context of Deut 6:10, which is paraphrased here, was influential at this point. 14.a. LXX adds ἀλλοτρίους “strange” on the basis of MT and LXX v 23. LXX continues to speak of “our fathers” (cf. Note 5.c). Römer (ZAW 118 [2006] 536) refers to the mention of Egypt as a later addition perhaps influenced by the postexilic experiences. The

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 295

9/18/14 9:20 AM

296

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

surprising text buries Israel’s patriarchs in Mesopotamia and finds the people delivered from Egypt as well as the present generation guilty of the same false worship. 15.a. LXX softens the expression from “if it is evil in your eyes” to “if it does not please you (pl.).” 15.b. The Gk. renders unexpectedly “the gods of your fathers,” using the 2nd pers. and the “technical term” for the patriarchal gods. Holmes ( Joshua) suggests the possibility that LXX is original here, MT being revised to parallel the preceding verse and avoid the sacred idiom. LXX may simply represent a sermonic idiom to make the call to decision more personal in all its components, thus the return unexpectedly to the more personal, 2nd pers. and the use of the shocking idiom. Schmitt (Landtag; cf. Koopmans, Joshua 24, 256– 57) may be correct in suggesting a Gk. syntactical simplification. 15.c. LXX adds “because he is holy,” giving away the punch line of v 19 too quickly. 16.a. LXX apparently did not understand the Heb. syntax and translated “the Lord our God, he is God” (cf. Holmes, Joshua; Koopmans, Joshua 24, 257). Nelson sees a Gk. dittography here. Syr. omits “and our fathers,” which is often taken as a later gloss (Holzinger (1901); Holmes, Joshua; Fritz). Schmitt (Landtag) is certainly correct in questioning whether Syr. represents better textual tradition. Cf. Note 5.c. Nelson refers to Syr. haplography. The LXX omission of “land” has better claim to originality, the longer expression representing a later use of traditional idiom. See Koopmans (Joshua 24, 248), who senses a deliberate expansion in mt. Similarly, the LXX omission “from the house of bondage, and who did before our eyes these great signs” may represent later MT insertion of traditional language (see Deut 6:22; 7:19; cf. Nelson). Römer sees this as a later addition filling the traditional phrase. 18.a. The Heb. syntax is difficult here, so that the Gk. reverses the order to read “the Amorite and all the nations dwelling in the land before us.” Holmes (Joshua) suggests that “all the nations” is a gloss later added to LXX. Cf. Römer (ZAW 118 [2006] 537); BHS. Koopmans (Joshua 24, 258) sees LXX not recognizing parallelism here, leading to simplification of syntax and style. 19.a. LXX omits the second reference to God, in which the Heb. switches from “Elohim” to “El.” LXX simplifies the syntax (Holmes, Joshua; Koopmans, Joshua 24, 258). Römer (ZAW 118 [2006] 537) and Aurelius (Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts, 176 ) among others, see vv 19–21 as a later insertion to correct Deuteronomistic covenant theology. I would see rather the precise definition of Deuteronomistic covenant theology in which covenant vows must not be taken lightly and in which covenant life eventually depends on divine grace, not human achievement. 20.a. The Heb. term ‫ נכר‬means both “strange” and “foreign.” LXX chooses here the term “other” rather than “foreign.” See Koopmans’ argument for different Heb. editions (Joshua 24, 258). 20.b. LXX reads not the temporal conjunction but rather the causal ἀνθ ὧν, perhaps reflecting confusion with the Heb. ‫תחת אשׁר‬, which Holmes (Joshua) takes to be original, being the more difficult text. The exact nuance of the Gk. conjunction is not clear, and it probably represents a misreading of the Heb. See explanation by Koopmans (Joshua 24, 260) with ties to Josh 24:1 and change of meeting to “a regular meeting in the congregation before the tabernacle.” 22.a. LXX omits “And they said, ‘Witnesses.’” The sentence does not fit the following syntax, where Joshua is not mentioned as subject again, so that the sentence may be a later insertion seeking to make clear the conscious confession and thus the basis for guilt of the people. Nelson sees the addition of an “expected formula” based on Ruth 4:11; 1 Sam 12:5. But see Schmitt, Landtag. Van der Meer (Formation and Reformulation, 232) again speaks of “stylistic reorganisation of the Hebrew text by the Greek translator.” Römer (ZAW 118 [2006] 536) simply speaks of a later addition. 24.a. Two MSS and LXX omit “our God,” which may be a later addition of conventional language, used again to magnify the guilt of the people. 25.a. LXX: Shiloh, see Note 1.a.* Here LXX adds “before the tent of the God of Israel,” clearly an addition based on the tradition of the tabernacle at Shiloh (cf. Josh 18:1). 26.a. LXX omits “Joshua” here, possibly a later addition to magnify explicitly the work of Joshua, but more likely a Gk. simplification avoiding repetition of v 25. Nelson sees that OG moved “Joshua” for translational reasons and paraphrased “sanctuary” “due to theological disquiet over the presence of a sacred tree.”

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 296

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

297

26.b. “In the sanctuary of Yahweh” becomes “before the Lord” in LXX, avoiding setting the tree within the sanctuary. 27.a. LXX again removes Joshua from responsibility, reading “among you (pl.).” Koopmans (Joshua 24, 261) reduces this to simply a preference of the translator. LXX also does not have “all” the people, possibly a later attempt to underline the responsibility of the entire community, though Koopmans (261) finds mt tying back to v 2. 27.b. LXX adds “today,” a later emphasis perhaps on the basis of liturgical usage. The attempts of Holmes (Joshua) to argue for the originality of this reading and those of the following notes are ill-founded at best. 27.c. LXX uses prophetic language to make the passage relevant to its own time rather than simply a report of past history, adding “in the last days.” 27.d. LXX applies the lesson to its own day sermonically by the simple maneuver of rendering the conjunction “lest” in a more general sense, “whenever.” It also underlines the authoritative and faithful role of Joshua by reading, “Yahweh, my God.” Koopmans (Joshua 24, 262) sees lxx plusses as deliberate and so seeks a different poetic Heb. edition behind LXX.

Form/Structure/Setting See Form/Structure/Setting on chap. 23 for pragmatic separation of chaps. 23 and 24, where syntax loops them into one major section. The disjunctive temporal clause of 24:29 opens a new segment of epilogues, each starting with a disjunctive clause. This provides closure for the Genesis stories with its promises, the Priestly stories, the Shechem stories, and the life of Joshua tradition along with the inherited land tradition.

Tradition “From a theological point of view, this chapter is a paradigm of reflection on and reinterpretation of ancient traditions.”328 This important chapter in biblical theology presents a set of complex problems scholars continually debate without reaching anything resembling consensus. Earl spells it out: “Josh 24 has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate, with there being no consensus about its compositional history, origin, or relationship to the history and cultic life of Israel.”329 Certain things seem reasonably sure. Despite Perlitt’s attempts, no one can explain the presence of Shechem in the present text apart from an historical memory and/or cultic connection. Nelson points to Amos 2:9–10 and Micah 6:4 as evidence of traditions “generally available for rhetorical purposes” but not necessarily dependent on Num 21–22.330 Popovic’s attempt331 to account for Shechem as an exegesis of the Jacob narratives brings the picture of a postexilic Jew giving identity to his people by defining his ancestors as ones who participated in pagan worship practices from patriarchal times. Much more plausible is an explanation that portrays the early history of the patriarchal traditions and the Israelite covenant traditions as reaching back to a time when Israel’s religion included practices later banned. This becomes even clearer in light of Gen 12:6; 33:18–20; 34:1–35:5; 37:12–17; Deut 11:26–32; 27:1–26; Josh 8:30–35; Judg 8:31– 9:57. 328 329 330 331

Hoppe, 95. Earl, 190. Nelson, 274. “Conquest of the Land,” 92.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 297

9/18/14 9:20 AM

298

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

Shechem is not necessarily the place where the Hexateuchal narratives originated,332 but it has ancient Israelite connections and narratives. The connections include many things that appear in Josh 24: i.e., the divine leadership of Abraham through the land (Gen 12:6); the putting away of the gods of the fathers (Gen 35:4); the divine epithet El (Yahweh) the God of Israel (Gen 33:20); the connection of deity and covenant (běrît) as seen in the Shechemite divine name Baal(El-)Berith (Judg 8:33; 9:4, 46); a sanctuary with sacred stones and tree (Gen 33:20; 35:4; Deut 27:2, 4– 8; Judg 9:4, 6, 18, 46). The chapter can in no way be called a literary invention despite the argument of Knauf for a late merging of the traditions incorporating language acceptable to all parties.333 Josh 24 preserves too many phenomena that can be explained only as originating in the ancient worship at Shechem. Such a stance also opposes Popovic,334 who searches for a tradition history that combines a preexilic Shechem ceremony with a late postexilic literary setting and a Shechemite covenant ritual story of Josh 24 becoming connected to the conquest narratives of Josh 2–12. The problem lies with the assumption of a post-Dtr date for Josh 24 based on quite weak evidence that “does not preclude” a late date. Tradition study has shown the need to account for Popovic’s “non-Deuteronomic elements.” The easiest way to do this is to place them in the preliterary edition of the narratives before they were collected into a consecutive book and before they had been joined into an ultimate history. Deuteronomistic framing and explanation language is much easier to account for than is the incredibly long period of time between oral recitation and postexilic literary capture. The connection of Josh 24 and Josh 2–12 can be found in David and Saul’s battle for control of the united monarchy, each gathering traditions to provide “historical” support for their royal leadership. Davidic victory leads to a collection of conquest traditions from north and south, boundary traditions from north and south as well as east of the Jordan, and the unifying traditions of chaps. 20–24. Thus, during the united monarchy these “unified” traditions are formed into the book of Joshua, to be used as the basis for the book of Judges collected shortly after the split of the kingdoms. The present language of the chapter is neither Deuteronomistic nor postDeuteronomistic. Even Perlitt concedes that it represents an early stage of Deuteronomic development.335 On the other hand, any connection with a pentateuchal E source has not and cannot be proved.336 Lohfink is to be followed as he writes: “This event [the Maccabees] really shows how incongruous it is to posit on the basis of some short redactional phrases the existence of a Deuteronomistic movement that spanned centuries and from which, finally, almost the whole Old Testment originated.”337 332 333 334 335 336 337

Tengström, Die Hexateucherzählung. Knauf, 192– 93. “Conquest of the Land,” 97. Cf. McCarthy, LTQ 4 (1969) 46– 53. Cf. Jenks, Elohist, 60– 63. “Was There a Deuteronomistic Movement?” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan- Deuteronomism, ed. L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie, JSOTSup 268 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999) 66.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 298

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

299

The most plausible proposal is that northern traditions, particularly traditions with origins in Shechem, were collected in Shechem and possibly moved to Shiloh and, with the passing of Saul, became part of the Jerusalem collection. The problem that scholarship faces is the determination of the form, function, and age of such traditions. Shechem ceased to be a cult center quite early, having been destroyed in the period of the judges (Judg 9) and not being given new cultic authority even when it gained political power (1 Kgs 12:25–29). Thus the traditions themselves must be quite early. This is supported by the ready acceptance of trees and stones in the sanctuary. Nelson proposes a rather inexact and yet complex understanding of the tradition.338 He accepts memory of or relationship to rites and objects connected to Shechem elsewhere but sees them used in a literary fashion to validate the text and not in an etiological manner to explain the ancient Shechemite traditions. The background, for Nelson, is imminent threat or actual experience of exile in Babylon or Egypt. Thus he places the readers in exile or in the “unheroic period of Persian domination.”339 Von Rad’s theory that vv 2–13 form an early creedal statement used in Israel and connected with Deut 6:21–23 and 26:5–9 is no longer, for the most part, accepted.340 The radical distinction in content, form, language, and context among these passages had led to a rejection of von Rad’s contention that the early creed represented the original cultic form from which the Hexateuch developed.341 In Josh 24, the creed is in divine first person rather than in the third person of usual creedal confessions and it is so much more detailed than the others. In fact, the “creed” in Josh 24 cannot be seen as a standard form taken over from another context. The content of vv 2–13 fits specifically the intent of the following call for allegiance. Those elements are chosen that show God’s superiority over other gods. The first- person divine speech and the context- determined content show that a brief historical creed does not form the basis for Josh 24:2–13. At best, we can speak only of a general topic known and used in a variety of forms and content within Israelite life.342 This creed-reciting practice may point back to a practice within Israel of telling the great deeds of God in various contexts— children’s catechism, festival celebrations, private offerings and confessions, and so on. Its very flexibility in usage and in context prohibits closer definition of the history of its development and usage, and it contributes to theories of its preservation and application through the ages, evoking gratitude, confessing faith, and asserting God’s claim for human loyalty.343 The details of Josh 24 over against the Deuteronomy passages probably point to the more advanced form of Josh 24. To establish an advance in the age of the material does not, however, establish a precise date. 338 339 340 341

Nelson, 267. Ibid., 272. Problem of the Hexateuch. Cf. Hyatt, “Were There an Ancient Historical Credo in Israel and an Independent Sinai Tradition?”; Rost, Das kleine Credo; Richter, “Beobachtungen zur theologischen Systembildung,” 175–212; Wallis, TLZ 101 (1976) 801–16. 342 Cf. McCarthy, LTQ 4 (1969) 46– 53. 343 Pressler, 120.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 299

9/18/14 9:20 AM

300

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

The other element used to determine the age of the passage is the use of forms and language from the ancient Near Eastern, particularly Hittite, treaties.344 These follow a pattern: 1. Preamble introducing the king (cf. v 2) 2. Antecedent history describing previous relationships between the two parties (cf. vv 2–13) 3. A basic stipulation governing future relationships (cf. vv 14, 16, 18b, 21, 23, 24) 4. Specific stipulations 5. The invocation of the gods as witnesses (cf. vv 22, 27) 6. Blessings and curses (cf. vv 19–20) Such a structure, however, is not found in its entirety in chap. 24. We do not have a treaty between Yahweh and his people. Rather we have a report of the making of an agreement.345 Such a report is based on political models that would be available in Israel’s environment throughout her history, but which would most likely be known to Israel after she has become a political entity involved in the processes of such treaty making. Hess rightly insists that the real comparison is between the biblical text and the treaty texts prior to 1200 BCE, later texts lacking some of the older treaty elements.346 Israel had their first and fiercest contacts with political entities at Shechem (cf. Gen 34; Judg 9), and there the covenant traditions appear to be most ancient,347 including the tradition of disposing of foreign gods (Gen 35:4). This is important in view of the fact that Josh 24 centers only on this particular commandment rather than on a law code. It is likely that such a concentration on a single commandment marks an early stage of Israel’s covenant tradition, later supplemented by the extensive list of commandments. What appears certain is that “Joshua 24:1–28 utilizes the treaty form to emphasize the point that Israel must serve no gods other than the Lord.”348 Thus, the most likely hypothesis concerning the age and form of the tradition behind Josh 24 is that it represents an ancient Shechemite cultic ceremony in which Israel affirmed her allegiance to Yahweh as the God of Israel rather than to the other gods of their environment. This marks the major turning point in the identity of Israel over against her neighbors. The ceremony itself may indeed reach back to the very beginnings of Israel’s life in the Promised Land. This cannot be proved, for such a ceremony was not a sterile rite that remained unchanged. Rather, the tradition remained alive and dynamic, giving identity to Israel through many generations. An original ceremony may have centered on disposing of foreign gods. Such a ceremony, however, would not have remained at the center. The center gradually shifted to the call to allegiance to Yahweh in light of past failures and current temptations, focusing on the pledge to serve Yahweh rather than on putting away the gods. Such a shift would not be total. Worship of other gods remained a reality within Israel’s existence until far into the postexilic period. Thus, the call 344 345 346 347 348

Cf. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant; Baltzer, Das Bundesformular; Hillers, Covenant. See Creach, 121–22. Hess (1996) 299. Cf. Mayes, Deuteronomy, 68. Creach, 122; see Harstad’s excursus on covenant, 744– 56.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 300

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

301

to put away the foreign gods came repeatedly to Israel, not only from her prophets but also from her cultic ceremonies. The preservation of the cultic tradition is problematic. Taking a cue from Noth, Popovic sees a major problem in seeking to explain the history of the tradition.349 The Shechemite sanctuary may have vanished from existence in the period of the judges. Its traditions were preserved, perhaps in the national sanctuary at Bethel350 or in Shiloh until it was destroyed. With the fall of the northern kingdom, northern educators or storytellers carried the traditions southward. Levites may be at the center of this preserving activity. In the south, the traditions gained new significance as means to tell stories of a united monarchy sharing the same traditions. Finally, they became part of the literary deposit we call the book of Joshua. The function of the cult in preserving the text is easily observed. The opening section of the book, given in cultic language, climaxes in the ceremony of circumcision, rolling away the “disgrace of Egypt” (Josh 5:9), and in the Passover, preparing the way for the presence of the Holy in Israel’s midst (5:13–15). Cultic language and activities dominate the battle of Jericho and the loss to Ai (chaps. 6–7). Disobedience to the law (7:1) leads to a ceremony of judicial cleansing but also causes Israel to set up a cultic institution to remind her of the consequences, i.e., blessings and cursings, of her relationship to the Torah (8:30– 35). The division of the land at the cultic centers (14:6; 18:1; 19:51; cf. 21:2) is threatened by intertribal jealousy, settled through an altar of witness (22:28, 34). Levitical cities take care of clerics, and cities of refuge feature priestly activities. A “conquest” narrative finds cultic elements undergirding each of its parts. It is thus fitting that the climax of the book is not a human warning (chap. 23) but a cultic affirmation (chap. 24). Within the context of the ultimate history, the book of Joshua does not seek to teach a new law or issue a new warning to the people. It rather seeks to illustrate from history the identity of Israel. It is only with Joshua that we have a leader who does not go astray from the commandments. It is only with Joshua that we have a people who are perfectly obedient (22:23). It is only with Joshua that Israel commits itself totally to Yahweh alone as God (chap. 24). Josh 24 thus marks the high point of Israel’s history, the full realization of their identity as people of God.

Source and Redaction Josh 24 “cannot easily be pinpointed to one specific layer of literary activity or redaction. The text is truly multi-interpretable and seems flexible enough to fit the very different historical contexts proposed by scholars, ranging from the transition between the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age to the postexilic period.”351 Koopmans thus quotes S. Kreuzer: “This chapter belongs to the most difficult texts of the Old Testament and has led to correspondingly divergent opinions.”352 Studies from the late 1990s and early years of the twenty-first century turned to radical redaction criticism, splitting the chapter into more sources and pieces than did earlier literary or source criticism. 349 350 351 352

“Conquest of the Land,” 97. Cf. Otto, Jakob in Sichem. Popovic, “Conquest of the Land,” 89. Kreuzer, Die Frühgeschichte Israels, 183, in Koopmans, Joshua 24, 104, n. 27, my translation.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 301

9/18/14 9:20 AM

302

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

The first question is the relationship between chaps. 23 and 24. Earl finds the transition from chap. 23 to chap. 24 awkward: “Whilst Josh 23 is saturated with characteristically deuteronomistic language and concerns, Josh 24 is not.”353 We start then with two different types of material. As shown above, chap. 23 is saturated with Deuteronomistic language, while chap. 24 reveals very little such language. Chap. 23 is closely tied back to chap. 13 and the description of Joshua as old and ready for death. Chap. 24 has no temporal ties. Chap. 23 ties into the patriarchal deathbed- speech tradition, while chap. 24 ties back to the cultic language and actions of chaps. 1, 3– 5, 6, 18, 19, 20–22. Chap. 23 ends on a threatening note of breaking covenant vows and losing covenant land. Chap. 24, without its epilogues, ends on a commission to keep the covenant, no matter how difficult that may be, and the sending of the people to live on their land. Chap. 24 is a call to turn from foreign gods while chap. 23 is a threat to people who worship foreign gods. The two chapters thus complement one other when joined in literature. “Josh. 23:1–16 is composed in such a way that it combines with Josh. 24:1–28 to provide a literary transition from the [sic] Joshua to Judges.”354 Questions of literary unity even within Josh 24 abound. Koopmans examines six views as to literary sources and then describes the “inadequacy of the literary critical approaches.”355 The six views with key evidence are: 1. Basic Elohist source with glossing: Shechem, putting away foreign gods, Amorites, divine names, foreign gods, set up statutes and judgments, covenant 2. Combination of Elohist and Yahwist with glossing: change between second person pl. and “fathers”; list of nations and lords of Jericho; the doublet in v 17; reference to God as jealous and holy; parallel in 22 and 25–27 3. Yahwist source supplemented with other material: denial of existence of E source or placing J in exile 4. Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic composition: little connection to literary context; dialogue form rather than narration; apologetic purpose excludes cultic setting; terminology— all the tribes of Israel; before God and indiscriminate use of Yahweh; similarity of 24:2–13 to credo of Deut 26:5ff 5. Early covenant account or tradition redacted to a degree: non- deuteronomic language seen as old tradition opposed to deuteronomic language of redactor(s); early terminology in Yahweh, God of Israel; beyond the river; your fathers have lived since time immemorial; they served other gods; Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt; totally and faithfully; putting away foreign gods; jealous God; stone of witness which hears; sanctuary of Yahweh; sacred tree 6. Authorship contemporaneous with or shortly after the event described Koopmans acknowledges the problem of finding consensus.356 He states, “It is not possible to demonstrate any places where Josh. 24:1–28 is directly dependent” despite its sharing of many themes.357 Modern methods allow too much flexibility, resulting in different acceptable reconstructions. 353 354 355 356 357

Earl, 190. Koopmans, Joshua 24, 398. Ibid., 104– 45. Ibid., 117–18. Ibid., 335.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 302

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

303

Josh 24 seems to be independent of all pentateuchal sources but may possibly be based on more of the Pentateuch than just E. Josh 24:5–7 borrows heavily from Exod 13–15, and it “seems to know the entire corpus of material concerning the Reed Sea event.” In addition, 24:8–10 can be seen as “primarily a condensed summary of the events narrated in Num 21–24.”358 But this still does not account for all of 24:8–10. For Koopmans, any attempt to find passages that parallel with chap. 24 is suspect. In particular, repetition and the use of synonyms points to literary style, not to parallel sources.359 Römer assumes textual unity with only a few additions.360 I, however, see no reason to connect Joshua to an editorial stream of any type, since the present narrative reflects unity in cultic action in language that does not coincide with any other linguistic “source.” Turning to critique the views that attribute Josh 24 to Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic writers, Koopmans immediately states, “Perlitt’s view of Josh. 24 is untenable.”361 Jaroš has pinpointed some of the deficiencies:362 1. Inadequate dealing with history of Shechem 2. Determining the form as a sermon does not exclude use of ancient traditions 3. Inadequate dealing with divine names and statement of fathers serving other gods 4. Failure to explain reference to a stone and a tree in deuteronomistic sermon Koopmans363 finds Perlitt unable to treat Josh 24:25–28 adequately, seeing the verses only as a fictitious framework and making the Deuteronomist create the sacred stone. The “sanctuary of Yahweh” is applied elsewhere only for the Jerusalem temple. It seems improbable that a Deuteronomist editor would invent Shechem as the location for Josiah’s reform. Neither would a Deuteronomist invent a sacred pole. Perlitt also claims too much to say “to cut a covenant” is exclusive to Dtr texts and later periods. See Gen 21:30; 31:44; Deut 31:19, 21, 26; Isa 19:20; Mic 1:2; and Job 16:8. Koopmans concludes sharply that to attribute Genesis texts to his deuteronomist “is a conclusion necessitated by his thesis rather than by conclusive exegesis.” Koopmans calls on Perlitt to explain parallels in ancient Near Eastern texts.364 One must question Perlitt’s insistence on a political/religious purpose cut off from any cultic associations for Josh 24. Koopmans charges Perlitt with ignoring parallel expressions and cultic statements that apparently have roots in cultic experiences. Perlitt’s claim that covenant theology developed in the seventh century can be countered by pointing to Hos 6:7 and 8:1 along with 1:9, texts that cannot be quickly dismissed as Perlitt does. Ultimately, Koopmans insists, “Claims of a substantial presence of Dtic/Dtistic 358 Ibid., 120. 359 Ibid., 125. 360 ZAW 118 (2006) 536. Cf. Spronk, “From Joshua to Samuel: Some Remarks on the Origin of the Book of Judges,” 143– 44. 361 Koopmans, Joshua 24, 129. 362 See ibid., 87– 90. 363 See ibid., 87– 90, responding to Perlitt, Bundestheologie. 364 Koopmans, Joshua 24, 132.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 303

9/18/14 9:20 AM

304

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

editing or redacting in this passage find little support from the text itself.”365 In addition, Koopmans shows that “it is scarcely plausible to view Josh. 24 as a secondary addition to an earlier Dtic version of Joshua.” Joshua is not an editorial patchwork; it is an original composition. Koopmans sees the ancient tradition theory as a more probable approach though hindered by its amorphous presentations.366 Becker finds the original composition of Josh 24 contained neither a making of a covenant nor the proclamation of law.367 Nor was it a final farewell speech. It did presuppose both its present setting in literature and its knowledge of the Decalogue. Its center is the relationship with God presented as a choice of gods, which is an alternative to the choice of kings. This original form is thus the theological prelude to Judges through 2 Kings. Josh 24:2b–13 then adds the salvation history component tying back to the patriarchal narratives. Becker sees Josh 24 on all literary levels creating a new formulation of a previous transition from Joshua to Judges, setting up a new caesura or rhetorical break between the Hexateuch and the following books.368 All this means that an independent Hexateuch never existed. Whatever kind of Deuteronomic(ist) sigla one may use, for Becker one must reckon with multiple additions (Fortschreibungen) and processes of reception. Noort considers “non- deuteronomic” elements— Jericho resists Israel in battle (24:11), Israel cannot serve Yahweh (v 19), a sacred stone that hears (vv 26–27), lack of hostility with Edom— and decides that these elements cannot be seen as Midrash or reflections of a later editor.369 Thus Noort points to pre- Deuteronomistic response to the syncretistic monarchy after the fall of the northern kingdom.370 Popovic retorts: “It would seem improbable for Joshua to retain any pre- Deuteronomistic reminiscences. Moreover, if Ed Noort approaches the text as a literary unity, it is not clear how he would take into account the undisputed Deuteronomistic elements, never mind the non-Deuteronomistic elements.”371 My reply to Popovic is quite simple, one he might label simplistic. Most of the materials of Josh 24— and of most, if not all, the book— can be reduced to three stages: (1) the early cultic oral tradition establishing the basic form of the story, (2) a book editor/collector who established the basic structure of the entire book by gathering the traditions and joining them together in a logical sequence, and (3) an ultimate editor who attached the book to both the Pentateuch, creating a Hexateuch, and to the following historical books, creating an Enneateuch. Certainly minor additions and deletions entered the book as it was copied and utilized in worship as shown by the text- critical notes. But I do not see how one can advocate a series of editors making major transformation of stories involving reaching the original basic text by cutting out half or more of the present text of virtually every narrative.372 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372

Ibid., 343. Cf. Sperling, HUCA 58 (1987) 133. Koopmans, Joshua 24, 143. “Endredaktionelle,” 147. Ibid., 148. “Zu Stand und Perspektiven,” 103. Ibid., 108. “Conquest of the Land,” 96. See my commentary on Judges (WBC 8 [Nashville: Nelson, 2009]) for a similar approach

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 304

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

305

In further reply to Popovic, non- Deuteronomistic elements come from the original materials preserved in the tradition that creates the story. Most of these materials were tied to a cult site and used in cultic liturgy. Whatever one concludes about the ultimate work of a Deuteronomistic school, it must find origin in a protoDeuteronomic phase. This phase would slowly develop its special concepts and lexical items. Such development came in a social and religious setting that stood strongly against many proto- Deuteronomic and certainly against orthodox Deuteronomic standards. In the midst of stories about sacred trees, multiple sanctuaries, and sacred stones, the proto- Deuteronomist collected materials from Israel’s cult and transformed them into the book of Joshua. The second- stage editor took cultic materials with a cultic or Priestly stamp already on them and impressed upon them an ideology developing gradually in northern sanctuaries. This northen ideology eventually became what scholars refer to as Deuteronomic. It may well have been fostered by Levitical priests in the northern shrines. This means that early in its history, the book of Joshua had both P and D influences. The so- called Deuteronomistic elements come in the main from the ultimate editor who joined the Enneateuch together. Many of these terms and phrases rest on language from the antiquated narratives. This final editor had trained in the scribal schools and knew the theological and literary styles of the (Deuteronomistic?) scribes and of the cultic priests. Römer and Brettler373 claim the writer does not use exact language from Deuteronomy and thus the author/editor is a late tradent, not a Deuteronomist, knowing several Torah traditions and the language of both D and P. Here is Perlitt’s impossible isolation. Perlitt’s slogan applies to an even greater extent in the relatively small city of Jerusalem where David and Solomon sought for a time to combine Israel and Judah into a united monarchy with a united worship and quite likely with the major, if not only, scribal school in the united kingdom. Again, the assumption of late editorial work ignores the possibility of language in use by early scribes and by early priests. Why is it not reasonable to look to someone who knew the language of the cult and the language of the scribal house where he learned to read and write? Were Torah variants available only to postexilic writers who somehow preserved ancient traditions or invented them? Did it take separate groups of worshipers or of tradents to know and preserve separate ways of telling the Torah story? I would prefer to visualize the process of Josh 24 and the rest of the book coming together in an early scribal school in Jerusalem where institutions and personnel were available to finance and encourage the preservation of traditions, the worship practices for Yahweh, and the promotion of a school of scribes. Josh 24 with its mixture of language prepares the way for Deuteronomic language rather than knowing Dtr yet not being Dtr. Römer and Brettler refer to chaps. 3, 4, and 6 and admit that “no scholar has convincingly succeeded in making out the different strata of these texts.”374 Perlitt finds that separation of the parts or layers here is neither allowed nor necessary.375 but one that finds that the stage- two editor of Judges knew and drew on the book of Joshua. One might go further and surmise that Samuel’s editor(s) presupposed much if not all of Judges and that Kings based its judgment on the kings on Samuel’s picture of David. 373 JBL 119 (2000) 401–19. 374 Ibid., 414. 375 Bundestheologie, 246.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 305

9/18/14 9:20 AM

306

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

Table 24.1, using Popovic’s details, illustrates the problem in dealing with such redaction.

Table 24.1. Popovic’s Analysis of Joshua 24 Scholar

Original Layer (siglum)

Additions

Nentel, Trägerschaft und Intentionen

(DtrH) 1*, 2–13*, 14a, 16–17*, 18b*, 25a, 26bαβ, 27–28, 29–31

(DtrS) 1bα, 2*, 5–7a*, 9–10, 11aγ*, 12a*, 14b, 15, 16aβb 17a*, 18a*, 18bα*, 19–24, 26a, 32–33

Kratz, Die Komposition followed by Aurelius, Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts

(DtrR) 24:14a,15–16, 18b, 22, 28

(DtrS) 1–13,14b, 17–18a, 19–21, 23–24, 25–27, 29–33

Müller, Königstum und Gottesherrschaft

24:1a, 1bβ, 2aα, 15aα, 15b, 16, 18, 22

2b–14, 17, 19–21, 23–27

Becker, “Endredaktionelle”

1–2a, 14a, 15a*b, 16, 18b, 22, 28

2b–13, 14b, 17–18a, 19–21, 23–27

Römer, ZAW 118 (2006) 523–48, followed by Nihan, “The Torah between Samaria and Judah”

Basic unit 1–18, 22–28

19–21; parts of 2, 5, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 22

Popovic, “Conquest of the Land”

Post-deuteronomistic

Rösel, H. N. Commentary

Pre-deuteronomistic, about 700

Does this represent scholarly inadequacy or false assumptions about the nature of the development of Israelite literature? Should we look at the strong possibility that all educated, literate people in the united monarchy knew the traditions of Gilgal, Shiloh, Bethel, Shechem, Beersheba, Tabor, Hazor, etc.? Some were called by their profession to adapt the traditions for cultic use while others were forced by their profession to adapt the materials for the educational tasks of scribes and storytellers. All involved in relating the Torah story and the Joshua story knew the cultic and the educational versions of the stories and could integrate the language from outside their technical realm to tell the story. The intertwining of the stories so joyously cut to pieces by source and redaction critics may not represent seven layers of editors over hundreds of years. Rather it may represent different groups in Jerusalem using different traditions from the early sanctuaries, adapting them for practical use in worship and in education, and then integrating them into the complex narratives we now have. As Pitkänen quickly decides, “there seems to be no reason to deny the possibility of an early date.”376

Form Josh 24 raises complex questions whose answers would lead us far in understanding the political, sociological, and religious history of Israel. Koopmans shows the

376 Pitkänen, 392.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 306

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

307

complex use of “history, law, and liturgy” within the passage.377 At present we can take only first steps into this morass of questions. Noort concludes that neither extreme— seeing the text as a source for the history in the time of Joshua or seeing it as appeal to a postexilic audience—is convincing.378 The book of Joshua does not allow itself, despite present trends, to be included among the integral parts of the Deuteronomistic literature. One must interpret it on the basis of its own unique characteristics. The opening imperfect joins chap. 24 closely to the preceding narrative syntactically. Still, Noort and Perlitt emphasize the lack of ties to chaps. 1–12, to chap. 23, to the Pentateuch, and to other historical summaries of the early history of Israel.379 Perlitt decides the chapter forms “a literary unit in a contradiction-laden isolation” (eine literarische Einheit in widerspruchsvoller Isolierung). A key to analyzing the chapter lies in understanding this ceremonial form. Such analysis should give clues to the original setting of the material and to the preservation and transmission of the materials. The present Masoretic text may be outlined as follows: 1. Cultic assembly at Shechem before God (v 1) 2. Prophetic proclamation in divine first person of God’s choice and direction of Israel (vv 2–13) 3. Prophetic call to obedience in prophetic first person (vv 14–16) 4. Oath of allegiance by people responding to the divine history of salvation (vv 17–18) 5. Warning of consequences of decision (vv 19–20) 6. Reaffirmation of allegiance (v 21) 7. Formal ceremony binding Israel to her decision (vv 22–24) 8. Establishment of documents to implement and preserve the agreement (vv 25–27) 9. Dismissal of assembly (v 28) The text is thus a “report of covenant making.”380 Perlitt denies such a conclusion vehemently.381 Perlitt says Joshua speaks too much for a liturgy and that cutting the covenant has no other significance than that of confirming the previous oath. The technical term for the interaction of summons and oath has not the least hint of ritual. Josh 24, for Perlitt, is loosely settled in its context as a call to decision among alternative religions. The dialogue style and the openness for a decision against Yahweh exclude the cult as the Sitz im Leben. The interest is not in the past but on the present for the listener and the reader. In opposition to Perlitt’s claims, I would insist that liturgy has a leader to whom the “congregation” responds, and that liturgy calls on the “congregation” for personal response to the liturgist’s challenge. From where has such a report of a covenant come? Does it represent an original union of a Yahwistic group led by Joshua with a non-Yahwistic group with

377 378 379 380 381

Joshua 24, 274. Das Buch Josua, 222. Ibid., 205; for Perlitt, see Bundestheologie, 239– 41. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 241; for the covenant form, see “Form” in chap. 23 above. Bundestheologie, 242– 46.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 307

9/18/14 9:20 AM

308

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

patriarchal connections living in the land to form Israel?382 Or are we dealing with a form used repeatedly within Israel to renew the covenant, as held by Muilenburg, Baltzer, and so on? Or do we have a small historical creed used in the Festival of Weeks at Gilgal and a covenant renewal form used at the Feast of Booths in Shechem (von Rad)? Or do we basically have a literary production reflecting the theological ponderings of the early Deuteronomistic movement (Perlitt)? Or is it only a postexilic scribe using both Deuteronomistic and Priestly traditions who has composed the present composition?383 Or does the text represent post- Deuteronomistic exegesis of elements from the Jacob and Moses traditions with no pre- Deuteronomistic reminiscences?384 Or is the present text so complicated that seven layers of tradition can be isolated (Floss)? Or is the text so artistically put together with the repetition of key ideas seven and twelve times that we must argue for literary unity (Giblin)? Koopmans wants to investigate the unique parts of the text rather than those held in common in the ancient Near East.385 He finds McCarthy is correct in distinguishing Josh 24 as a report about a covenant event. Otherwise, “discussion of the affinity between the literary structure of Josh. 24:1–28 and the structure of extra-biblical treaty texts has ground to a stalemate.”386 Form critics must remember the goal of form criticism is to “attain a better understanding of a text’s literary structure.”387 I find no reason to deny the ultimate source of the covenant report form to early worship in Shechem. Too many of the elements of the tradition have connections with Shechem elsewhere, and too much of the language only borders on Deuteronomic speech without being Deuteronomic consistently to locate the material anywhere in the Deuteronomic(istic) period or later. Too many of the historyof-religion elements tie on to early Israelite practice rather than to much later ones. Koopmans finally decides: “These comments are not intended to place Josh. 24:1–28 back into a covenant-treaty format as previously conducted in form criticism. . . . Josh. 24:1–18 employs formulae and terminology from the widespread background of treaty and vassal relations to demonstrate that in the cultic pledging of loyalty at Shechem Israel accepted a position of vassalage under Yahweh.”388 The roots of the material behind Josh 24 reach deep into the early history of Israel at Shechem before Dan, Bethel, or Samaria took control of northern Israel’s worship. “This pattern of speech has profound implications. If indeed this section of Joshua has been patterned after secular diplomatic texts, it suggests that we should read 24:1–28 as a compact between God, the great ruler, and Israel, the helpless vassal. In other words the form of the passage grounds the Israelite covenant in the metaphor of kingship.”389 382 This theory is held in various forms by, among others, Sellin, Gilgal; Noth, Commentaries; de Vaux, Ancient Israel; Maag, “Sichembund und Vätergötter”; Seebass, Der Erzvater Israel; Jaroš, Sichem; and Nielsen, Shechem: A Traditio- Historical Investigation. 383 L’Hour; cf. Römer and de Pury, “Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Issues,” in Israel Constructs Its History, 116, who cf. it to Neh 9. 384 Popovic, “Conquest of the Land,” 92; cf. Anbar, Josué et l’Alliance. 385 Joshua 24, 146. 386 Ibid., 153. 387 Ibid., 154. 388 Ibid., 407. 389 Creach, 121.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 308

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

309

Structure “The book’s conclusion is highly effective. The rhetoric of the chapter brings the reader to the point toward which the whole of Joshua aims: the need to decide to worship Yahweh exclusively.”390 With this excellent summary, Pressler then delves into the “very complex” composition history and the lack of flow from chap. 23 to chap. 24. She thus joins most critical scholars, as seen below, but the claim of effective closure should override that of supposed contradictions and complicated growth. Perlitt says neither the book of Joshua as a whole nor the older conquest tradition prepares for the great closing scene precisely in Shechem.391 Becker calls chap. 24 a foreign body when viewed from the book’s theme. Becker sees Josh 24 introducing the patriarchal tradition to the people and creating the key text of the Enneateuch.392 Giblin suggests a complex numerical pattern, finding key words and syntactical functions occurring seven, twelve, or fourteen times in the text.393 To do this, he has to cut the text for study down to vv 1–25 rather than vv 1–28. Such reduction cannot be defended.394 Koopmans eventually declares, “Giblin’s study is methodologically unsound and its results unconvincing.”395 Nelson observes, “Evaluation of the language in source- critical terms has diverged widely.”396 He scans the historical summary and discovers allusions to both JE and P texts. He finds that chap. 23 with its call for obedience telling Israel how to worship works well as a summary of the book, a function Nelson denies to chap. 24.397 Instead, he sees this final chapter as suited for a conclusion for the Hexateuch as a whole. Pressler develops a simple structure for chap. 24: recital of God’s gracious acts (vv 2–13), dialogue leading to covenant (vv 14–24), and solemnizing the covenant (vv 25–28).398 Having faulted all previous studies as inadequate, Koopmans sets out to illustrate the poetic quality of Josh 24. First, he praises Watson for showing that a lack of prose particles is a good indicator of poetry but then insists that the presence of such particles does not indicate prose.399 He sets out strophes with large difference in line lengths (vv 6, 7, 8, 9, then rearranged vv 12–11, 13, etc.). He creates interesting line breaks that certainly go against syntactic breaks.400 He separates words in the midst of a series (v 1), words in apposition (v 3), an adverbial phrase as a full line (v 7), one word as a line (vv 19–20, 22). Canto II, canticle v, strophe 1 covering vv 25–26 shows great labor to find a way to put these long and short lines into the same strophe and make it sound poetic. 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400

Pressler, 116. Bundestheologie, 247. “Endredaktionelle,” 141– 42. “Structural Patterns.” See Koopmans, Joshua 24, 159– 60. Ibid., 161. Nelson, 266, n. 8. Ibid., 268. Pressler, 119. Joshua 24, 170. Ibid., 180– 89.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 309

9/18/14 9:20 AM

310

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

Koopmans does connect Josh 24 with the treaty form yet gives the author great freedom within the form to create the unit around a loyalty oath to serve Yahweh alone.401 Yet this theme does not come from Deuteronomic influence.402 Koopmans would trace the use of “foreign gods” and “other gods” back to Israel’s cultic liturgies. Nelson dismisses the proposals of Giblin and Koopmans as able to function only “at some nonconscious level, assuming they are actually present.”403 Nelson finds dialogue framed by narrative. “The narrative itself is scant and uncomplicated: the gathering, four actions by Joshua (made a covenant, wrote, took, raised), and dismissal.”404 The indictive statements of Yahweh’s actions provide a foundation for Joshua’s imperatives and the people’s commitment. The narrative structure of Josh 24 is a bit complex. Simplistically, the chapter divides as follows: Exposition

Assembly of all Israel with leaders at Shechem (v 1)

Complication

Divine messenger speech: God’s deeds, human service of other gods (vv 2–13)

Crisis

Cultic call for decision: put away other gods or else (vv 14–15)

Resolution

Human decision to serve Yahweh (vv 16–18)

Renewed crisis

Cannot serve a holy, jealous God (vv 19–20)

Renewed resolution

We will serve God (v 21)

Renewed crisis

Call to put away foreign gods (vv 22–23)

Renewed resolution

Making of covenant (vv 24–27)

Ending

Sent people away to inheritances (v 28)

A look at the table below will reveal an even more complex structure, for each of the stories of the fathers fits the narrative structure also. The structure and its content thus represent paradox. The structure keeps providing the same structure for different contents. The contents keep bringing a resolution and then denying the efficiency of the resolution. Even as the messenger speech reviews the divine history of salvation, it interjects the judgmental statement of foreign gods. The complex structure and its contents and setting reflect the mainstream of the book. The charge to Joshua is to meditate on the book of the law (1:7– 8). The opening chapter, the final verses of chap. 8, and chap. 22 emphasize the unity of the people Israel. Chaps. 2– 8 feature cultic settings and rituals. The land allotment centers on cultic sites. Chaps. 20–22 deal with priestly residence, priestly involvement in legal proceedings, and the resolution of cultic disagreements. The conquest stories and the land- distribution lists emphasize what God has done to keep his promises and how Joshua has obediently carried out divine instructions. The prepared-for conclusion is not another great battle to end all battles but a call for all the tribes to demonstrate what the tribes east of the Jordan have shown— unity and obedience. Chaps. 23 and 24 then call Israel to self-identity as people of 401 402 403 404

Ibid., 312. Halbe, Privilegrecht, 119; see Koopmans, Joshua 24, 316. Nelson, 267, n. 13. Ibid., 267.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 310

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

311

Yahweh dedicated to the law of Moses and the service of God. The uniqueness of Shechem argues more for its originality than for some later writer to have invented the location. Thus Hubbard points to the “literary climax” here, “the capstone of Joshua’s career.”405 Here the important themes merge and climax—Yahweh’s salvation history, exclusive worship of Yahweh, possession of the land, faithful obedience, the holy nature of God, the obedience Joshua shows. What is new here is the call to covenant choice. Structural and thematic unity drive away doubts of the originality of this ancient tradition as part of the book of Joshua. The challenge that Josh 23 and 24 represent two conclusions to the book fails to take into account the need for teaching before ritual. Israel must know the consequences good and bad before they face a choice of Yahweh or the gods of the patriarchs. In face of Joshua’s advanced age, the people of Israel must decide their future—will the devotion of Joshua and Moses continue into the next generation?406 The close relationship to chap. 23 is underlined by repeating the same audience (23:2a = 24:1b). The two narratives have many similarities: 1. Opening survey of history (23:3– 5; 24:2–13) leading to conclusions for present behavior (23:6–13; 24:14–15) 2. Description of the consequences of disobedience (23:13, 15–16; 24:19–20) 3. Call for total allegiance to Yahweh, forbidding the worship of other gods (23:7, 12, 16; 24:2, 14–24, 27) Syntax and content thus tie chaps. 23 and 24 tightly together, but radical distinctions separate the chapters: 1. The setting is temporal, the old age of Joshua, in chap. 23, but geographical, Shechem, in chap. 24. 2. Past history centers on the allotment of the land in chap. 23, but on the victories of Yahweh in chap. 24. 3. Allegiance to Yahweh is expressed by obedience to the book of the law in chap. 23 but by “serving” Yahweh in chap. 24. 4. Disobedience is expressed by marriage entanglements with the peoples left in the land in chap. 23 but by continued worship of the gods of the ancestors in chap. 24. 5. The major distinction is in form, chap. 23 being the farewell speech of a dying leader while chap. 24 is a ceremonial dialogue between the leader and the representatives of the people. The two chapters are twinned to drive home the point that God requires faithfulness from his people. First, a sermon warns them. Then a covenant ceremony underlines the serious nature of the covenant relationship with Yahweh and draws forth a commitment to the covenant from the people. As Hoppe explains: “The anomaly of having two ‘farewell addresses’ probably can be explained by the reluctance of the final editors of the book to have the story of Joshua end on a somewhat

405 Hubbard, 547. 406 See ibid., 555.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 311

9/18/14 9:20 AM

312

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

negative and threatening note (23:15–16).”407 According to Hoppe, the result of Joshua’s address in chap. 24 is much more positive and hopeful since the people do follow Joshua’s lead by pledging to serve the Lord (v 24). These final two chapters are important for more than the structure of Joshua. They tie the book to those behind and point to the fulfillment of the warnings in Judges–Kings. K. Schmid sees here the ending of Heilsgeschichte (salvation history) and the beginning of Unheilsgeschichte (catastrophic history).408 Josh 23–24 points back to the first and forward to the latter.409

Setting Noort (“Zu Stand und Perspektiven”) argues for a pre- Deuteronomic late eighth- century date and deals with the text as a literary unit. Römer argues for a very late unified text that presupposes Priestly and pentateuchal traditions and evidences a late stage of the Hebrew language.410 Its purpose is to establish a Hexateuch over against a Pentateuch. Römer summarizes: The double ending of the book of Joshua in Jos 23f. cannot be explained by the assumption of a twofold Dtr redaction. Jos 23 is the Dtr conclusion of the period of the conquest, in which two Dtr authors are to be distinguished. The original text (23.1– 3.9.11.14–16a) sets forth the complete expulsion of the enemies, and threatens exile for any failure to obey Yahweh’s commands. By this the books of Deut and Jos are bound tightly together, but the period of the Judges is not yet in view. The later Dtr layer introduces the idea that Yahweh would not bring the expulsion of the enemies to completion and so prepares for the continuation of the history in the Judges period. Jos 24, on the other hand, is a post- Dtr text which is a unity apart from v. 19–21 and arises from the attempt to produce a Hexateuch in place of a Pentateuch during the Persian period.411 Hubbard finds not a covenant ceremony with God but a “unique covenant . . . between the Israelites themselves,” dedicating themselves to the exclusive service of Yahweh.412 Knauf, however, sees this as the conclusion of the Hexateuch bringing together in one Torah the elements of fifth- century disagreement among the returning exiles, the Benjaminites remaining in the land, and the Samaritans.413 All became sons of Abraham and Jacob with Benjamin, all came out of Egypt with Moses and out of Babylon exile with the returning exiles, and they all worshiped the same God in different places— Mount Zion, Mount Gerizim, or the island of the Jews in Elephantine in Egypt.414

407 Hoppe, 94. 408 Erzväter und Exodus, 209–12. 409 See the discussion and list of opinions in U. Becker, “Endredaktionelle Kontextvernetzungen des Josua- Buches,” 142– 43. 410 Römer, “Das doppelte Ende des Josuabuches,” ZAW 118 (2006) 539– 41. 411 Ibid., 548. 412 Hubbard, 548. 413 Knauf, 193– 94. 414 Cf. Römer and Brettler, JBL 119 (2000) 409–19, who place Josh 24 as the central text in argu-

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 312

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

313

Coote says, “Its historical and literary affinities are uncertain.”415 Sperling argues strongly against an exilic setting that would logically appeal to a covenant made outside Israel and would not appeal to patriarchal heroes who worshiped other gods outside the Promised Land.416 He refuses to posit a document contemporary with the events because Joshua is seen as a full-fledged leader of Israel and the fall of Jericho is seen as a real event. The author, for Sperling, had access to the JE literature in some form. Joshua 24 is based on an early northern Israelite reinterpretation of that tradition in which Yahweh, the God of the exodus, became the covenant God at Shechem. The written document, decides Sperling, relates to Jeroboam II in peaceful conditions without mention of exile, a period about 786– 746 BCE Koopmans looks at phraseology unique to Josh 24:1–28.417 Israel chooses Yahweh rather than vice versa. A spokesperson not designated as a prophet uses the messenger formula. The warning you cannot serve Yahweh stands unique in the Old Testament. Koopmans decides that Genesis and Josh 24 may have exercised a reciprocal influence on each other.418 He also finds that Josh 24 completes the theme of occupying the area around Shechem and that of worshiping Yahweh the God of Israel rather than El the God of Israel. Koopmans studies the unique characteristics of Josh 24. He also looks at themes connecting the two works and finds “Josh. 24:1–28 has many thematic emphases in common with Deuteronomy.”419

Table 24.2 Joshua 24 Form and Narrative Elements Narrative: Historical crises Element

Passage

Marker

Genre: Covenant ceremony report Element

Passage

Marker

Exposition (pf. or disjunctive): Joshua, Shechem, God

v1

New location before God

Sacred gathering

v1

PN gathered . . . before God

Complication: other gods

v2

Impf. consec.

Previous relationships

vv 2–13

Messenger formula + plus historical review of divine deeds and foreign gods

Change or crisis: down to Egypt

vv 3–4

Divine speech in first person

Resolution: divine rescue

v 5a

Impf. consec.

415 416 417 418 419

ing for a late Hexateuch, it being devised by the final Hexateuch redactor as a summary of the Hexateuch. Coote,709. “Joshua 24 Reconsidered.” HUCA 58 (1987) 119– 36. Joshua 24, 346. Ibid., 352– 53. Ibid., 358.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 313

9/18/14 9:20 AM

314

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28) Narrative: Historical crises Element

Renewed exposition: afterwards I brought you out Renewed complication: between Egyptians and Sea Renewed change or crisis: cried to Yahweh Renewed resolution: divine rescue Renewed exposition (disjunctive): in wilderness Renewed complication: in land of Amorites beyond Jordan Renewed change or crisis (speech or dialogue): they fought you Renewed resolution (impf. consec.): divine rescue Renewed exposition (disjunctive): King Balak Renewed complication: called Balaam Renewed change or crisis (speech or dialogue): divine will Renewed resolution (impf. consec.): divine rescue Renewed exposition (pf. or disjunctive): facing Jericho

Passage

Marker

v 5b

Disjunctive

v6

Impf. consec.

v 7aα

New speech

v 7aβ

Impf. consec.

v 7b

New time frame, locations

v 8aα

Impf. consec.

v 8aβ

Change of subject

v 8b

I gave them, destroyed them

v 9a

New person, new location

v 9b

Impf. consec.

v 10a

Negative disjunctive, divine first person

v 10b

Contrast of wills

v 11aα

Change of location

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 314

Genre: Covenant ceremony report Element

Passage

Marker

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting Narrative: Historical crises Element

Passage

Marker

315

Genre: Covenant ceremony report Element

Passage

Marker

Renewed complication: they fought you

v 11aβ

Impf. consec.

Renewed change or crisis (speech or dialogue): down to Egypt

v 11aγ

List of enemies

Renewed resolution (impf. consec.): divine rescue

v 11b

Divine first person; gave them into your hand

Ending

vv 12–13

Formulas

Demand: fear, serve God

vv 14–15

Therefore + impv.

Covenant stipulations: therefore + impvs. + conditional

vv 14–15

Therefore + impvs.

Response to impv.: historical evidence

vv 16–18a

People answered

People’s oath of allegiance

v 16

Oath particle + oath

Response to impv.: oath

v 18b

We also

Confession of faith

vv 17–18a

Historical review of divine deliverance

Leader’s warning: you can’t

vv 19–20

Impf. consec.; negative disjunction

Dedication to Yahweh our God

v 18b

‫גם אנחנו‬, We

Renewed oath: we will serve

v 21

Impf. consec., negative, oath

Leader’s covenant warning

vv 19–20

Impossibility based on divine nature and consequence of failure (conditional clause)

Judge’s charge (verbless clause + kî clause): You are witnesses

v 22a

Verbless clause

Repeated loyalty oath

v 21

Disjunctive clause

Defendants’ testimony

v 22b

One word: witnesses

Swearing in of witnesses

v 22

Explanation and acceptance

Judge’s charge put away

v 23

Therefore, impv.

Central statute of covenant

v 23

Therefore + impv.

Defendants’ oath: Yahweh our God we will serve

v 24

Disjunctive + pledge

Loyalty oath repeated

v 24

Disjunctive oath

Covenant ceremony report

vv 25–27

Cut covenant; rituals for preservation

Covenant making

v 25

Cut a covenant

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 315

also will serve declaration

9/18/14 9:20 AM

316

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28) Narrative: Historical crises Element

Ending: Joshua sent away

Passage v 28

Genre: Covenant ceremony report

Marker Impf. consec. formula

Element

Passage

Marker

Covenant rituals

v 26

Write, stone, tree

Final covenant warning of stone as witness

v 27

Surprise clause with ‫הנה‬

Dismissal

v 28

Formulaic: Joshua sent people to inheritances

Comments 1 The text begins in midstream. The use of ‫אסף‬, “to gather,” to begin a narrative is unique in the biblical literature. It belongs in midstream after a setting and a purpose for the gathering has been established (e.g., Gen 29:22; Exod 3:16; 4:29; Num 11:16, 24). The narrative appears to be purposely atemporal, setting itself up as an example for repeated use. Shechem surprises us again with its appearance, just as it did in Josh 8:30–35. Though never mentioned in chaps. 1–11 nor in the city lists of chaps. 13–19, it is set apart as a city of refuge (20:7) and as a Levitical city (21:21). The Amarna letters and other ancient Near Eastern materials witness to relationships between the city of Shechem and less settled elements of the population during the Middle and Late Bronze ages.420 Our passage does not make it clear if the cult site involved is actually in the city of Shechem or is a sanctuary outside the city associated with Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim (cf. Deut 27; Josh 8:30–35). The relationship between the narrative and the archaeological discovery of a sanctuary of Tananir on Gerizim is also unclear, though Otto is probably correct in disavowing any connection.421 Tananir does show that holy places could exist outside the town, perhaps in connection with more unsettled elements of the population. See further Comment on 21:21. Knauf sees redactors moving the tradition from Shiloh to Shechem as a protest against the Israelite monarchy and its close connections to Shechem under Jeroboam I and later.422 He thus refers to the passage as an anti- Samaritan sermon for repentance. The reference to the tribal leaders connects the cultic assembly closely to the farewell speech of Joshua (23:2), the only other place in the Hebrew Bible categorizing leaders into precisely these four categories. Koopmans correctly refuses to decide which list depends on the other.423 The list involves the leaders of Israel’s “secular” life in the religious responsibility and commitment of the people. The list also involves leaders with specific tasks, not leaders with different titles but the same assignment.424 420 421 422 423 424

See especially, E. Otto, Jakob in Sichem, 159– 69. Cf. ibid., 158. Knauf, 194– 95. Joshua 24, 274–75. Ibid., 282.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 316

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

317

“They appeared (or took their stand) before God” is an expression rarely used in the Old Testament and seems to be connected with the popular assembly of Israel (1 Sam 10:19), perhaps having its ultimate derivation in the language of the court (Job 33:5; 41:2; Prov 22:29; cf. Exod 8:16; 9:13). 2 Joshua addresses all the people, not just the leaders. “Thus said Yahweh” represents the introduction to the prophetic-messenger speech.425 McCarthy wants to find the form originating in the royal decrees and treaties.426 In our context, the form is definitely used in a prophetic sense rather than in the literary form of a treaty. This places Joshua in a clear prophetic role for the first time, giving him some claim to the title of the prophet to be raised up after Moses (Deut 18:15–22; 34:10). The Hebrew sentence begins with “beyond the river,” which serves as both a geographical and a temporal location. Perlitt claims the author/redactor here had no interest at all in the patriarchs for their own sake but only for the geographical location.427 The inverted sentence structure does place emphasis on the location, but not to the exclusion of the patriarchal tradition. The listeners and readers must understand that the revered patriarchs began Israel’s history of sin as well as its history of salvation under Yahweh. No generation has earned the right to Yahweh’s salvation or to Yahweh’s gift of the land. From its inception, Israel is a people of sin called to turn from foreign gods to the one God of Israel. Perlitt’s attempt to separate vv 2 and 3 so that the reference here is to seventhcentury Assyria rather than to the patriarchal age creates an artificial division in the text, robbing it of its historical descriptions and intentions.428 The text underlines the shocking truth that Yahweh worship did not begin at creation for a people called Israel but began only at the dawn of the people Israel with one family who did not inhabit the land Israel or worship Yahweh, the God of Israel. “The God of Israel” is apparently closely connected to the tradition of Shechem429 reaching back probably to the earliest period of the existence of a group called Israel (cf. Gen 33:20). Our passage specifically identifies Yahweh, not El, as the God of Israel. The saving history seeks to show the people how their faithfulness in the past has brought about God’s blessings. God’s historical lesson begins with the patriarchs beyond the River, taking the historical summary a step beyond Deut 26:5 and two steps beyond Deut 6:21. This is based on the genealogical tradition preserved in Gen 11:24– 32. The “fathers” are narrowed down specifically to Terah to show that the dividing line of service of other gods can be drawn with the decision of Abraham (cf. Gen 12:1– 6). The understanding that the fathers had other gods may 425 See T. C. Butler, “Announcements of Judgment,” in Cracking Old Testament Codes, ed. D. B. Sandy and R. L. Giese, Jr. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995) 157–76; cf. a summary of literature in J. Hayes, Old Testament Form Criticism (San Antonio: Trinity UP, 1974) 149– 55; M. Sweeney, Isaiah 1—39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature, FOTL 16 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 546; M. A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi, eds., The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty- First Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); P. R. House, ed., Beyond Form Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbauns, 1992); J. A. Beck, God as Storyteller (St. Louis: Chalice, 2008). 426 Treaty and Covenant, 224. 427 Bundestheologie, 251. 428 Ibid. 429 Cf. the summary by E. Otto, Jakob in Sichem, 78– 81.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 317

9/18/14 9:20 AM

318

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

be related to Gen 35:1– 4. “Israel makes this point about Israel’s prehistory in order to remind them that their origins outside the land in polytheistic worship had been expressly left behind.”430 The service of other gods is the theme of the entire chapter.431 The expression “other gods” picks up the opening motif of the Decalogue (Exod 20:3; Deut 5:7; cf. Exod 23:13) and sounds the theme of the entire ultimate history (Deut 6:14; 7:4; 8:19; 11:16, 28; 13:3, 7, 14; 17:3; 18:20; 28:14, 36, 64; 29:25; 30:17; 31:18, 20; Josh 23:16; Judg 2:12, 17, 19; 10:13; 1 Sam 8:8; 26:19; 1 Kgs 9:6, 9; 11:4, 10; 14:9; 2 Kgs 5:17; 17:7, 35, 37, 38; 22:17). Only the northern prophet Hosea (3:1) and Jeremiah, with his close relations to the Deuteronomic literature and its editors (Jer 1:16; 7:6, 9, 18; 11:10; 13:10; 16:11, 13; 19:4, 13; 22:9; 25:6; 32:29; 35:15; 44:3, 5, 8, 15), utilize the expression “other gods.” “To serve” includes worship but cannot be limited to the cultic sphere. Perlitt is correct in saying that the theme is the object of worship, not the type of worship.432 Service here describes “the recognition of a relationship of dependence upon Yahweh, based on the liberation from Egypt.”433 Here is the theme of the whole chapter, indeed of the biblical narrative from Deut 1 through 2 Kgs 25: Will Israel accept the unconditional claim of God to be their only God? 3– 4 Koopmans notes that a passage such as this can originate in ancient cultic liturgy and yet be marked by late formulations due to use and changes through the centuries. The restrained description of signs and wonders is atypical of Deuteronomistic style.434 Two central promises of the patriarchal narratives, the presence of God directing the patriarchs and the gift of a large family, are proclaimed as having been fulfilled. The journey through the land of Canaan is based on Gen 12:5– 9. The history is a selective history, ignoring Ishmael (Gen 16:16) but citing Esau (Gen 25:25) to make a theological point: God had established Esau much earlier than Jacob, not because Esau was more blessed but because God chose to use Jacob for his further purposes.435 Thus a moment of historical darkness did not mean that God had forgotten or forsaken his people for some other. This was extremely important for the southern kingdom that had seen the north split off in rebellion. It became important for an exilic audience of the ultimate historian. Popovich and Noort disagree on the provenance indicated by v 4. Noort sees it as pre- Deuteronomistic based particularly on its stance toward Edom, which later drew so much Israelite ire.436 Popovic uses one phrase, ‫לרשׁת אותו‬, and the possibility of pushing Deut 2:5 back to later Deuteronomists to conclude that “Joshua 24:4 should, therefore, be dated to the exilic-postexilic period.”437 But a thesis that is “not precluded” is not a thesis that is proven. The relationship to Edom certainly reflects a time long distant from the disdain between the two after the destruction 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437

McConville and Williams, 89. Cf. Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 251, who emphasizes the location “beyond the River.” Ibid., 257. Floss, Jahwe dienen, 371; cf. Mitchell, Together in the Land, 115. Joshua 24, 321–22. Cf. Hertzberg. “Zu Stand und Perspektiven,” 99. “Conquest of the Land,” 95– 96.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 318

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

319

of Jerusalem. Surely Noort correctly places this tradition in the preexilic period. At a time in the united monarchy when David/Solomon controlled Edom, Israel could easily describe the relationship as does Josh 24:4. 5– 6 Moses and Aaron are introduced (see Notes) as representatives of the two sources of authority for the Israelite community, the priesthood and the Torah of Moses. The emphasis of the historical review is not on human authority but on divine action. Any authority derived from Moses and Aaron is secondary. God himself is the sole source of primary authority. He sent out the humans from whom authority is secondarily derived. The tradition that Yahweh “struck Egypt” is apparently tied to the early Passover tradition (Exod 8:2 [Heb. 7:27]; 12:13, 23; 12:27) and appears outside of it only in our passage. “I brought you out” is an expression particularly loved by the Deuteronomistic literature,438 but based on old, probably northern traditions.439 Our passage may reflect one of the earliest liturgical uses of the formula, a practice that has led to the variation between “you (pl.)” and “your fathers” (cf. Notes). The exodus out of Egypt occurs prior to the deliverance at the Sea and is viewed as the beginning of the wilderness traditions.440 The Egyptian pursuit mirrors Exod 14:9, 23, while Israel’s cry is picked up from Exod 14:10 to emphasize the initiative and grace of God over against the ineffectiveness of Israel. 7 Koopmans argues strongly that this account is not Deuteronomistic.441 The “cry” motif was especially meaningful for the exilic audience of the ultimate editor. Rather than the regular term for darkness (cf. Exod 14:20), the writer uses a term akin to the plague narrative (Exod 10:22) to intensify the aura of divine action and power. Liturgy covers the generation gap, so that “your eyes saw” can be used, ignoring the death of a generation in the wilderness. The witness formula “your eyes have seen” is a favorite device of the Deuteronomic school to convict its audience (Deut 4:3; 11:7; in singular in 3:21; 4:9; 7:19; 10:21; 29:2). The Pentateuch pictures the wilderness as the period of Israel’s murmuring and God’s punishment, even while depicting miraculous acts of God that preserve Israel’s life. Our writer suffices with a brief mention, letting the audience fill in the details and interpretation. His focus is on God’s guidance and victories. 8 This language may appear in Deuteronomistic texts, but its origin cannot be from a Deuteronomistic school.442 In line with its theme of divine victory, the text pictures the encounter with the nations east of the Jordan as military victories (cf. Num 21:23–25, 32, 33–35; 31:1–12), ignoring the circuit- around-Edom tradition (Num 20:14–21; Deut 2:2– 8). Amorites here refers to the inhabitants of the territory east of the Jordan (cf. Josh 2:10 with 3:10). 438 See P. Humbert, “Dieu fait sortir,” TZ 18 (1962) 357– 61; idem, “‘Dieu fait sortir’: complementaire,” TZ 18 (1962) 433– 36; B. Childs, “Deuteronomic Formulae of the Exodus Traditions,” 30– 39. 439 Richter, “Beobachtungen zur theologischen Systembildung,” 178– 86. 440 Cf. G. W. Coats, “The Traditio- Historical Character of the Reed Sea Motif,” VT 17 (1967) 253– 65. 441 Joshua 24, 328. 442 S.- M. Kang, Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989) 43– 44, 67; see Koopmans, Joshua 24, 330.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 319

9/18/14 9:20 AM

320

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

9 The East Jordan summary is followed by a specific example that fits the purpose of the text, the story of Balaam (cf. Num 22–24; Josh 13:22).443 The present Numbers context shows God defeating the intention of a foreign king and a prophet to preserve his people, but also shows his people responding with service to other gods (Num 25:2– 3). Our text preaches loudly against such a response. Here, in contrast to the Numbers text, Balaam fights Israel. Similarly, v 11 will show Jericho representing all the occupying nations fighting against Israel. This is not an erroneous, self- contradictory text. It is a combination of a narrator’s literary hyperbole and different perspectives. “Fought” does not necessarily involve physical combat. It can mean opposition and political disagreement. Israel may not have gone to battle against Balaam or Jericho but rather have faced their opposition to Israel’s plans to occupy the land. Israel’s story is one of Yahweh defeating all opposition using all means possible, military, political, and economic. Josh 24 emphasizes God’s victorious power over all enemies through all of Israel’s history. Thus it ignores the details of the miraculous to underline the power of the military onslaught by God alone. Josh 6, on the other hand, stresses God’s miraculous victory accomplished with Israel’s “army.” In a subtle way, Josh 6 is a call to worship the miracle-working God, while Josh 24 is a call to choose the all-powerful God over the weak non- gods of the enemy. 10 Here is a picture of the prophetic relationship to God. God does not listen to or obey the prophet. God directs the prophetic action and word. Not even the prophet has a claim on Yahweh. God remains totally free to act as he chooses. Here the intention to curse is changed to blessing. The people of Israel understood their relationship to the prophet to be a dangerous one. They stood in his hand. But God demonstrated that he delivered Israel even from the hands of prophets who would curse her. As long as Israel remained people of Yahweh, they had no cause to fear even revered divine spokesmen. God’s victory over a prophet thus becomes part of divine saving history. 11 Continuing its emphasis, the text describes even the event at Jericho as a battle, over against the miraculous emphasis of Josh 6. This is not sufficient reason to look for distinct literary sources. Rather, it shows how the same tradition is viewed and used from different perspectives in different contexts. Popovic joins a long line of commentators who immediately assign Josh 24 to the exilic or later period. Popovic also argues that no independent tradition lies behind Josh 24; rather, the historian has shaped the material according to his major motif of Yahweh fighting for an Israel who does not have to fight.444 The introduction of the list of nations here seeks to use the Jericho example to subsume the entire conquest of the land. A similar summarizing technique appears in v 12, using the ancient language of the “hornet” or “panic” (see Notes) to describe the conquest of the two (twelve?; see Notes) kings of the Amorites (now in West Jordan; cf. v 8). The list of nations repeats that in Josh 3:10 but in different order. “The book comes full circle now in affirming that God has done what he promised.”445 443 For the following, cf. a similar but distinct viewpoint by Popovic (“Conquest of the Land,” 94). 444 Ibid. 445 Howard, 432.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 320

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

321

12–13 Koopmans insists the dependence here is on Exodus and not on Deuteronomistic literarature.446 V 13 cannot be dependent on Deut 6:10–11. The Deuteronomy text expands Joshua at this point. Two brief notes, the first becoming quite personal with the singular “you” (cf. Notes), make the point of the entire historical survey. God, not man, has acted. Israel’s blessings, Israel’s entire identity, is a result of divine choice and action, not human power. The point is made in the language of Deut 6:10–11, another context centering on the service of other gods. Our text apparently presupposes that the people are already living in the cities and using the fields.447 14 The description of putting away foreign gods here and in Gen 35 stands out distinctly from the picture of Deuteronomy or of the Hezekiah or Josiah reforms.448 The text abruptly changes speakers and mood. The prophetic Joshua now assumes the role of an attorney pleading for the proper verdict for his client.449 He demands two actions to be taken. First, the people are to enter into the proper relationship to Yahweh. Second, they are to rid themselves of all other claimants to lordship over them. The proper relationship includes the proper attitude of reverence and awe in response to the majestic acts of God and the proper action of service in its widest sense. (See Comment on v 2.) Such service is qualified by a pair of terms. ‫תמים‬, “totally,” can refer to the completeness of a day or year (Josh 10:13; Lev 23:15; 25:30; cf. 3:9), but most often refers to the perfection of an animal to be sacrificed (Exod 12:5; 29:1; Lev 1:3, 10; sixteen other times in Leviticus; eighteen times in Num 6; 19; 28–29; ten times in Ezek 43– 46). In reference to men, it is used only with Noah (Gen 6:9), as a command to Abraham (17:1), and for the original inhabitant of Eden (Ezek 28:15). It is the action expected of the people with their rulers (Judg 9:16, 19). Its basic home is in cultic literature, where it describes the actions of God (Deut 32:4; 2 Sam 22:31 = Ps 18:31; Ps 19:8). It is the demand made on the person who would enter the cultic worship (Ps 15:2) and the confession of innocence by the worshiper (2 Sam 22:24 = Ps 18:24; cf. Pss 37:18; 84:12; 101:2, 6). The wisdom writers use the term sparingly to refer to the righteous individual who is blessed before God (Job 12:4; 36:4; Prov 2:21; 11:20; 28:10). Here then is a norm set up for people (Deut 18:13) but seldom ascribed to a specific person. The one who achieves it is often the victim of ridicule (Job 12:4; Amos 5:10). The other element describing service of God is ‫אמת‬, “faithfully.” This, too, is seldom attributed to a person450 and finds its basic usage in the Psalms. It designates a quality within persons that cannot be presupposed, that of trustworthiness and faithfulness in speech and deed in relationship to other people and to God.451 Joshua thus demands an attitude and actions that are beyond the normal, expected attitudes and actions of men. He demands the same type of response to God that God has already shown to his people, that of total loyalty and dedication. Floss contends that the command to put away the gods comes too late, being expected prior to the positive command (Gen 35:2– 3; Judg 10:15–16; Joshua 24, 332. For the metaphorical use of “hornet” in this verse, see Exod 23:28 and Howard, 432– 33. Koopmans, Joshua 24, 336. Cf. Isa 5:3; Exod 10:17; 19:5; H. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12, BKAT 10 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972) 169–70. 450 Cf. Neh 7:2; Jepsen, TWAT, 1:335. 451 Cf. Jepsen, TWAT, 1:337. 446 447 448 449

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 321

9/18/14 9:20 AM

322

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

2 Chr 33:15–16).452 He neglects to note that in each case the attitude and decision for Yahweh precedes the actions of putting away the gods and building the altars. Only if he would go against his own contention that “to serve” has wider connotations than “to worship, sacrifice,” could his case be maintained. Joshua calls for proper allegiance, on which basis he can then call for a change of practice. The interesting point is that Israel is charged with false worship not only in the time of their ancestors but also in the time of their stay in Egypt. The presupposition appears to be that Israel has never yet served Yahweh correctly. The people have merely cried to him in time of need (cf. v 7). Israel is in the new land. The new land presents them with a new lifestyle. The land has known a lifestyle worshiping Baal and El and the other gods and goddesses for many centuries. On the other hand, Israel has a history of worship, worship connected with the gods of the patriarchs and the gods of Egypt. Over against this history stands the quite brief history of God’s actions for Israel. 15 Joshua concludes his case by spelling out the alternatives facing Israel, with the language “in your eyes” connecting back to v 7. Perlitt finds no free choice here but a sharpening of the sermon born out of extreme danger.453 For Perlitt, this comes not from tradition or from the cult but from a political situation. Nelson eliminates the significance of Joshua’s declaration of loyalty for his own house by calling it “a rhetorical flourish.”454 It may serve as a literary decoration at one level, but it remains a central, narrative-turning element at the theological level. The call for Israel to choose is unique in several respects. (1) God is normally the subject, having chosen Israel (Deut 4:37; 7:6, 7; 10:15; 14:2; 1 Kgs 3:8; Isa 41:8– 9; 43:10; 44:1–2; 49:7; Ezek 20:5; Pss 33:12; 47:5 [47:4]; 135:4; Neh 9:7).455 Yet his very choice forces a decision on Israel, for it is made in the midst of many attractive “religions.” God calls Israel to choose life (Deut 30:19). The doctrine of election may well have been formulated precisely in the battle against the Canaanite religion (see Judg 5:8).456 (2) Israel’s neighbors faced only one choice: Which god do I serve at the moment, in the present crisis? Polytheism, the worship of many gods, was the natural presupposition in Israel’s environment. Ultimate choice was unnecessary, heretical, and thoughtless. (3) Cultic activities presupposed that the god of the cult was known and chosen before cultic worship began. The task of the cult was celebration, not choice. Perlitt correctly observes the uniqueness of this once- andfor- all observance calling for commitment under oath.457 The unique qualities of this text testify to its foundation in Israel’s early cultic history. By the time of Solomon, a royal call like this would be contrary to the king’s own practice. This is not Deuteronomistic language but pre- or protoDeuteronomistic, early language calling for Israel to choose rather than reviewing Yahweh’s choice. Israel’s later cult celebrated Yahweh’s victories in Egypt and at the Jordan. The Joshua narrative represents early admonition to stay on task and instruction to understand the absolute loyalty involved in task. 452 453 454 455 456 457

Jahwe dienen, 351– 52. Bundestheologie, 258. Nelson, 276. See Popovic, “Conquest of the Land,” 93. Cf. Seebass, TDOT, 2:83– 84. Bundestheologie, 261.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 322

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

323

Joshua thus forces Israel to make a choice that has never confronted their neighbors, a choice which will determine the nature of their cult from that moment on, a choice that spotlights as no other the unique quality and demand of Yahweh. In the hour of choice, Israel’s freedom remains totally protected. No prophetic threats thunder down upon her.458 Israel is simply asked to view God’s history and determine if it proves his superiority over other claims to deity. The decision is not one to be made in isolation, for Joshua leads the way, proclaiming that his family has already chosen Yahweh. When Israel chooses Yahweh, they have a leader to show them the way. Here is “a leader willing to move ahead of his people and commit himself, regardless of the people’s inclinations.”459 16 The confessional responses here can hardly claim Deuteronomic kinship.460 In an oath, the people follow Joshua’s leadership. 17–18 Their answer is totally proper, employing a long string of cultic clichés describing the salvation history. Each of the statements differs from those of Joshua. Whereas Joshua emphasized the victories of Yahweh against nations who fought Israel, the people emphasize the signs and wonders that provided for the needs of a people escaping from the house of bondage and protected them in the unknown, dangerous way across the wilderness, finally providing them a place to live. 19–20 The vocabulary in vv 19–21 can hardly be claimed for the Deuteronomist.461 The refrain describing God as holy and jealous reflects ancient cultic formulations. Deuteronomy prefers “other gods” to Joshua’s “foreign gods.” Joshua’s answer is perhaps the most shocking statement in the Old Testament. He denies that the people can do that which he has spent the entire chapter trying to get them to do. Having won their statement of faith and allegiance, he rejects it. Why? The classic answer is that vv 19–20 represent a later insertion in light of the exile.462 Schmitt argues, however, that only difficult experiences such as the fall of the northern kingdom are presupposed, the verses warning Israel that they cannot serve Yahweh in the manner Israel imagined.463 Becker sees the confession of faith as banal in this place in the narrative.464 McCarthy, in light of the treaty tradition, speaks of a historicizing of the curses and blessings with the understanding that the evil must come about. “The curse and the blessing are no longer alternatives, but one follows the other as a fact.”465 He explains this as being impossible in the covenant context, being derived rather from the prophetic tradition of Amos 3:1–2 and Isa 6:9–10.466 Perlitt, in as strong of language as possible, uses this verse to deny real cultic connections: v 19a makes a cultic 458 459 460 461 462

463 464 465 466

Cf. Schmitt, Landtag, 37. Howard, 436. Koopmans, Joshua 24, 340. Ibid. Rudolph, Der ‘Elohist’; Noth, System der zwölf Stämme Israels; Möhlenbrink, ZAW 56 (1938) 250– 54; Popovic, “Conquest of the Land”; Floss, Jahwe dienen; Becker, “Endredaktionelle,” who says that such pointing to a catastrophic end was far from anything imagined in the basic text of 1–2a, 15, 16, 18b, 22, 28. Landtag, 12. “Endredaktionelle,” 145. Treaty and Covenant, 236. Ibid., 240; cf. Hertzberg.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 323

9/18/14 9:20 AM

324

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

oath absurd and is as suitable as the preparation for the conclusion of a contract as oil is for putting out a fire.467 Nelson is on the right track: “the present form of the text makes good rhetorical and structural sense, and the deep paradox introduced by v 19 adds greatly to the power and theological sophistication of the text.”468 Earl decides: Joshua’s “shocking rejoinder” (24:19) [quoting Hawk, 264] accentuates the rhetorical nature of this dialog. Perhaps a fuller and more serious realization of the character of YHWH and what serving him entails is achieved via the rather shocking “delayed” response. It serves to highlight the difficulty of the existential choice that is to be made, or rather the difficulty in following through with the positive choice for YHWH because of the demanding nature of serving YWHW even if it is the only choice that makes sense.469 McConville and Williams likewise accent the rhetorical and prophetic aspects of Joshua’s response, “vividly portraying the kind of double mindedness which could and will become a temptation in the pressured situation in Canaan.”470 None of these solutions takes the present context seriously enough. The issue at stake in the entire chapter is the service of other gods, presented as a present reality for Israel. Their experience is that of the service of gods who make fewer demands than does Yahweh. Israel has been able to serve such gods. She could build images for them, dress them, perfume them, build a house for them, bring sacrifices to feed them, carry them in processions, even bury them in appropriate moments (Gen 35:4; cf. 31:34). The scholarly theology of the priesthood of these gods might have denied the possibility; but for the common worshipers, it was certainly within their possibilities to serve the gods they knew, indeed, to serve several of them simultaneously. Joshua has detected this in the response of the people. They see God as the one who is bound to protect them along their way, so they can protect him by serving him. Joshua demands a service with deeper motivation. He wants service based on the nature of God himself. Joshua has described this nature in the acts of gracious election, creating a people through salvation history. Now he defines this nature with two theologically loaded terms, terms that explain why Israel cannot serve Yahweh. First, God is holy. This is, aptly enough, language taken over from the Canaanite tradition itself.471 It is in a category all by itself in describing an attribute belonging to deity, namely, the numinous, mysterious element that separates him from all creation and creatures. In its earliest tradition Israel understands this holiness both as a saving and as a destructive power.472 The demonstration of the destructive power of holiness is not simply an impersonal, automatic entity in itself, however. It must be understood as the power of a God who feels himself personally 467 468 469 470 471 472

Bundestheologie, 244. Nelson, 276. Earl, 195. McConville and Williams, 90– 91. H. P. Müller, THAT, 2:593, 598, 602. T. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970) 299; cf. 1 Sam 6:20.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 324

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

325

insulted by the unimpressed.473 The holiness of God impresses the worshiper to imitate the purity of God, acting in accordance with the demands of God (Exod 22:30 [22:31]; Lev 19:2). The true worshipers of Yahweh are impressed by the numinous holiness of God, so impressed that they know they cannot meet the demands of such a god. We cannot serve such a god. As Creach phrases this situation, “Israel cannot fulfill its covenant obligation to God by simple adherence to a legal code. Rather particular stipulations were illustrative examples of Israel’s larger obligation to express God’s holiness in every word and deed.”474 Similarly, God is jealous and zealous. Here again, terminology is taken from Israel’s environment, where the gods are jealous among themselves. Yahweh’s uniqueness lies precisely in his jealousy over against his worshipers. He loves them so much that he wants their undivided love in return. He will not share them with any other god. God turns his jealous indignation against the unfaithful worshiper, not against the rival lover. He punishes the people who try to serve him along with some other god. God’s jealousy cannot tolerate this. He has given undivided love and wants the same from them (cf. Exod 20:5; 34:14–16). Thus Eichrodt can call the jealousy of God “the basic element in the whole Old Testament idea of God.”475 The nature of God himself prevents Israel from serving him. His holy purity and jealous love both tie him in total devotion to his people and tie them off from fulfilling his demands. This has drastic consequences. God will not forgive Israel’s sins (cf. Exod 23:21). His expectations of them are too high. His love for them is too great. He cannot easily ignore their wrongdoings, their casual flirtations with other gods. The gods of the neighbors would simply wait for the worshiper to come back. Yahweh goes out to discipline the errant lover until she returns. As Nelson summarizes the situation, To be Yahweh’s people is to be caught in the vortex of Yahweh’s holiness and jealousy, intolerant divine qualities which demand that they serve Yahweh and Yahweh alone “honestly and faithfully,” a demand impossible to accomplish. Yet impossible or not, they are the people who have obligated themselves by solemn covenant to serve and obey, and they are responsible for doing so.476 20 The consequences receive explicit definition. For Popovic,477 the definition is clear: the text presupposes the Judean exile. At this point Popovich self- consciously debates Noort’s thesis that the call to choice finds roots in the preexilic period.478 Israel’s temptation is not just to serve other gods. It is to serve “strange, foreign” gods, gods to whom Israel does not belong, gods who have done nothing for Israel. Such service is the easy way out for Israel. The people can fulfill the wishes of the 473 Müeller, THAT, 2:597. 474 Creach, 127. 475 Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. 1, 3rd ed (Berlin: Evangelische, 1933) 133, n. 15; translated as Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 1, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) 210, n. 1. 476 Nelson, 273. 477 “Conquest of the Land,” 94. 478 “Zu Stand und Perspektiven,” 98.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 325

9/18/14 9:20 AM

326

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

strange gods. But such service is foreign to Israel, for it denies their very origins and identity. Still, service of foreign gods remains a tempting option throughout Israel’s existence. When Israel exercises this option, Yahweh’s course of action is clear. He will reverse salvation history. Israel will be totally destroyed. “Israel is threatened with the same fate as befell the nations. Nevertheless, the strategy of the argument is not to obtain a response to a threat but a response of gratitude.”479 This is the basic definition of Israel’s relationship with God, a definition the prophets played on in various ways for centuries. God has created the relationship and takes it with utmost seriousness. He expects Israel to do the same and will give them reason to do so when they do not. 21 In light of the nature of Yahweh and his demands, the people again respond, more somberly and succinctly, but still positively. Israel has obligated herself to Yahweh. But, as Hess points out, the people of Israel do not reply specifically to any of Joshua’s requests and do not show in action their willingness to obey by burying their gods or other actions. “Deeds in addition to words were essential to demonstrate their faith.”480 22 Koopmans shows that form- critical comparison with Ruth 4:9–11 and 1 Sam 12:5 points to a legal oath, making false any assertions that v 20 is an insertion.481 Joshua assumes the role of judge and swears the people of Israel in as witnesses against themselves. Normally, other gods would serve as witnesses in the ancient Near East. Israel’s pledge of allegiance to Yahweh has excluded them from consideration (see v 27). The people of Israel must observe their own behavior and attest their fidelity or infidelity to their oath. Their free choice is to reject the gods of their tradition and turn to the God who has given them identity and hope. Each person must decide to be loyal to Yahweh as an individual and to accept responsibility to hold other members of the Yahweh community accountable to the covenant they participate in.482 23 Becker argues that v 23 presupposes the fall to foreign gods when the obligation scene is seeking to warn them.483 I read the scene differently. Having gained Israel’s commitment, Joshua places the demand on them once more (cf. v 14). The demand is now quite personal and “repeats verbatim a line Jacob spoke to his family” (Gen 35:2),484 thus legitimating the demand in well-known tradition. The gods are no longer those of the fathers beyond the river and in Egypt. The gods are the ones in the midst of the people today. The present generation is not exempt from the sin of the fathers. The ceremony of putting away the gods, however it may have been carried out,485 was not enough in itself. The important ingredient was one of personal dedication. Israel did not have only to stretch out their hands in ritual worship. They had to stretch out their innermost being, their heart, in total devotion. 24 Finally, the people of Israel give an extended answer demonstrating they have understood Yahweh’s demands. They accept Yahweh as their God (cf. v 17). 479 480 481 482 483 484 485

Mitchell, Together in the Land, 118. Hess (1996) 307. Joshua 24, 341. See Hubbard, 559. “Endredaktionelle,” 145. See Creach, 119. Cf. Nielsen, ST 8 (1954) 103–22.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 326

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

327

They promise to serve him (v 18b). They pledge to listen obediently to his voice, something they had not mentioned previously. Here is the central statement of the chapter. The identity of Israel stands not in their confession of faith nor in their cultic loyalty. The basic identity of Israel resides in the conversation they carry on with God, listening to his word and obeying it. This, and only this, is true service of Yahweh. Hess compares Israel’s action here with that of Jacob and his family in Gen 35 at Shechem. Jacob’s people buried the foreign gods. Israel simply stated their promise of loyalty. Hess concludes: “The omission of an explicit note of obedience is ominous.”486 25 Perlitt used this verse to bolster his argument that Deuteronomistic editors lay behind this chapter.487 Koopmans explored the evidence anew and concluded: “These observations nullify the assertion that Josh. 24:25b is either directly dependent upon Deuteronomy or is shaped by the hand of a Dtist. Josh. 24:25 in fact bears no concrete evidence of later editing or redacting.”488 Recent scholarship has tended to see vv 25–27 as evidence for a Hexateuch at some time in the history of canonization. Aurelius sees the result of Joshua’s writing being the Hexateuch.489 Becker points to “the Book of the Law of God” in v 26 as reference to the completed Pentateuch that cannot be expanded.490 For Becker, vv 24–27 reflect a different type of authority: the Pentateuch’s story of salvation history is interpreted in the book of Joshua. Howard says the nature of the book in which Joshua writes “is not so clear.”491 The words of the covenant ceremony are not in the Pentateuch. Thus Howard speaks of an independent Book of the Law of God. Coote sees Joshua having a new role as lawgiver which “puts him unusually at odds with the exclusive authority of the commandments and laws of Moses.”492 Joshua establishes the agreement between Israel and Yahweh. Nelson says the present form of the text “does not really imply a brand-new allegiance to Yahweh.”493 Nelson proceeds to follow Perlitt in finding only Israel’s “solemn validation of its self-imposed promise of allegiance to Yahweh,” with no mention of an obligation on Yahweh’s part. Thus Yahweh is ruled out as a partner in this agreement. In Hubbard’s words, “the covenant Joshua makes simply formalizes the people’s prior verbal commitment (vv 21, 24) as a self-imposed mandate or obligation,” forming an “obligation covenant.”494 The term bĕrît, “covenant,” has been the subject of great dispute. Kutsch and Perlitt have argued that bĕrît means obligation or commitment (Verpflichtung), not covenant, and entered Israel’s theology with the Deuteronomistic school.495 Weinfeld and particularly McCarthy object that Exod 19, 24, and 34; 2 Sam 23:5; and

486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495

Hess (1996) 307. Bundestheologie, 260–70. Joshua 24, 296. Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts, 176–77. “Endredaktionelle,” 146. Howard, 440. Coote, 714. Nelson, 276, n. 19. Hubbard, 548, 560. Kutsch, THAT, 1:339– 52; Verheissung und Gesetz; Perlitt, Bundestheologie.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 327

9/18/14 9:20 AM

328

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

Hos 8:3 point to pre-Deuteronomic levels using bĕrît theology.496 Barr has tended in this direction also.497 Again, the problem hangs together with the prehistory of the Deuteronomistic literary activity. In this case, the connections of Shechem with El- or Baal-Berith appear to provide the connecting link.498 Northern cult leaders, perhaps Levites, may well have brought ancient northern covenant traditions into Jerusalem. The basis of the covenant agreement is ‫חק ומשׁפט‬, literally “statute and judgment.” The singular is unusual, appearing also in the early tradition in Exod 15:25. The content of the “law” mediated by Joshua is not given. Certainly later tradition would understand it as the Mosaic law of Sinai. That this was the original intention of the tradition has been deeply questioned by Schmitt.499 The present context does not emphasize the stipulations of the agreement between Yahweh and Israel. Rather, it focuses on the central stipulation, that of complete loyalty to and service for the Lord of the covenant. All other stipulations are simply presupposed as common knowledge of the people. The remarkable fact here is the absence of divine action. As Howard notes, “He does not appear as an active party at the end of the proceedings. What is clear is that the people were binding themselves to serve and obey him.”500 It may be that the geographical designation (in Shechem) at one time directed the audience to the site where the other stipulations could be found if desired. In the literary context of Josh 24, the geographical designation simply ties the report to old tradition and concludes the dialogue by taking up the geographical motif set out in v 1. Attempts to say Shechem is a literary device without connection with Israel or with a covenant religion are simply evidence for too strong a skepticism over against the biblical report. The very unexpected mention of Shechem in chap. 8 and here shows how strongly the tradition was tied to this cult site even though the site itself appears to have been destroyed in the late premonarchical period. 26 V 26a actually duplicates the document clause of v 25b and makes it more explicit. Its language is often described as Deuteronomist, but Koopmans examines the evidence closely and decides “there is finally no significant evidence for treating either 24:26a or 26b as a Dtistic redaction.”501 The verse may reflect an updating of the tradition, identifying the statute and judgment of Joshua with the book of the Torah of God (cf. Josh 1:7– 8; 8:31–34; 22:5; 23:6). If so, then it may reflect the practice of revising the Torah since here Joshua apparently adds the agreement he has made to the Torah. This might, indeed, point to a conscious addition of the book of Joshua to the Torah of Moses. Hess’s explanation clarifies the situation and meaning here: The covenant that Joshua writes forms part of the Book of the Law of God. A holy place of the Lord is mentioned in Joshua 24:26. This implies that the covenant was kept there and that it was part of a larger, older work. The intention is to tie what has been written in with the law of Moses. How496 497 498 499 500 501

Weinfeld, Bib 56 (1975) 120–28; TDOT, 2:253–79; McCarthy, Bib 53 (1972) 110–21. “Some Semantic Notes on Covenant.” Cf. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 222–23, with n. 20. E.g., Landtag, 14–15, 23–25. Howard, 439. Joshua 24, 297– 99.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 328

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

329

ever, Moses is no longer mentioned. Unlike the early chapters of Joshua, where Moses’ name occurs to support Joshua’s work, in this chapter an older Joshua writes the covenant without the need to appeal to Moses’ authority.502 This explanation is to be preferred over against Hubbard’s protection of the Mosaic tradition by seeing “a special document penned by Joshua here and separate from the Pentateuch.”503 An ancient practice underlies v 26b. A great stone is set up under a tree within the sanctuary. G. E. Wright has tried to show that the excavations of Shechem have uncovered cultic areas featuring cultic stones or maṣṣēbôt. E. Otto has called this explanation into question, again showing the necessity and difficulty of interpreting the “hard facts” of archaeology in relationship to literary witnesses.504 Whatever the final archaeological interpretation proves to be, Josh 24 attests to a period when stones were used with cultic significance by Israel (cf. Gen 28:18–22; 31:13, 44– 52; 35:14, 20; Exod 24:4; Josh 4; 2 Sam 18:18, cf. Isa 19:19). The legal literature of Israel roundly condemns such pillars (Exod 23:24; 34:13; Lev 26:1; Deut 7:5; 12:3; 16:22), but this did not stop the practice (1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 3:2; 10:26–27; 17:10; 18:4; 23:14; Ezek 26:11; Hos 3:4; 10:1–2; Mic 5:12 [5:13]). Throughout Israel’s history, the sacred stone remained ambiguous, interpreted by many as a continuation of the ancient tradition commemorating God’s acts for Israel and Israel’s commitment to Yahweh, but seen by many others as a continuation of Canaanite practices forbidden by Yahweh. The biblical writers came down hard on the side of the latter party. Still, some traditions of “acceptable use” of cultic stones were preserved, one of them being the present passage.505 Nelson contends that here the stone hears only Yahweh’s historical review, not Israel’s commitment to Yahweh alone, an argument that appears hard to defend. Along with the cultic stone appears the sacred tree, though the tradition has changed the Hebrew pointing of the word (cf. BHS). A similar tree is associated with Shechem in Gen 12:6; 35:4; Deut 11:30; Judg 9:6, 37. Other such trees appear in Gen 13:8; 14:13; 18:1; Judg 4:11; 6:11, 19; 1 Sam 10:3. Another type of holy tree appears in Gen 21:33 (cf. 1 Sam 22:6; 31:13). Use of trees within the sanctuaries also came under condemnation (Deut 12:2; 2 Kgs 16:4; Isa 1:29; 57:5; Jer 2:27; 3:6; Ezek 6:13; 20:28; Hos 4:13; Hab 2:19).506 Here then, our text shows a very early period in the history of Israelite religion when stones and trees were used unthinkingly and innocently in the cult and became such a fixed part of the tradition that later writers did not remove them. The sanctuary is interpreted as belonging to Yahweh. This may indicate a division between an Israelite sanctuary near Shechem and the Shechemite sanctuary of Baal- Berith inside the city itself (cf. Judg 9). The Israelite sanctuary was the site of a ceremony sealing the agreement. Details of the ceremony are not given. Perhaps sacrifices or meals were a part of such ritual (cf. Exod 24). For our context, this is 502 503 504 505

Hess (1996) 308. Hubbard, 560. Jakob in Sichem, 108– 58. See G. A. Barrois, “Pillar,” IDB, 3:815–17; C. Graesser, Jr., “Pillar,” IDBSup, 668– 69; K. Jaroš, Die Stellung, 147–79, 208–11. 506 See Jaroš, Die Stellung, 213– 57; J. A. Soggin, TWAT, 2:357.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 329

9/18/14 9:20 AM

330

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

unimportant. The intention is not to preserve the ritual but to impress upon the audience the importance of the basic stipulation. 27 Koopmans finds that “previous literary- critical approaches have not known what to do with the present verse.”507 Koopmans rejects parallel repetition as a criterion for source division. One does not have to accept Koopmans’s poetic theory to agree that repetition is a part of Hebrew narrative style and not a sign of different authors at work. Thus he finds no redaction in the verse, no sign of Deuteronomistic work.508 This evidence leads him to see the entire verse as part of the original composition. Having completed the ceremony, Joshua explains the significance to the people. The subjective witness of the people (v 22) is complemented by the objective witness of the stone (cf. Gen 31:51– 52). Here is an ancient understanding that attributes “life” to the cultic stone.509 But one must keep asking whether the stone was a memorial stone reminding Israel what Yahweh did, or if the stone marked for Israel the resting place of buried gods, making the gods accessible to an Israel only half-heartedly giving them up.510 “The words of Yahweh” are difficult to define. The natural expectation would be that the stone was witness to divine statutes written on it (cf. Deut 27; Josh 8:30– 35). The only words of Yahweh recorded in our passage, however, are the historical summary in vv 2–13. Here again, ancient ritual is summarized but remains secondary to the context. The words must be the stipulations of the agreement (v 25b), but these have been minimized in interest of the call to obedience to the one basic stipulation. Israel’s temptation is not to violate some secondary stipulation. Israel’s punishment would not come from a legalistic god who finds that Israel has not carried out a ritual properly. Israel’s temptation and the danger of punishment came under the basic commandment: thou shalt have no other gods. ‫כחשׁ‬, “to deny,” appears with deity as the object only here, Jer 5:12; Isa 59:13; Job 31:28; and Prov 30:9.511 28 See Koopmans reference in Notes relegating this to later redaction.512 The agreement is concluded. The people may return to the inheritances that God has given to them. The identity of Israel is complete. Israel is a people sworn to serve only Yahweh living in their land, a gift from Yahweh. If one looks forward to Judges, the journey to inheritances may have more significance than first meets the eye. Judges finds tribes still fighting to possess their territory. Territory allotted in chaps. 13–21 may not be territory occupied and possessed. The epoch marking the death of Joshua thus serves both to separate eras in Israelite history and to join the story of God’s promise of giving with that of Israel’s promise of forfeiting.

Joshua 24, 300. Ibid., 302. Cf. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 223. See Hess (1996) 309; idem, Israelite Religions, 198–200; U. Avner, “Sacred Stones in the Desert,” BAR 27 (2001) 30– 41. 511 This does not prove that it is late language (Schmitt, Landtag, 22, against L’Hour, RB 69 [1962]). 512 Joshua 24, 302– 3. 507 508 509 510

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 330

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Explanation

331

Explanation The final chapter “does not fit exactly any of these topics that give structure to the book. . . . In a sense, it stands outside the frames of the book. But that does not mean that it is somehow detached from or at odds with the previous material. On the contrary, Joshua 24 is so much a summation of Joshua (and in some ways all of Genesis through Joshua) that it draws together most of Joshua’s theological interests.”513 One can even agree with Popovic: “In the final form of the book of Joshua, the conquest of the promised land is qualified and conditioned by these two texts, Joshua 23 and 24, each text signaling a particular emphasis.”514 Josh 24 completes the book by giving the theological definition of the people of God. “The preceding account of God’s saving acts and election of Israel has made devotion to other gods absurd.”515 Here we suddenly find highly loaded theological language, defining God and the God-human relationship. Here we find “what is arguably the central idea about God in the Old Testament.”516 “Joshua powerfully establishes Israel’s identity as a people defined by the decisions it freely makes in response to God’s initiative.”517 This makes the chapter one of the most important chapters in the Old Testament for biblical theologians. But the chapter is not simply theological reflection, as contended by some recent writers. Its foundations were in the very roots of Israel, when ancient cultic symbols continued to be used and the religion of the fathers could be seen as a temptation to other gods. Thus the chapter has played a very important role for historians of Israel and their religion. In all the effort to incorporate the message of the chapter into a theological, historical, or religious system, the intent of the chapter in its canonical context can easily be overlooked. Josh 24 is atemporal. It sets itself up as an occasion that has validity for all Israel through all time. It does not belong to the period immediately after the conquest, nor to the period immediately after the distribution of the land. It does not belong to the ceremony celebrating Joshua’s final speech to Israel before he dies (chap. 23). It belongs to no specific time and thus to all times. It is ever a call to the people of God to examine their identity over against the true identity of people of God as set out in the chapter. That identity as God’s people hinges on the action of God in the history of his people. Such action is set out as having occurred prior to any service the people have done for Yahweh. Salvation history can in no way be connected to God’s reward for the behavior of his people. God chose to act in his own freedom in the hope that the people he delivered from slavery would respond in the same freedom and choose to serve him. The chapter implies that such a free choice was not immediately forthcoming. In this, it stands with the wilderness narratives of the Pentateuch. A people having experienced the saving acts of God can easily turn to murmuring or to serving other gods. God sends his leader to assemble the people and remind them of the greatness of God’s actions for them. Only under such leadership does Israel respond. 513 514 515 516 517

Creach, 14. “Conquest of the Land,” 86. Hawk (2010) 244. Creach, 119. Hawk (2010) 243.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 331

9/18/14 9:20 AM

332

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

Thus Josh 24 is a fit ending for the activity of Joshua. Joshua here becomes more than a pious, obedient hero of faith, more than a conquering hero of war, more than a just arbiter in legal disputes. Here Joshua becomes the courageous religious leader ready to set the example himself with his house and to call his people to follow. Such a call is not a summons seeking recognition and popularity for himself. It is a call issued with stern warning of the responsibility and consequences. Corollary to God’s action is Israel’s choice to serve. A people delivered by God are called to obey God and minister for God.518 The call of Joshua to Israel is more than simply a narration of past history. It is a demand for discipleship, a call to hear and obey in faithfulness and loyalty the commands of God. As House points out, “Joshua tells the story in a way calculated to bring Israel to a decision; he has not just told an engaging account of the national history. Three responses are expected to flow from this relationship: fear of the Lord, service of the Lord, and rejection of other gods (24:14).”519 Joshua forces Israel to understand the difference between their concept of god(s) and the true nature of Yahweh. He is the holy, jealous God who expects his people to be satisfied with nothing less than perfection. He is not a God whom men can bribe. He is not a God who waits around patiently while Israel flirts with other gods. He is not a God who governs one small part of the world while others take care of their shares. He is the only God, the one who has all power and all responsibility. More than anything else, he is the God who loves so much that he seeks the same whole-hearted love and devotion in return. People are incapable of such total devotion, but this is no excuse. God’s people are called to demand such devotion from themselves, to be satisfied with nothing less. The sad story of Israel is that they refused even to try. Immediately following the generation of Joshua, Israel slipped into the easy way, the way of their neighbors. Israel chose the other gods (e.g., Judg 10). The remainder of the history of Israel is the story of God raising leaders— judges, kings, prophets—to call Israel back to himself, as Joshua had done. None had the success of Joshua. Never again did the entire people of God unite in commitment as in the time of Joshua. When a second Joshua arose (2 Kgs 23:24–25), it was too late. God had already begun the evil that he had threatened to bring upon a disobedient people. Finally, God called forth his own Son, bearing the same name, to seek to entice his people back to him. Even then the people refused, choosing to use the courts of the nations to bring condemnation and death upon Jesus. The words of Joshua now join the words of Jesus in calling forth in all nations for people who will come to the court of God, hear the new agreement which God seeks to make with his people, and take upon themselves the commitment to serve the God and Father of Jesus Christ in all circumstances. All too often, people have entered this agreement as did Israel of old. They have pledged their whole heart to God, but the first temptation has led them to halt between two opinions, serving the gods of the fathers, the gods of the lands, the gods of materialistic atheism, along with the Father. The timeless ceremony continues to beckon men to choose whom they will serve. The covenant report 518 519

Cf. Earl, 192. WTJ 67 (2005) 236.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 332

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Explanation

333

continues to warn them that such choice has serious consequences. Josh 24 continues to remind them that the God offering the choice has already done more for his people than they can ever repay. He continues to be a jealous lover calling his people back to his holy courts for service to him alone.

G. Faithful to the Finish (24:29–33) Bibliography Angel, H. “One Book, Two Books: The Joshua-Judges Continuum.” JBQ 36 (2008) 163– 70. Auld, A. G. “Judges I and History: A Reconsideration.” VT 25 (1975) 261–65. Becker, U. “Endredaktionelle Kontextvernetzungen des Josua-Buches. In Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur ‘Deuteronomismus’Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Ed. M. Witte, K. Schmid, D. Prechel, and J. C. Gertz. BZAW 365. Berlin: De Gruyter 2006. 141–61. Begg, C. T. “The Demise of Joshua according to Josephus.” HvTSt 63 (2007) 129–45. Blum, E. “The Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the End of the Book of Joshua.” In On the Border Line: Textual Meets Literary Criticism. Proceedings of a Conference in Honor of Alexander Rofé on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Ed. Z. Talshir and D. Amara. Beer-Sheva 18. BeerSheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2005. 13–32 (Heb. with Eng. abstract). ———. “Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag.” In Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. Ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust. BETL 133. Leiden: Brill, 1997. 181–212. ———. “The Literary Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the End of the Book of Joshua.” In A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Ed. T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. 89–106. Boling, R. G. “Response.” JSOT 1 (1976) 47–52. Budde, K. “Richter und Josua.” ZAW 7 (1887) 93– 166, 315–323. Cholmondeley, L. B. “Gen L 22–26, Dt XXXIV 4–7, Jos XXIV 29ss.” EvT 46 (1934–1935) 238. Conder, C. R. “Joshua’s Tomb.” PEFQS 10 (1878) 22–23. Frolov, S. “Joshua’s Double Demise (Josh. xxiv 28–31; Judg. ii 6–9): Making Sense of a Repetition.” VT 58 (2008) 315–23. Gilmour, G. “Foreign Burials in Late Bronze Age Palestine.” NEA 65 (2002) 112–19. Greenspoon, L. J. “The Book of Joshua—Part 1: Texts and Versions.” CurBS 3 (2005) 229–61. Guérin, V. “Le tombeau de Josué: Note sur le Khirbet-Tibneh dans le massif d’Éphraim.” RAr (October 1865) 100–108. Hertzberg, H. W. “Die Tradition in Palästina.” PJ 22 (1926) 84–104. Reprinted in Beiträge zur Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. 11–27. Jericke, D. “Josuas Tod und Josuas Grab: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie.” ZAW 108 (1996) 347–61. Kaiser, O. “Stammesgeschichtliche Hintergründe der Josephgeschichte: Erwägungen zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Israels.” VT 10 (1960) 10. Knauf, E. A. “Buchschlüsse in Josua.” In Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque. Ed. T. Römer and K. Schmid. BETL 203. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. 217– 24. Koopmans, W. T. Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative. JSOTSup 93. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Lucassen, B. “Josua, Richter und CD.” RevQ 18 (1998) 373–96. Meer, M. N. van der. Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses. VTSup 102. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Mowinckel, S. “‘Rahelstämme’ und ‘Leastämme.’” In Von Ugarit nach Qumran. Ed. J. Hempel and L. Rost. BZAW 77. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1958. 143–44. Nielsen, E. Shechem: A Traditio-Historical Investigation. Copenhagen: Gad, 1955. 134–37. Noort, E. “Josua 24:28–31, Richter 2:6–9 und das Josuagrab: Gedanken zu einem Straßenchild.” In Biblische Welten: Festschrift für Martin Metzger. Ed. W.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 333

9/18/14 9:20 AM

334

G. Faithful to the Finish (24:29–33)

Zwickel. OBO 123. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. 109–30. Noth, M. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1943. 6–10. O’Doherty, E. “The Literary Problem of Judges 1:1–3, 6.” CBQ 18 (1956) 1–7. Rake, M. “Juda wird aufsteigen”: Untersuchungen zum ersten Kapitel des Richterbuch. BZAW 367. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006. Rendtorff, R. Das Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. BZAW 147. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1977. 165–67. Richter, W. Die Bearbeitungen des ‘Retterbuches’ in der deuteronomischen Epoche. BBB 21. Bonn: Hanstein, 1964. 44–49. Rofé, A. “The Composition of the Introduction of the Book of Judges (Judges II,6–III,6).” Tarbiz 5 (1966) 201–13 (Heb.). ———. “The Editing of the Book of Joshua in the Light of 4QJosha.” In New Qumran Texts and Studies. Ed. G. Brook and F. Martínez. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. 73–80. ———. “The End of the Book of Joshua according to the Septuagint.” Shnaton 2 (1977) 217–27 (Heb.). ———. “The End of the Book of Joshua according to the Septuagint.” Hen 4 (1982) 17–35. Römer, T. “La construction du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Enneateuque: Investigations préliminaires sur la formation des grands ensembles littéraires de la Bible hébraïque.” In Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque. Ed. T. Römer and K. Schmid. BETL 203. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. 9–34. ———. “Das doppelte Ende des Josuabuches: Einige Anmerkungen zur aktuellen Diskussion um ‘deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk’ und ‘Hexateuch.’” ZAW 118 (2006) 523–48. Römer, T., and M. Z. Brettler. “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch.” JBL 119 (2000) 401–19. Rösel, H. “Lässt sich eine nomistische Redaktion im Buch Josua feststellen?” ZAW 119 (2007) 184–89. ———. “Die Überleitungen vom Josua—ins Richterbuch.” VT 30 (1980) 342–50. Rösel, M. “The Septuagint-Version of the Book of Joshua.” SJOT 16 (2002) 5–23. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. Josua und Salomo: Eine Studie zu Autorität und Legitimität des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament. VTSup 58. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Schenke, H. M. “Jacobsbrunnen—Josephsgrab— Sychar.” ZDPV 84 (1968) 159–84. Schmitt, H. C. Die nichtpriesterliche Josephsgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur neuesten Pentateuchkritik. BZAW 154. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980. 124–27. Seebass, H. Geschichtliche Zeit und theonome Tradition in der Joseph-Erzählung. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1978. 103–13. Smend, R. “Das Gesetz und die Völker.” In Probleme biblischer Theologie. Ed. H. W. Wolff. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. 506–9. Spronk, K. “From Joshua to Samuel: Some Remarks on the Origin of the Book of Judges.” In The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort. Ed. J. van Ruiten and J. C. de Vos. VTSup 124. Leiden: Brill, 2009. 137–49. Tengström, S. Die Hexateucherzählung. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. 40–47. Tov, E. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Vriezen, T. C. “Exodusstudien Exodus I.” VT 17 (1967) 33–44. Weimar, P. Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch. BZAW 146. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1977. 169. Winther-Nielsen, N. A Functional Discourse Grammar of Joshua: A Computer-Assisted Rhetorical Structure Analysis. ConBOT 40. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1995. Wright, G. R. H. “Joseph’s Grave under the Tree by the Omphalos at Shechem.” VT 22 (1972) 476–86.

Translation 29a After

these things, Joshua, the son of Nun, the servant of Yahweh, died at the age of one hundred ten years. 30They buried him in the territory of his inheritance, in TimnathSerah, a which b is in the hill country of Ephraim, north of the mountain of Gaash. c 31Israel a served Yahweh all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders whose days extended beyond Joshua’s and who knew b all the work c of Yahweh which he did for Israel. 32At the same time, the bones of Joseph, which the sons of Israel had brought up from Egypt, they buried in Shechem, in the section of the field which Jacob had bought from the sons of Hamor, a the father of Shechem, with a hundred Qesitah. b They belonged c to the sons of Joseph as part of the inherited estate.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 334

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Notes

335

33Meanwhile,

Eleazer, the son of Aaron, a died. They buried him in Gibeah of Phinehas, his son, which was given b to him in the hill country of Ephraim. c

Notes 29.a. Vv 28– 31 are repeated in Judg 2:6– 9 with significant variations in wording and order, several of which are witnessed by LXX in our passage. Between vv 28 and 29, LXX inserts v. 31 in agreement with Judg 2:7. The distinction in order is caused by the different functions of the two units. Joshua emphasizes the faithfulness of Joshua and its consequences. Judges focuses on the contrast between the obedience of Joshua’s generation and the disobedience of the following ones. The originality of the Joshua section can be seen in that while Judges sought to modify the transitional temporal clause of v 29, which no longer served as an introduction (Josh 2:8), LXX retained the introductory clause even though it no longer fit the literary scheme. LXX represents an attempt to harmonize the two sections. Others would disagree with this interpretation. Rofé, especially (Shnaton 2 [1977] 217–27; Hen 4 [1982] 17– 35), argues for an original LXX from which MT deliberately removed elements to avoid having sacred relics and unorthodox history. Greenspoon (CurBS 3 [2005] 240) contends that the longer text the Gk. translators worked with was already in their Heb. source text. He notes the interest in the circumcision knives in Josh 24:31 and 21:42 used to underline the importance of Joshua. Note Koopmans, Joshua 24, 368, n. 101. Frolov (VT 58 [2008] 315–23) works with the Heb. syntax. He notes two things: the domination of the section by waw- consec. verb forms and the lack of resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme). He decides from this evidence that the Judges parallel has no flashback nor major redaction. The shift to the past tense comes in Judg 1:27– 33 with its string of plain pf. verbs creating disjunctive clauses pointing to “events that preceded those recounted in Judg 1:1–26” (318). For Frolov, “Joshua’s cameo in Judg. ii 6– 9 consequently functions not as an isolated flashback or interpolated Wiederaufnahme but rather as an integral and pivotal element of much larger retrospective launched by Judg. I 27– 33” (319). This digression precedes events of Judg 1:1–26, building up to Joshua’s death. Judg 2:10 introduces elements occurring after Josh 24:28– 31. For Frolov this understanding of Heb. syntax in this passage yields theological fruit: “Taken as a whole, the corpus attempts both to establish, in line with the Pentateuch, Israel’s divine right to Canaan and to explain why the promised land was lost, thereby demonstrating both the rewards of compliance with the divine commandments of the Torah and the penalties for transgressing them” (VT 58 [2008] 319). Frolov thus believes he has shown that Judges never existed apart from Joshua, a conclusion I came to along a somewhat different path. 30.a. The name of Joshua’s home is variously transcribed. This passage agrees with Josh 19:50. LXX B in 19:50 reads θαμαρκαρης and the Old Latin, “Chamahares.” In our passage LXX B reads θαμναθασακαρα with many variant readings. MT of Judg 2:9 reads Timnah-heres, reversing the order of the consonants, agreeing with LXX of Josh 19:50, but giving rise to still further complexity among Gk. MSS. The original name may well have been Timnah-heres, “portion of the sun,” which was later transposed to avoid any associations with sun worship. 30.b. Neither LXX nor Judg 2:9 witnesses the relative. They are supported by strong Heb. MS and Tg. evidence. Nelson is on the right line when he calls MT an expansion. 30.c. LXX B reads “Gilead” here, but “Gaas” in Judg 2:9. After v 30, LXX reads, “There they laid with him in the tomb into which they buried him there the stone knives with which he had circumcised the sons of Israel in Gilgal, when he led them out of Egypt, just as the Lord had commanded them. There they are unto this day.” Fritz says the plusses in LXX in vv 31a, 33a, and 33b represent a literary formulation that is younger than MT. This is a continuation of the LXX addition in Josh 21:42, completing the etiological statement that would naturally surround a grave tradition. Such a tradition suits the function of the present section, illustrating the obedience of the people at the death of Joshua. The very “heresy” of attributing the leadership from Egypt to Joshua could also speak for the age of the tradition. Howard (443) attributes to the Gk. plus “the ring of authenticity” though it becomes impossible to know if it is part of the original text.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 335

9/18/14 9:20 AM

336

G. Faithful to the Finish (24:29–33)

Rofé has consistently argued for the originality of the entire LXX conclusion, an argument that certainly cannot hold for the opening portion. H. N. Rösel’s attempt (VT 30 [1980] 342– 50) to refute the originality of the additions in v 30 is not convincing. Judges may have taken up the LXX rather than the MT text tradition. If the LXX formulation here is “illogical,” this does not prove it is not original. The question certainly deserves more comment than it normally receives (note M. Rösel, 15, n. 35). Nelson (280– 81) argues for MT as “the earliest recoverable text.” He explains that the divergent sequences “fit perfectly into their own particular contexts. . . . In its recensional development away from mt, OG chose to follow the order it found in Judges as better synchronized with the larger canonical story and as more chronological, in that the death and burial of Joshua now became the last things reported about him” (282). Van der Meer (Formation and Reformulation, 39) ties this addition to the LXX addition in Josh 5:2, the Gk. ending the crude practice of stone knives circumcision with the burial of Joshua. 31.a. Judg 2:7 reads “the people” instead of “Israel.” This is a modification to the context of Judges. The reference to Israel is necessary in the Joshua context, where Israel has not been mentioned. Judges mentions Israel in its addition in v 6b (cf. Richter, Bearbeitungen, 47). 31.b. LXX and Judg 2:7 read “saw” instead of “knew.” The MT represents a more expansive content, including knowledge of the tradition, while the alternative limits it to being eyewitnesses. Such a change may have been made under the influence of Josh 23:3 (Rösel, VT 30 [1980] 344), where the eyewitness function is limited to the conquest. Judg 2:10 represents a taking up of the language of the original context, not a cause for the change from “see” to “know” (against Richter, Bearbeitungen, 47). Nelson follows MT, seeing LXX and Judges as harmonizing and easier. 31.c. The early versions read pl., “works,” again in line with the tendency noted in Note 31.b of emphasizing the deeds that could be seen with the eye rather than the comprehensive work of Yahweh. Judg 2:7 follows the same tendency in reading “great work of Yahweh.” 32.a. LXX reads “Amorites” instead of “Sons of Hamor,” adjusting to the more common designation of the inhabitants of the land rather than to the specific context picked up from Gen 33:19. LXX thus also adjusts “father of Shechem” to “inhabitants of Shechem.” 32.b. The Qesitah is a unit of exchange taken over from Gen 33:19 and appearing elsewhere only in Job 42:11. Its exact meaning and value is unknown. LXX translated “lambs.” 32.c. LXX reads “and he gave.” The reason for the pl. verb in Heb. is not apparent. The reference is certainly back to “the section of the field,” although Preliminary and Interim Report says the bones belonged to the sons of Joseph (cf. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle). BHS and Fritz read ‫ ותהי‬for MT ‫ ויהיו‬in reference to the section of the field. Nelson says “the idea that Joseph’s bones (that is the site of pilgrimages to venerate his tomb) could be considered as an inheritance for the Joseph tribes was offensive to later orthodoxy.” The omission of “sons of” by LXX may be original, the Masoretic tradition adding it to underline the theme of inheritance in light of the report of Joseph’s death and the context of the book. 33.a. LXX introduces an introductory formula parallel to that of v 29, disregarding the structure that sets both the story of Joseph (v 32) and that of Eleazer (v 33) in disjunctive clauses. LXX and other translations, along with two Heb. MSS add the traditional title “the priest.” 33.b. LXX changes “buried” to passive and “was given” to active voice, while reading the locality as “Gabaar.” The locality may be interpreted either as a proper name or as the “hill of Phinehas.” 33.c. LXX introduces an extensive conclusion: ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ λαβόντες οὶ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ θεοῦ περιεφέροσαν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, καὶ Φινεες ἱεράτευσεν ἀντὶ Ελεαζαρ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, ἕως ἀπέθανεν καὶ κατωρύγη ἐν Γαβααθ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ. οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἀπήλθοσαν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῶν καὶ εἱς τὴν ἑαυτῶν πόλιν. καὶ ἐσέβοντο οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ τὴν Ἀστάρτην καὶ Ασταρωθ καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν τῶν κύκλῳ αὐτῶν· καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς κύριος εἱς χεῖρας Εγλωμ τῷ βασιλεῖ Μωαβ, καὶ ἐκυρίευσεν αὐτῶν ἔτη δέκα ὀκτώ. In that day the sons of Israel, taking up the ark of God, carried it around among themselves. Phinehas officiated in the place of Eleazer, his father, until he died. He was buried in Gabaar, which belonged to him. But the sons of Israel went away each into his place and into his own city. The sons of Israel worshiped the Astarte and

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 336

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

337

the Astaroth and the gods of the nations around them, and the Lord gave them over into the hands of Eglon, the king of Moab. He ruled them eighteen years. This LXX closing ties directly into the beginning of Judges, omitting some of the literarily difficult passages of that book. Rofé has thus argued for its originality (cf. the opposite view of Rösel, VT 30 [1980] 349) but on the basis that it tied Joshua and Judges together as one book. Rofé assumes that Judg 1:1– 3:11 was introduced at a secondary stage of the book of Judges. The union of the two books is a matter of strong debate, especially in light of the strong Deuteronomistic language in key parts of Joshua where such strong Deuteronomistic marks do not appear in Judges (see T. C. Butler, Judges, WBC 8 [Nashville: Nelson, 2009]. The complex literary theory of Rofé is supported by Tov (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 330– 31), who finds this to be a significant plus in LXX that bears “all the marks of originality.” One evidence for this is the ability to retrovert the Gk. into Heb., something that should be able to be done with most if not all the Gk. since it supposedly started with a Heb. text. Retroversion simply proves at best that the text was added in the Heb. tradition prior to the Gk. translation, not that the retroverted Gk. plus is original. The add and subtract literary theory of Rofé looks more like something created in a modern newspaper or television newsroom than what could happen in ancient scribal circles. Nelson concludes simply, “In each case MT represents the earliest recoverable text” (281), which appears to be the correct interpretation. (See M. Rösel, SJOT 16 [2002] 18.) Nelson poses the interesting and quite possibly correct suggestion that both MT and OG here represent redactional work rather than textual variants. The new literary formulation shown at the beginning of v 33 and the repetition of the material in Judg 3:14 point against the originality. The content and theme are that of Judges, not that of Joshua. Thus it appears that the later tradition has tried to make the tie between the two books explicit not only in Judg 2:6–10 but already in Josh 24.

Form/Structure/Setting The final verses of chap. 24 provide the ending of the literary story of Joshua. They provide the final act in the biography of Joshua and in the nature of Israel’s obedient conquest of the Promised Land. They complete the story begun with the promises to Abraham in Gen 12. V 28 completes the Joshua conquest narrative, each Israelite having joined in the covenant ceremony of vv 1–27 goes to his inheritance. The temporal clause of v 29 introduces a new temporal setting and thus a new literary unit. V 31 provides a summary of the significance of Joshua’s life and closes out a small unit succeeded by disjunctive clauses opening both v 32 and v 33. These verses bring a closure to the salvation history narrative joining back to the Abraham promise of Gen 12 by way of the Joseph promise of Gen 50. Judg 1:1 marks the next section by taking up the heading of this unit, namely, the death of Joshua, as the point of temporal reference. This gives further indication that Josh 24:29–32 is seen in the context of a literary unit. This literary unit is a major indicator that “the book of Judges is presented as a sequel to the book of Joshua.”520

Tradition Josh 24:29– 33 presents a tightly written literary section. Behind such literary reports lies a long tradition of honoring the memory of the founding fathers at 520 Spronk, “From Joshua to Samuel,” 145.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 337

9/18/14 9:20 AM

338

G. Faithful to the Finish (24:29–33)

their gravesites. The literary unit intentionally brings ending to the Joshua narrative, the land inheritance narrative, and the entire salvation history narrative reaching back to Gen 12. Such literature does not tell a story or display the marks of narrative. It simply reports brief but essential incidents in the early history of Israel to bring narrative closure. It is possible that the joining of the traditions represents a stage in the cultic history of Shechem since all three gravesites are in the hill country of Ephraim. This would show the shaping of the Joshua narrative in the realm of the Joseph tribes, whereas the early conquest materials center on the tribe of Benjamin and the land- allotment descriptions feature the tribe of Judah. Chaps. 1 and 22 show strong interest in the tribes east of the Jordan. Such a usage of traditional materials quite likely represents a literary composition under King David seeking to unite all the tribes into a united monarchy.

Source and Redaction Römer sees Noth’s Deuteronomistic history giving way to a series- of- editorialadditions model (Fortschreibung).521 Knauf sees this text added to the Hexateuch recension with vv 29–30, v 33 attributed to P, and vv 31–32 coming from D.522 Kratz sees a complex editorial process.523 The basic text appears in Josh 23:1b– 3; 24:14a, 15–16, 18b, 22, 28, which is continued in Judg 2:7, 10, 11–19. The first redaction in Joshua and Judges (Josh 11:16aα, 23b; Judg 2:8; 3:7ff.) ties Exodus through Joshua to Samuel and Kings. Next comes explications of the first commandment in Josh 13:1–23:1a; 23:4–16; and Judg 2:1– 5, 6, 20–36. The book is then concluded with Josh 24:1–13; 25–27, 29–33 and Judg 1. Becker sees the end of a Deuteronomistic historian assumption.524 Instead, several different literary and redactional approaches in one way or another have a right to be defended and expounded. One must deal with tensions, difficult readings, and repetitions. Becker insists on setting out the various literary strata of the chapter to discover the varied literary horizons. He traces the oldest stratum in the scene of obligation in vv 14–28, to which was later introduced the divine speech in vv 2b–13. Many expansions follow, creating a complicated process of origination. The divine speech reaches back to Genesis while the obligation scene stretches forward to Kings. Precisely, the obligation scene enfolds vv 15, 16, 18a, 22, 28. In this base text, one encounters neither a covenant agreement nor a proclamation of the law, yet one cannot understand the agreement without reference to the Decalogue and the First Commandment. Becker sees the obligation scene adding to and standing in continuity with Sinai/Horeb. Josh 24 on all literary levels reformulates a received text creating a transition from Joshua to Judges and thus sets up a literary caesura between the Hexateuch and the following books. A separate Hexateuch as independent work never existed. Joshua becomes a literary hinge between the history of deliverance and the history of doom (Heilsgeschichte und Unheilsgeschichte). 521 522 523 524

ZAW 118 (2006) 527. Knauf, 199. Kratz, 198–200. “Endredaktionelle.”

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 338

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Form/Structure/Setting

339

Finally, for Becker, Josh 24 shows late Deuteronomic vocabulary that does not belong to a specific literary layer. This leads far beyond Martin Noth’s theories. The reference to the Book of the Torah of God is an allusion to the Pentateuch as a whole. This can be explained but not expanded (ausgelegt, nicht fortgeschrieben). The book of Joshua is thus seen as an explanation or interpretation of the Pentateuch. The choose motif of the obligation scene points forward to the choice of a king (1 Sam 8:18; 10:19b–20), Shechem being the place where kings are made. Rake provides a complex history of redaction here.525 She claims that Josh 24:28 first tied to Judg 2:7. The later insertion of Josh 2:1– 5 joined tightly to Judg 1:1a causing the appearance of the angel at Bochim to fit in the plot of the narrative as well as in its sequence of events. Levin saliently remarks, “I am doubtful as to whether the textual sequence Josh 24:28– Judg 1:aβ makes good sense.”526 We might note that every literary critic must ask this vital question as to the “good sense” of the narrative plot and time line. For Rake, the final redaction added Judg 1:1aα and Josh 24:29–30, bringing the separation of Joshua and Judges into separate books. Spronk refutes this strongly: The problem with this theory is that it appears to be easier to cut the text into pieces than to reconstruct the process in which they reached their present unity. . . . The suggestion that the report of Joshua’s death in Judg 2:7– 9 should be dated earlier than the version in Joshua 24 goes against the outcomes of many other redaction- critical studies. It would be convincing when the reconstructed redactional layers were clearly coherent, but they are not.527 Blum presupposes that the formation of the text is basically through additions and not through transformations.528 Josh 23 and Judg 1:1–2:5 differ so widely in their conceptions of the conquest that they cannot belong to the same redactional layer. Judg 2:1– 5 was not formed as a conclusion to chap. 1. Josh 24 does not belong to the major layer in Joshua and Judges. Neither does chap. 23, as shown by the differences in the conquest conception in Josh 1–12 and 23:43– 45. The major stratum of the Deuteronomistic History describes a complete conquest as seen in Josh 21:43– 45; Judg 2:8–10, 12–15; 3:3. For Blum secondary Deuteronomistic additions appear in Josh 13:1– 6; 23; Judg 2:6–10.529 Josh 24 does not display the expected characteristics of a Deuteronomistic connection. It is not bound in any way to the Deuteronomistic conquest narrative. A Deuteronomistic label stands in the way of noting the many contextual connections of Josh 24. One is falsely tempted to connect Josh 24 with references to Judges. Connections to Judg 2:1– 5 relate only to later additions to the Judges text (Fortschreibungen). The burden of proof rests on those who support a view of Josh 24 as something other than a late redactional text. Other scholars support this view: Auerbach, L’Hour, Hoffman, Mayes, Van Seters, Nicholson, Anbar. All speak of exilic or later dates. Blum speaks of a Pen-

525 526 527 528 529

“Juda wird aufsteigen,” 128. RBL 11 (2007). “From Joshua to Samuel,” 139. “Die Kompositionelle Knoten,” 249. Ibid., 252.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 339

9/18/14 9:20 AM

340

G. Faithful to the Finish (24:29–33)

tateuch narrative already edited in Priestly style. Perlitt tried to place it in seventhcentury Israel, but Blum says the repressive aura of that age leaves no clue in Josh 24. Neither does the chapter refer to loss of land. The centrality of the call to decision focuses on other gods and Israelite syncretism. This is addressed to people in Judea and to Samaria after the exile and based on the older Deuteronomistic presentation of the conquest. Scholar after scholar has a different understanding of the setting of Josh 24. We see here work on a most important chapter constantly done with an eye to finding contradictions and ever-new sources, especially Deuteronomistic-related sources. Each new textual layer brings the need to find a new historical situation and to extend the dating of the new layer down another century or so. Koopmans, however, shows reasons to doubt some of the vocabulary can be attributed to Deuteronomistic writers. His study of 24:2–24 reaffirms that “Josh. 24 played a conspicuous role in the shaping of the present form of Judges.”530 The cola of Judg 6:8b–10 all have counterparts in Josh 24:1–28. Judg 6:8b–10 is thus directly dependent on Josh 24:2–24. I would assert that the most important characteristic from Josh 24 is its basis as the final element of the Hexateuch with connections to the Jacob narrative of Gen 35, Jacob’s purchase of a field by Shechem, and the promise in Gen 50:25–26 to bury Joseph’s bones. To use von Rad’s famous phrase, Josh 24 is a Hexateuch in miniature. Joshua writes the Book of the Torah of God in parallel to Moses’ Torah. Joshua’s book represents a continuation of Moses’ Torah, adding the recapitulation of the conquest narrative. Josh 24 has obviously felt the pen of an editor. An editor has tied the chapter closely into the ongoing story of Israel’s deliverance. The editor has transformed an ancient ritual into a report of a ritual. The editor has most likely tied his Joshua sources into a format that brings completeness and literary connection to the earlier tradition of the Pentateuch and to the following tradition of the monarchy. The editor created an ending to what we call the Hexateuch, though it is probably questionable that six books appeared on the one scroll. The editor created a beginning for Israel’s grasping for leadership, a grasping that caught strong leaders only with Joshua and David. Writing in the period of David and Solomon, the author of Joshua gave strong support to the united monarchy and through the book of Judges, which a younger colleague wrote with full cognizance of Joshua, called the northern kingdom back to Judah.

Form Above, we saw that vv 1–28 comprise a report of a covenant ritual in an atemporal setting. The next verses reflect the literary death-report form found also in Gen 23:2, 19; 25:7– 8; 35:28–29; Deut 34:5 (cf. Gen 35:19; 48:7; 49:33– 50:13). Josh 24:29 is unusual in placing the description of the life span after the death notice rather than prior to it. V 31 gives an interpretation of the death report. V 32 then takes up the narrative of Gen 33:18–19 combined with that of Gen 50:22–26 (cf. Exod 13:19). Finally, v 33 represents yet another death report, but with reversed order of subject and predicate to set it clearly into the literary framework of the preceding. 530 Joshua 24, 276.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 340

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Comments

341

Structure Koopmans offers further evidence that Josh 24:28– 31 is the original text, modified and repeated by Judg 2:6–10.531 The temporal clause of 24:29 sets these verses off as a brief report. The content reveals that the reports are obituaries or burial reports. The central verse of Joshua’s death report contains two key words— “knew” and “served.” “Knew” is key in 24:31, where MT expects all Israel to know the salvation-history tradition. They need to know what Yahweh has done for Israel. They need to teach the next generation of Israelites. A generation that has not learned the tradition cannot teach it to the new generation. Once Israel raised an ignorant, unknowing generation who neither knew nor appreciated what God had done for them, Israel began a free fall that eventually led to exile. The covenant ritual behind 24:1–28 stepped ahead of “knew.” Knowing must lead to serving. You can relate directly to God, learn his daily desires for you, and serve him in a way that he finds pleasing. If one is not willing to serve at God’s demands, then that person has not truly entered the covenant, become a part of God’s servant people, and put service into practice as God expects. Israel knows and Israel serves because God has worked for Israel. Notice the work is for Israel. God pays special attention to his people, expecting his people to pay special attention to him. Vv 32 and 33 each represents a disjunctive clause, starting in Hebrew with something besides the narrative verb form. The verbs appear to represent temporal clauses indicating that Joseph’s bones and Eleazer’s death and burial occurred at approximately the same time. Each of these reports represents something special in the history and religion of Israel. Burying Joseph’s bones represents the fulfillment of Gen 50 and so joins Joshua to the first book of Torah. Eleazer shows that the religious leader stood next to the manager and got in the ball game as soon and often as possible. The priestly class gained recognition and honor in being included in the final death reports. The people of Israel recognized they needed the Torah of Moses, the covenant ritual of Joshua, and the daily offerings of the priest. Those three components stood as essentials in Israel’s relationship to God.

Setting The geographical setting is Shechem and its vicinity. The temporal setting remains unexpressed. The tradition came in the ceremonies of burying great leaders. The text is a literary report from the final editor of Joshua. It closes out the patriarchal promises. It closes out the work of Joshua and of Eleazer, the military and cultic leaders. It finishes the Hexateuch and prepares the way for Judges.

Comments 29 Joshua has completed his task. The people are safely in their inherited territories. They have been warned of the dangers that lie ahead and have joined in covenant to avoid these dangers. Joshua can exit the scene with honor. The honor is shown by giving Joshua a new title. In life he was the minister of Moses (cf. Josh 1:1). In death 531 Ibid., 368.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 341

9/18/14 9:20 AM

342

G. Faithful to the Finish (24:29–33)

he assumes the title reserved for Moses, that of servant of Yahweh (cf. Josh 1:1, 2, 7, 13, 15; 8:31, 33; 9:24; 11:12, 15; 12:6; 13:8; 14:7; 18:7; 22:2, 4, 5). Before he had assumed the title only as a formula of self-humiliation before the deity in prayer (Josh 5:14). The point being made is that the title “servant of Yahweh” belongs supremely to Moses. The title is thereafter transferred only at death to the faithful follower of Moses. No man can claim the title for himself and use it to rule others. Others must confer it in respectful memory. The title emphasized that taking the land and distributing the land were Yahweh’s work. Joshua had simply served Yahweh.532 Even in death, Joshua fell just short of Moses, having reached only one hundred ten years (cf. Deut 34:7). 30 For Joshua’s inheritance, see Josh 19:50. The location north of Mount Gaʿash occurs only here and in the parallel in Judg 2:9. The name serves to locate one of David’s thirty heroes (2 Sam 23:30 = 1 Chr 11:32) but is otherwise unknown. 31 Joshua’s epitaph was not written on a marble gravestone. It was written in the lives of the leaders he influenced and the people he led. They served Yahweh. Here is the theological climax to the theme introduced in Josh 22:5 and repeated like a chorus in 23:7, 16; 24:14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24. Ironically, the minister of Moses brought the people to obey Yahweh while Moses saw only the perpetual murmuring and rebellion of the people (cf. Deut 31:27). Even Moses had to die outside the land of promise. The obedience is traced to faithful knowledge of the tradition. As long as men remained alive who could keep the tradition in force, Israel obeyed. When the men who knew the tradition of Joshua died, then the people rebelled. Precisely at this point the book of Judges takes up our verses and transforms them from a conclusion to the faithful life of Joshua to an introduction to the failure of the generations after Joshua (see Judg 2:6–10). These verses thus mark the switch in the epochs of Israel’s history, from a generation of obedience and victory to one of disobedience and opposition.533 32 The obedience finds concrete expression in the case of Joseph’s remains. Israel remembers and carries out the oath given by the fathers to Joseph in Gen 50:25, when he died at precisely the age of Joshua. The burial ground is connected to the place where Jacob established an altar (Gen 33:19), presumably the same place where Abraham had also built an altar (Gen 12:7), the foundation for the sanctuary where Joshua mediated the covenant to Israel (Josh 24:1–28). But here the emphasis lay on the purchase of the land. Israel claimed Shechem not by conquest but by legal purchase. 33 Despite the role of Phinehas in chap. 22, the final death report is that of his father Eleazer, who played the central role in the division of the land (Josh 14:1; 17:4; 19:51). The land is named, however, for Phinehas. The location is unknown, though the association with Shiloh in chap. 22 might point in that direction.

Explanation The biography of Joshua is complete. The one advanced in years is ready for eternity. His task is complete. So is his story.

532 Schäfer- Lichtenberger, Josua und Salomo, 218. 533 See Rake, “Juda wird aufsteigen,” 127– 31.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 342

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Explanation

343

The patriarchs had wandered through the land, making claim to small portions through the building of altars and through purchase of burial plots. The final act of Joshua’s generation is to cement their claim to the land by burying their heroes in the land, a land that a father could now give to his son (v 33). Joshua left behind something more than simply a burial place. He left behind an epitaph carved in the lives of men. Unlike leaders before or after himself, he led men to serve Yahweh. Thus he became the prime example of Israelite leadership. His was the golden age when Israel won her battles, occupied her land, and made her covenant with Yahweh. This could be explained only in one way. Joshua had fulfilled the command of God to have conviction and courage (cf. chap. 1), to obey all the Torah of Moses (1:7– 8), and to expect the divine presence to guide him. For the faithful Joshua, God proved faithful. Joshua could bow out graciously in his own inheritance, knowing he had fulfilled his task. Behind him remained a few protectors of the tradition of the great acts of God, who could remind the people of Joshua’s example. But they, too, soon passed away, leaving behind a generation who forgot Joshua and Moses. The narrational frame thus maintains that true Mosiac service of God was accomplished in the time of Joshua. The topic is, however, unfolded in a way that hints at a temporal restriction (31a–b). Servanthood may have lasted in this early generation only. Both the introduction and the conclusion insist that a struggle for full loyalty to God was won, but that a menacing future failure may lay ahead in spite of God’s magnificent deeds.534 The forgetful generation initiated the beginning of the end, as shown quickly in the book of Judges, where our section is taken up again for an entirely new purpose. The same facts that have shown the faithfulness of Joshua can also function to introduce the unfaithfulness of a generation who forgot Joshua and his God (Judg 2:6–10). Such a generation finally forced Israel to look ahead to a new day, when a new Joshua appeared on the scene as the servant of God totally fulfilling the task of God and bringing the promise of a new kingdom of God unlimited by physical boundaries or human death.

534 Winther- Nielsen, Functional Discourse Grammar, 294.

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 343

9/18/14 9:20 AM

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 344

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Scripture Index Genesis 1:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171 6:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 6:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 9:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197 10:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141 10:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 11:24 – 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .337, 338 12:1 – 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317 12:5 – 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 12:6 . . . . . . .229, 297, 298, 329 13:8 – 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260 13:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 14:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 14:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 14:18 – 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 15:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 15:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 15:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121 15:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 15:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 16:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 16:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 17:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261, 321 18:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 21:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303 21:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 21:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261, 329 22:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 23:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96, 340 23:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .340 24:1 – 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 24:27, 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 24:60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92, 281 24:61 – 67. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136 25:7 – 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .340 25:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 26:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 26:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57, 96 28:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 28:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 28:18 – 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 28:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141 29:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316 29:31 – 30:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .248 31:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 31:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .324 31:43 – 54. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .248 31:44 – 52. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 31:44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303

31:51 – 52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .330 32:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96, 256 32:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 32:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214, 233 33:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 33:18 – 35:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 33:18 – 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .297 33:18 – 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .340 33:19 – 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 33:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .336, 342 33:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .298, 317 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .300 34:1 – 35:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .297 34:24 – 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177 34:25 – 31 . . . . . . . . . . . .68, 159 34:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 35 . . . . . . . . . . . .321, 327, 340 35:2 – 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 35:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .326 35:4 . . . . . . .298, 300, 324, 329 35:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141 35:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 35:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 35:16 – 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175 35:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .340 35:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 35:23 – 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 35:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 35:28 – 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .340 36:11, 15, 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 37:12 – 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .297 37:12 – 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 41:37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 43:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 46:8 – 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 46:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226 47 – 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .276 47:7, 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 48:49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93, 143 48:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141, 261 48:5 – 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 48:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .340 48:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 48:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57, 268 49:1 – 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . .93, 175 49:5 – 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 49:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 49:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177 49:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 49:33 – 50:13 . . . . . . . . . . . .340 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .337, 341

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 345

50:22 – 26 . . . . . . . . . . .274, 340 50:24 – 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273 50:25 – 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .340 50:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342

Exodus 1:2 – 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 3:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 3:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316 4:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 6:2 – 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 6:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226 6:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 6:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259 8:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319 8:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317 9:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317 10:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 10:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 12:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 12:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259, 319 12:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319 13 – 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303 13:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273, 340 14:9, 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319 14:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 14:20, 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319 14:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 15:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 15:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .328 17:5 – 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .327 19:4 – 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .279 19:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 20:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 20:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282, 325 20:22 – 23:33 . . . . . . . . . . . .193 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197, 199 21:12 – 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193 21:12 – 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193 21:13 – 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199 21:28 – 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197 22:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .325 23:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282, 318 23:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .325 23:23 – 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .279 23:24 – 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 23:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282, 329 23:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267, 295 23:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121 23:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282

9/18/14 9:20 AM

346 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .327 24:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 24:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 25:9 – 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 26:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258 26 – 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260 28:25, 26, 27, 37 . . . . . . . . .258 29:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 29:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174 29:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 30:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259 32:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 32:25 – 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 32:26 – 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 33:1 – 3. . . . . . . . . . . . .279, 281 33:7 – 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172 33:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .238, 280 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .279, 327 34:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 34:14 – 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .325 34:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 34:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65, 281 34:27 – 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 36 – 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260 39:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258 39:43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 40:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174

Leviticus 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 1:3, 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 2:3, 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234 3:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 5:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234 6:9, 11, 19, 22 . . . . . . . . . . .234 7:6 – 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234 7:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234 7:31 – 36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234 8:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234 8:35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 10:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 10:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 11 – 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260 14 – 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259 18:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 19:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .325 20:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 22:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 23:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228 25:23 – 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 25:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260 25:29 – 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 25:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 25:32 – 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 25:41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 25:48 – 49. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202

Scripture Index 25:49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 26:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282, 329 26:38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228

Numbers 1 – 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260 1:5 – 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 1:20 – 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 1:50 – 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 2:3 – 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 3:1 – 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 3:6 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 3:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 3:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 3:43 – 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 6 – 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 7:12 – 83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 8:11, 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 8:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215, 259 9:19, 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 10:14 – 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 11:14 – 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 11:16 – 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172 11:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316 11:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316 13 – 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122, 174 13:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 13:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 13:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 13:22 . . . . . . . . . . .95, 106, 136 13:26 – 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146 13:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 13:28 . . . . . . . . . . . .95, 86, 136 13:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 13:30 – 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 13:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 13:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95, 136 14:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 14:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294 14:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . .86, 94, 95 14:30, 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 14:39 – 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 15:27 – 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 16:1 – 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 16:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 17:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244 17:11 – 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93, 282 18:1 – 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 18:1 – 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174 18:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 18:20 – 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260, 321 20:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 346

20:14 – 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319 20:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 20:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94, 104 20:22 – 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 20:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 21 – 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 21 – 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303 21 – 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .297 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233 21:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 21:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 21:19 – 20 . . . . . . . . . . . .56, 213 21:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 21:21 – 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 21:21 – 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 21:23 – 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319 21:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213, 232 21:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 281 21:25 – 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 21:26 – 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 21:26 – 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 21:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 21:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67, 213 21:32 . . . . . . .56, 214, 233, 319 21:33 – 35 . . . . . . . . . . . .48, 319 21:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 213 21:35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 22 – 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . .295, 320 22:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295 22:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295 22:41 . . . . . . . . . . . .56, 69, 213 23:7, 8, 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295 23:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 23:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295 23:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 24:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259 25:2 – 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .320 25:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 25:3, 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 25:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174 25:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 26:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84 26:5 – 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 26:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214 26:29 – 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 26:30 – 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125 26:52 – 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . .66, 84 26:55 – 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 26:62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 26:65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89, 94 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129 27:1 – 11 . . . . . . . . . . . .128, 143 27:1 – 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122 27:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143, 226 28 – 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 31:1 – 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319 31:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Scripture Index 31:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48, 56 31:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 32 . . . . . . . 39, 51, 56, 66, 228, 248, 257 32:1 . . . . . .53, 56, 70, 214, 233 32:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84 32:3 . . . .56, 142, 213, 214, 233 32:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 32:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 32:12 . . . . . . . . . .86, 89, 94, 95 32:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65, 281 32:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171 32:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194 32:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84, 92 32:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171 32:33 – 41. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 32:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51, 256 32:34 – 38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 32:34 . . . . .54, 56, 67, 142, 213 32:35 . . . . . . . . . . .56, 214, 233 32:36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56, 214 32:37 . . . . . . . . . . .56, 213, 233 32:38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56, 213 32:39 – 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 32:39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 32:40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 32:41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56, 214 33:36 – 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 33:45 – 46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 33:49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 33:52 – 53. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 33:53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 33:54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41, 92 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36, 51, 125 34:1 – 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121 34:3 – 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134 34:3 – 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121 34:3 – 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106 34:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 34:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 34:6 – 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106 34:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 34:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228 34:13 – 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200 34:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84, 92 34:14 – 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 34:16 – 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84 34:16 – 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 34:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 35 . . . . . . . 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 199, 200, 215, 223, 228, 233 35:1 – 8. . . . . . . . .215, 216, 226 35:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226 35:6 – 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200 35:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194, 228 35:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227 35:9 – 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191 35:9 – 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200

35:9 – 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194 35:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194 35:11, 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192 35:13, 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194 35:16 – 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194 35:20, 22 – 23 . . . . . . . . . . . .194 35:24 – 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194 35:25 . . . . . . . . . .191, 192, 198 35:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192 36:1 – 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 36:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143, 226 36:6 – 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 36:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143

Deuteronomy 1 – 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 1:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 1:4 . . . . . . . . . .51, 54, 213, 233 1:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63, 65, 121 1:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236, 281 1:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 1:21 – 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 1:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 1:22 – 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 1:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 1:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 1:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 1:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 1:36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89, 95 1:39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 1:46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 2:2 – 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319 2:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 2:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 2:10 – 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 2:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48, 55 2:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 2:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 2:20 – 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 2:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48, 55 2:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 2:24 – 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233 2:24 – 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 2:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 213 2:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 55, 213 2:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 213 2:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 2:37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 3:1 – 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 3:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 213 3:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 213, 233 3:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 85, 233 3:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 213, 233 3:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 213 3:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48, 55 3:12 – 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 3:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 213 3:13 . . . . . . . . . .48, 55, 85, 214

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 347

347 3:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 3:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 55 3:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 3:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237 3:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319 3:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 3:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 3:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 3:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 213 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193 4:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214, 319 4:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319 4:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262, 282 4:21 – 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 4:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283 4:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 4:37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 4:38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 4:41 – 43 . . . .191, 192, 193, 194 4:42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192 4:43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 4:46 – 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 4:46 . . . . . . . . .54, 55, 213, 233 4:48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 213 4:49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 5:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 5:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 5:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 6:4 – 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 6:10 – 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 6:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236, 295 6:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236, 282 6:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 6:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284 6:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 6:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 6:21 – 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .299 6:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317 6:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .296 6:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 7:1 – 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139 7:4 . . . . . . . . . . . .282, 284, 318 7:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 7:6, 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 7:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 7:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 7:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .296, 319 7:20 . . . . . . . . . . .267, 283, 295 7:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267 8:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 8:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 8:19 . . . . . . .270, 282, 283, 318 8:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283 9:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 9:3 – 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 9:3 – 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 9:4 – 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 9:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 9:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

9/18/14 9:20 AM

348 10:6 – 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 10:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 10:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 10:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48, 93 10:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 10:12 – 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 10:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244, 282 10:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 10:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 10:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319 11:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255, 256 11:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319 11:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 11:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 11:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282, 318 11:17 . . . . . . . . . .267, 283, 284 11:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 11:22 – 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 11:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 11:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65, 281 11:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121 11:26 – 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .297 11:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 11:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64, 329 12 . . . . . . . . . . . .171, 259, 261 12:2, 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .282, 329 12:9 – 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237 12:12 . . . . . . . . . . . .68, 93, 216 12:18, 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 12:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .266 13:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 13:4 – 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 13:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244 13:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 13:7, 14 . . . . . . . . . . . .282, 318 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260 14:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 14:27 – 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 14:27 . . . . . . . . . . . .68, 93, 269 14:29 . . . . . . . . . . . .68, 93, 224 15:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 16:11, 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224 16:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 17:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282, 318 17:8 – 9, 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 18:1 – 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 18:1 . . . . . . . . . .48, 68, 93, 216 18:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 18:6 – 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 18:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65, 281 18:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 18:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 18:15 – 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317 18:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 19 . . . . . . . 193, 194, 197, 198, 199, 200, 223 19:1 – 13. . . .191, 192, 193, 200 19:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .266 19:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192, 194

Scripture Index 19:5 – 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195 19:5, 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192 19:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 19:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199 19:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192 19:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192, 203 20:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 20:16 – 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139 21:1 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 21:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 21:15 – 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 21:18 – 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 22:13 – 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 23:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295 24:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 25:5 – 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 25:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237 26:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 26:5 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .299 26:5 – 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .293 26:5 . . . . . . . . . . .283, 302, 317 26:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294 26:11 – 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224 26:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 26:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 27 – 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .279 27 – 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . .97, 316, 330 27:1 – 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .297 27:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 27:12 – 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97 28:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 28:9, 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 28:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283, 318 28:15 – 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284 28:20, 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283 28:36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282, 318 28:47 – 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 28:47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 28:58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 28:60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 28:64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282, 318 29:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319 29:6 . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 213, 233 29:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 29:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 29:19 – 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 29:24 – 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284 29:25 – 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284 29:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282, 318 29:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 29:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259 30:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 30:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258 30:15 – 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 30:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282, 318 30:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283 30:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 348

30:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236, 282 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80, 274 31:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 31:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 31:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 31:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 31:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 31:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303 31:20 . . . . . . . . . .236, 282, 318 31:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236, 303 31:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 31:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 31:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282, 303 31:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342 31:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 32 – 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . .268, 276 32:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 32:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 32:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 32:44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 33 . . . . . . . . . .42, 57, 177, 274 33:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 33:8 – 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 33:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 34 80 34:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 34:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 34:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .340 34:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 213 34:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342 34:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317

Joshua 1 – 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .235 1 – 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 1 – 12 . . . 31, 41, 51, 59, 62, 93, 94, 162, 173, 263, 281, 307, 339 1 – 11 . . . . . . .93, 129, 295, 316 1 – 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129 1 . . . . . 51, 60, 249, 254, 262, 272, 277, 302, 338, 343 1:1 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .279 1:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .50, 341, 342 1:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 1:2 – 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 1:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342 1:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65, 121 1:5 . . . . . . . . .95, 237, 281, 282 1:6 . . . . . . . . .91, 130, 236, 237 1:7 – 8 . . . . . . . . . 281, 283, 310, 328, 343 1:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . .92, 256, 342 1:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95, 281 1:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .280 1:11 . . . . . . . . . . .130, 175, 237 1:12 – 18 . . . . . . . . . . . .238, 246 1:12 – 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . .86, 256 1:13 – 15 . . . . . . . .130, 237, 255

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Scripture Index 1:13 . . . . . . . .92, 237, 256, 342 1:15 . . . . . . .237, 256, 281, 342 1:16 – 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 1:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 1:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . .81, 95, 281 1:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81, 92 2 – 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60, 298 2 – 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 2 – 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .310 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97, 174 2:1 – 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .339 2:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152 2:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233 2:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .335 2:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 2:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51, 319 2:12, 14, 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 3 – 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302 3 – 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121, 215 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .305 3:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175, 281 3:10 . . . . . . . .65, 281, 319, 320 4 – 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .305, 329 4:8, 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 4:19 – 5:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 4:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 5 – 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174 5:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 5:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212, 336 5:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 5:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94, 301 5:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64, 91 5:13 – 15. . . . . . . . . . . .259, 301 5:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342 6 – 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122, 224 6 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273 6 – 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .301 6 . . . . . . . . . . . .302, 305, 320 6:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 6:2, 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 6:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .280 6:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260, 284 7:1 . . . . . . . .246, 255, 284, 301 7:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260 7:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . .63, 203, 280 7:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 7:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 7:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 7:15 – 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129 7:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 7:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 7:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .310, 328 8:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 8:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 8:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203, 280 8:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175

8:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 8:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 8:30 – 35 . . . 203, 229, 273, 297, 301, 316, 330 8:31 – 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .328 8:31 . . . . . . . . . . . .92, 282, 342 8:33 . . . . . . . 92, 203, 204, 280, 281, 342 8:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 8:35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 9 – 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97, 139 9:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258 9:6 – 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 9:10 . . . . . . . . .51, 54, 213, 233 9:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259 9:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259 9:24 . . . . . . . . . . . .92, 130, 342 9:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123, 231 10:3 . . . .95, 136, 203, 228, 295 10:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 10:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130, 237 10:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130, 230 10:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 10:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 10:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 10:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175 10:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 10:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228 10:30, 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 10:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 10:37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 10:38 – 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136 10:40 – 43 . . . . . . . . . . . .59, 238 10:40 – 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .235 10:40 . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 92, 267 10:41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77, 94 10:42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87, 95 11:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155, 295 11:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109 11:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 11:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 11:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 11:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65, 130 11:12 . . . . . . . . . . .92, 267, 342 11:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 11:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342 11:16 – 23 . . . .59, 235, 238, 338 11:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65, 267 11:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62, 255 11:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 11:21 – 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 11:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77, 86 11:23 . . . . . . 62, 81, 85, 91, 93, 96, 130, 171, 236, 237, 338 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . .85, 219, 238

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 349

349 12:2 . . . . . . . 51, 54, 55, 75, 69, 71, 213 12:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 12:4 . . . . . . .48, 54, 55, 67, 213 12:5 . . . .54, 55, 63, 67, 68, 213 12:6 – 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 12:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342 12:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62, 65, 81 12:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 12:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 12:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 12:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155 12:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 12:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203, 230 12:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 13 – 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 13 – 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 13 – 21 . . . . . . 42, 74, 215, 220, 236, 255, 280, 330 13 – 19 . . . . . 51, 121, 160, 162, 168, 174, 204, 218, 219, 222, 316 13 – 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160 13 – 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 13 . . . . . . 60, 85, 88, 160, 188, 225, 243, 279, 302 13:1 – 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42, 63 13:1 – 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338 13:1 – 21:42 . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 13:1 – 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . .238, 281 13:1 – 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . .238, 339 13:1 . . .273, 275, 279, 280, 281 13:2 – 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137 13:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244 13:3 – 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 13:6 – 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . .146, 152 13:6 . . . . . . . . .91, 92, 124, 281 13:7 . . . . . . . . . .91, 92, 96, 255 13:8 . . . . . . . .91, 130, 142, 342 13:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 13:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213, 233 13:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143, 213 13:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211, 213 13:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .238 13:14 – 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 13:14 . . . . . 84, 89, 91, 93, 174, 216, 226, 233, 234, 255 13:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 13:17 – 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 13:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213, 233 13:18 . . . . . . . . . .213, 228, 232 13:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 13:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213, 214 13:21 . . . . . . . . . .213, 233, 259 13:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .320 13:23 . . . . . . . . . . .91, 153, 339 13:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 13:25 . . . . . . . . . .143, 214, 233 13:26 . . . . . . . . . .213, 214, 233

9/18/14 9:20 AM

350 13:27 . . . . . . . 47, 52, 153, 213, 214, 233 13:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 13:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 13:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214 13:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143, 213 13:32 . . . . . . . . . . . .84, 91, 192 13:33 . . . . 89, 91, 93, 130, 174, 216, 226, 233, 255 14 – 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 14 – 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51, 57 14:1 – 20:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226 14 – 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . .164, 216 14:1 – 18:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 14 – 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . .159, 173 14 – 17:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 14 – 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . .160, 163 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160 14:1 – 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 14:1 . . . . 64, 88, 142, 164, 188, 209, 226, 258, 281, 342 14:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 14:3 – 4. . . . .130, 174, 216, 226 14:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233 14:4 . . . . . . . . . . .215, 216, 226 14:6 – 15. . . . . . . . 88, 216, 220, 227, 301 14:6 . . . . . .34, 88, 89, 188, 301 14:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342 14:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .280 14:12 – 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 14:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 14:13 – 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 14:13 . . . . . . . . . .127, 136, 210 14:15 . . . . . . . . . .106, 127, 171 15 – 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 15 – 17 . . . . . . . . .159, 174, 175 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151 15:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93, 216 15:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 15:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176 15:6 – 19:51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 15:6 – 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163 15:6, 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153 15:10 – 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164 15:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228 15:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 15:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 15:13 – 19. . . . . . . . . .86, 87, 89 15:13 – 14. . . . . . .216, 220, 227 15:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130, 210 15:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 15:16 – 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 15:18 – 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 15:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 15:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 15:21 – 32. . . . . . . . . . .159, 178 15:26 – 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163 15:26, 29, 31 . . . . . . . . . . . .154

Scripture Index 15:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154, 228 15:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231 15:45 – 46 . . . . . . . . . . . .79, 164 15:47 . . . . . . . . .46, 47, 78, 153 15:48, 50, 51, 55 . . . . . . . . .228 15:57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164 15:60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153 15:61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153, 176 15:63 . . . . . . . .65, 89, 123, 238 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 160 16:1 – 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163 16:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 16:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153 16:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229, 230 16:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 16:5 – 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161 16:5 . . . . . . . . . . . .91, 153, 230 16:8, 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 16:10 . . . . .63, 65, 89, 229, 238 17 – 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .243 17:1 – 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 17:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216, 257 17:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 17:3 – 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 17:3 – 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 17:4 . . . . 88, 91, 130, 188, 226, 259, 342 17:5 – 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 17:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155 17:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 17:7 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161 17:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 17:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 17:12 – 13 . . . . . . . . . . . .89, 238 17:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63, 65 17:13 – 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 17:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63, 65 17:14 – 18 . . . .88, 160, 178, 263 17:14 – 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 17:14 . . . . .88, 89, 91, 155, 216 17:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 17:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 17:17 . . . . . . . . . . .88, 152, 216 17:18 . . . . . .63, 65, 88, 89, 188 18 – 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162 18 – 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65, 111 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59, 88, 302 18:1 – 22:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . .247 18:1 – 19:51 . . . . . . . . . . . . .147 18:1 . . . . . . 111, 203, 244, 258, 293, 296, 301 18:2 – 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 18:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91, 255 18:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130, 281 18:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91, 255 18:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 18:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 18:7 . . . 91, 130, 215, 216, 226, 233, 255, 342

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 350

18:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216, 293 18:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216, 293 18:11 – 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141 18:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 18:12 – 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122 18:13 . . . . . . . . . .141, 142, 230 18:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106 18:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123, 135 18:17 . . . . . . . . . .106, 111, 244 18:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137 18:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 18:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137 18:24, 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228 18:28 . . . . . . . . . . .91, 123, 138 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302 19:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91, 216 19:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 19:4, 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 19:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107, 228 19:8, 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 19:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91, 216 19:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 19:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231 19:13, 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232 19:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 19:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 19:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 19:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231 19:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 19:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 19:25, 26, 28 . . . . . . . . . . . .231 19:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64, 231 19:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 19:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 19:35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232 19:37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231, 293 19:39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 19:40 – 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 19:40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 19:41 . . . . . . . . . . .91, 211, 228 19:42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 19:43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 19:44, 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 19:47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 19:48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 19:49 – 51 . . . . . . . . . . . .89, 212 19:49 – 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 19:49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 19:50 . . . . . . . . . .295, 335, 342 19:51 . . . . . . 91, 192, 209, 216, 226, 258, 281, 301, 342 20 – 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .298 20 – 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200 20:1 – 21:42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 20 . . . . . . . . . . . .193, 217, 223 20:1 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190 20:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 20:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130, 280 20:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .316

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Scripture Index 20:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 130 20:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 20:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .320, 310 21 . . . . 39, 56, 68, 89, 93, 174, 194, 198, 199, 243 21:1 – 42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205 21:1 – 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 21:1 . . . .88, 193, 201, 258, 281 21:2 – 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 21:2 . . . . . . . . .88, 91, 293, 301 21:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 21:8 – 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 21:11 – 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 21:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 21:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 21:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130, 316 21:23 – 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164 21:28 – 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163 21:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155, 156 21:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156 21:30 – 31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163 21:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156 21:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164 21:36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 21:37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 213 21:38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 21:39 . . . . . . . . . . .70, 213, 214 21:40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 21:41 – 43. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 21:42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295, 335 21:43 – 45. . . 89, 171, 234, 246, 272, 277, 281 21:44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .280 21:45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283, 284 22 – 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . .235, 237 22 . . . . 68, 121, 175, 235, 281, 310, 338, 342 22:1 – 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239 22:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .235 22:4 . . . . . . .130, 228, 237, 342 22:5 . . . . . . .282, 283, 328, 342 22:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 22:9 – 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . .63, 91 22:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228, 293 22:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .293 22:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 22:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 22:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228 22:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 22:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .301 22:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 22:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 22:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .301 22:30, 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294 22:32 . . . . . . . . . . . .63, 91, 294 22:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .301 23 – 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . .146, 268 23 . . . . 57, 235, 297, 301, 302, 307, 309, 311, 312, 331, 339

23:1 – 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264 23:1 – 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338 23:1 . . . . .50, 59, 237, 246, 256 23:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203, 316 23:3 – 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .311 23:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .336 23:4 – 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338 23:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47, 91 23:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 23:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .328 23:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .311, 342 23:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .311 23:13 . . . . . . . . . .130, 311, 312 23:16 . . . . . . . . . .311, 318, 342 24 . . . . 41, 235, 256, 268, 271, 272, 273, 277 24:1 – 28 . . . . . . . 203, 285, 340, 341, 342 24:1 – 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .268 24:1 – 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338 24:1 . . . . . . . . . . .143, 203, 268 24:3 – 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 24:8 – 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303 24:8, 11, 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 24:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338, 342 24:15 – 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338 24:15, 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342 24:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338, 342 24:19, 20, 21 . . . . . . . . . . . .342 24:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338, 342 24:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342 24:25 – 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .268 24:25 – 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338 24:28 – 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273 24:28 . . . . . . . . . . .91, 338, 339 24:29 – 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .337 24:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .297 24:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 24:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203, 212 24:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 24:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130, 259

Judges 1

. . . . . 51, 60, 123, 124, 136, 146, 238, 338 1:1 – 3:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .337 1:1 – 3:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 1:1 – 2:5 . . . . . . . .123, 273, 339 1:1 – 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .335 1:1 – 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123 1:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .337, 339 1:10 – 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135 1:11 – 15 . . . . . . . . .89, 106, 127 1:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136 1:12 – 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136 1:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77, 79 1:19 – 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 1:19 – 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 1:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 351

351 1:21 . . . . . . . . . . .123, 138, 238 1:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124 1:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141 1:27 – 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .238 1:27 – 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .335 1:27 . . . . . . .109, 123, 124, 230 1:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124, 142 1:30 – 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179 1:30 . . . . . . .155, 163, 212, 232 1:31 . . . . . . . . . . . .64, 164, 231 1:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164, 227 1:34 – 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157 1:35 . . . . . . .157, 159, 164, 230 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .81, 146, 278 2:1 – 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338, 339 2:6 – 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . .277, 278 2:6 – 10 . . . . . . . . 146, 337, 339, 341, 342, 343 2:6 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273, 335 2:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338 2:7 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .339 2:7 . . . . . . . .335, 336, 338, 339 2:8 – 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .339 2:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338 2:9 . . . . . . . . . . . .188, 335, 338 2:12 – 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .339 2:12, 17, 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 2:20 – 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 2:21 – 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 3:1 – 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .278 3:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .339 3:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338 3:9 – 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94, 136 3:10 – 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 3:12 – 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 3:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .337 3:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 4 – 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231 4:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 4:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 4:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 5 . . . . . . . . . .42, 93, 177, 263 5:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 5:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155 5:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 5:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 6:8 – 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .340 6:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 6:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 8 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 8:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .247 8:31 – 9:57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .297 8:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229, 298 9 . . . . . . . . . . . .299, 300, 329 9:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 9:16, 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 9:37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329

9/18/14 9:20 AM

352 9:46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261, 298 10 – 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .332 10:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214 10:6 – 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 10:13 – 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 10:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 10:15 – 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 11:4 – 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 11:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 11:15 – 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 11:19 – 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 11:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 233 11:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232, 213 11:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 11:26 . . . . . . . . . . .54, 213, 233 11:33 . . . . . . . . . . . .53, 55, 214 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 12:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .247 13 – 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187 13 – 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187 14:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 15:9 – 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227 16:1 – 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 16:21 – 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 16:23 – 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 17 – 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175 17 – 18 . . . . .172, 187, 188, 224 17:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 17:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227 18 – 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42, 258 19 – 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .247 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216, 224 19:11, 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259 20:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258 20:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259 21:12, 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .247 21:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188

Ruth 3 – 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 4:1 – 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 4:9 – 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .326 4:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .296

1 Samuel 1 – 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 1 – 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 1:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 2:12 – 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234 2:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172 2:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 4 – 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 4:4, 11, 17, 19 . . . . . . . . . . .254 5:1 – 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 5:8 – 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

Scripture Index 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228 6:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 6:14 – 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 6:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 6:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .324 7:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 8:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 8:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .339 9:6 – 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 10:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 10:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 10:19 – 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .339 10:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317 11:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 11:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 82 11:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277 12:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .296, 326 12:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294 12:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 13 – 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75, 229 13:8 – 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 14:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 14:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 14:47 . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 61, 82 15:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46, 63 15:12 – 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 15:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 16:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 17 – 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 18:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 22:3 – 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 22:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 23:1 – 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 23:27 – 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 24:6 – 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 26:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 27:1 – 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 27:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59, 63 27:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 29:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 30:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 30:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154, 228 30:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107, 228 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 31:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329

2 Samuel 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227, 233 2:1 – 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 2:8 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129 2:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 155, 214 2:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39, 183 2:12, 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 3:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59, 63, 68

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 352

3:36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 4:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . .60, 123, 227 5:6 – 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138 5:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 5:17 – 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 5:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142, 229 6:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277 7:1, 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237 7:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60, 63 8:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62, 137 8:3 – 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 8:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 8:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 9:4 – 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 9:4, 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214 10 – 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60, 63 10:1 – 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 10:6 – 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 10:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 10 – 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 11:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 12:26 – 29 . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 13:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 13:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 13:37 – 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . .59, 63 14:1 – 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 14:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 15:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 15:21 – 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141 15:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 16:15 – 17:23 . . . . . . . . . . . .141 17:24 – 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233 17:24, 27 . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 18:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 18:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 19:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214 19:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 233 19:40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96, 256 21:15 – 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 21:20 – 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 22:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 22:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 23:1 – 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274 23:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .327 23:8 – 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 23:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176 23:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342 24:5 . . . . . . . .54, 213, 214, 233 24:6 – 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

1 Kings 1:2 – 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 1:50 – 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Scripture Index 2:1 – 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274 2:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 2:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214, 233 2:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 2:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .247 2:28 – 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199 2:28 – 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193 2:39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228 3:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 3:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 3:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56, 167 4:7 – 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121 4:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228 4:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 4:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109 4:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 4:13 . . . . .55, 85, 204, 214, 232 4:14 . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214, 233 4:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 4:39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157 5:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 5:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 5:15 – 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 5:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 7:46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277 8:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 8:17 – 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 8:56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237 8:65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51, 62, 65 9:6, 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 9:11 – 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 9:15 – 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 9:15 – 17. . . . . . . . . . . .142, 229 9:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 9:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62, 65 9:20 – 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139 9:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 10:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97, 283 11:1 – 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 11:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 11:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 11:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 11:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 12:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 12:25 – 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .299 12:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 12:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 14:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 14:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 15:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 15:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 16:15 – 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 17:17 – 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 18:40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230

20:26 – 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204

353

1:4 – 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 1:9 – 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 3:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 5:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 6:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295 8 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204 9:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 10:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 213 10:26 – 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 11 – 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175 11:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 13:14 – 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 13:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 14:11, 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228 15:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 15:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 15:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231 16:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .278 17:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 17:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 17:35, 37, 38 . . . . . . . . . . . .318 18:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 18:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125 19:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 21:1 – 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .278 22:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 23:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225, 229 23:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 23:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 23:24 – 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .332 23:26 – 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .278 24:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 24:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318

6:40 – 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198 6:43, 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 6:45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211, 217 6:46 – 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 6:46 – 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217 6:46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .210, 217 6:47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .210 6:48, 49, 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . .217 6:51 – 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217 6:51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 6:54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .210 6:56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 6:57 – 62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217 6:57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155, 210 6:58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156 6:61, 63, 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 6:65 . . . . . . . . . . .210, 211, 214 6:66 . . . . . . . . . . .211, 213, 214 6:67, 68, 70, 71 . . . . . . . . . .211 6:72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156, 230 6:73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211, 231 6:75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 6:76 . . . . . . . . . . .211, 212, 232 6:77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212 6:78 – 79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212 6:79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 7:20 – 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188 7:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109 7:30 – 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 8:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155 9:39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155 11:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342 12:25 – 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 13:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46, 63 20:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 23:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 23:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 24:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .211 26:29 – 32 . . . . . . . . . . . .22, 225 26:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214, 233 27:16 – 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

1 Chronicles

2 Chronicles

2:1 – 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 2:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214 2:55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232 3:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151 4:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 4:28 – 33 . . . . . . . .159, 163, 178 4:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154 4:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107, 154 4:31, 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154 5:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 5:27 – 6:66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220 6 . . . . . . . . .56, 210, 212, 217 6:39 – 66 . . . 209, 210, 217, 219, 220, 221 6:39 – 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217 6:39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156, 217

11:3 – 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225 11:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 11:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 11:13 – 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225 13:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 23:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 25:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 28:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228, 230 30:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 33:15 – 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322

2 Kings

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 353

Ezra 2:23, 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 3:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

Nehemiah 7:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 7:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229

9/18/14 9:20 AM

354 7:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .308 9:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 9:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . .51, 54, 233 11:5 – 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159 11:25 – 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178 11:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 11:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154 11:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 11:31, 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 12:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229

Esther 1:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 2:4, 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262

Job 12:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 16:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303 31:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .330 33:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317 36:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 41:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317 42:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .336

Psalms 15:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 18:24, 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 19:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 33:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 37:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 47:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 60:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214, 229 78:60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172, 254 83:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 84:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 90:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 101:2, 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 105:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294 106:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 106:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259 108:8 . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214, 229 121:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 135:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 135:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 136:19 – 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 137:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

Proverbs 2:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 11:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 12:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 16:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 18:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152 22:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .317 24:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152 28:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 30:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .330

Song of Songs 7:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233

Scripture Index Isaiah 1:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 5:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 6:9 – 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .323 10:29, 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 10:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 13:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152 15:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67, 213 15:4 . . . . . . . .54, 213, 232, 233 15:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 16:8 – 9 . . . . . .54, 213, 214, 233 16:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213, 233 19:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 19:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303 23:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .282 27:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135 37:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 41:8 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 43:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 43:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 44:1 – 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 49:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 57:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 59:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .330 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97 66:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215

Jeremiah 1:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 1:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 2:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46 2:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 3:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 5:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .330 7:6, 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 7:12, 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 7:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 11:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 11:21 – 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 13:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 16:11, 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 19:4, 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 22:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 25:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 26:6, 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 29:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 32:6 – 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 32:7 – 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 32:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 33:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 35:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 38:21 – 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 40:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 41:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 41:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 41:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 44:3, 5, 8, 15 . . . . . . . . . . . .318 48:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69, 213 48:2 . . . . . . . . .52, 54, 213, 233

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 354

48:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 48:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67, 213 48:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54, 213 48:21 . . . . . . . .54, 55, 213, 232 48:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67, 213 48:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69, 213 48:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214, 233 48:34 . . . . . . .54, 213, 232, 233 48:45 . . . . . . . .51, 54, 213, 233 49:2 – 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 49:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52, 233 49:7 – 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97 49:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261

Ezekiel 1:9, 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258 4:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 6:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139 6:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 12:18 – 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 20:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .322 20:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 21:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 25:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 25:9 . . . . . . . . .55, 70, 213, 214 25:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 26:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 27:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 28:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 40:46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 43 – 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 44 – 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228 44:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 45:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 47:13 – 48:29 . . . . . . . . . . . .253 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262 48:1 – 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 48:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 48:31 – 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

Hosea 1:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .295 1:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303 3:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 3:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 4:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 6:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303 6:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 8:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303 8:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .328 9:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 10:1 – 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329

Amos 1:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 214 2:9 – 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .297 3:1 – 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .323 4:4 – 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254 5:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Scripture Index

355

6:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . .55, 71, 214 7:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .260

Zechariah

1 Corinthians

14:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229

9:12, 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234

Micah

Malachi

Hebrews

1:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303 5:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329 6:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .297

2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 3:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215 3:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255

6:57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156 7:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .319 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244

Habakkuk

Matthew

2:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .329

10:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 355

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Subject Index Aaron, 226, 227, 319 Abraham, 317 Achsah, 127, 128, 136, 143 agriculture, 41, 53 allotment, 146 altar, 68, 193, 197, 198, 199, 228, 246, 248, 249, 251, 252, 253, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 301, 322, 342, 343 Ammonites, 55, 71, 82 Amorites, 64, 188 Anakim, 86, 95, 136, 144 archaeology, 52, 78, 79, 86, 138, 144, 224 ark of the covenant, 79, 215 Aroer, 54, 59, 67, 71 Ascent of the Scorpions, 134 Ashdod, 78 Asher, 162, 181 Ashkelon, 75, 78 Ashtaroth, 54 atonement, 197, 198, 205 avenger of blood, 193, 194, 196, 202 Avvim, 64 ban, 70, 139, 144 Bashan, 59 Benjamin, 93, 123, 129, 138, 159, 162, 163, 175, 228, 338 Beth-el (Luz), 58, 141, 175, 301 Beth-peor, 55 blessing, 96, 136, 144, 146, 187, 256, 257, 262, 282 blood pollution, 194 blood revenge, 198 boundary (border lists/descriptions), 11, 34, 37, 41, 42, 52, 53, 54, 55, 121, 126, 129, 138, 160 Canaanites, 63, 64, 76 – 77, 144, 145, 171, 188 Caleb, 42, 86, 87, 88, 94, 95, 97, 111, 122, 125, 127, 128, 135, 160, 227, 280 camp, 174 chronology, 76 – 77 cities of refuge, 193, 197, 202 city of David, 123 compilation, 11, 12, 87, 197 compiler, 11, 34 congregation, 171, 172, 194, 197, 199, 203, 258 corvée, 143, 187 covenant, 53, 121, 166, 168, 256, 269, 279, 284, 307, 312, 326, 327, 328 covenant code, 193 cult practices, 297, 299 cultic traditions, 301, 323 cultic trees, 329

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 356

Dan, 58, 159, 168, 178, 185, 186, 187, 188, 227 dating, 12, 35, 39, 41, 42, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 68, 77, 89, 94, 95, 121, 122, 124, 129, 138, 142, 143, 159, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 178, 185, 193, 197, 215, 222, 224, 225, 253, 254, 300, 304, 312, 319 death bed oration, 57, 268 Deuteronomist/Deuteronomistic history, 12, 36, 38, 42, 68, 87, 93, 124, 161, 187, 197, 200, 201, 235, 247, 248, 253, 257 , 268, 271, 283, 284, 298, 299, 302, 303, 305, 307, 319, 322, 338 (or ultimate editor), 51, 54, 56, 63, 80, 86, 87, 91, 96, 126, 134, 138, 146, 161, 218, 238, 249, 252, 254, 304 Debir, 128, 136 Dibon, 53, 67 Dor, 144 East Jordan, 160, 194, 227, 255, 262, 320, 338 Ekron, 79 elders, 195, 198, 199, 203, 204 Eleazer, 91, 158, 341 election, 322 entitlement, 66, 91 Ephraim-Manasseh, 129, 135, 143, 160, 223 eschatology, 146, 223 etiology, 87, 96, 128, 161, 249 evil words, 284, 285 exodus, 319 explanation, 13, 80 faith, 173 freedom, 283, 323 fulfillment, 238 fullness, 86 form study, 12, 57, 87, 126, 161, 169, 200, 219, 237, 248, 274, 306 Galilee, 172 Gath, 78 – 79 Gaza, 77 genre, 12 Geshurites, 62 Gezer, 142, 143, 229 Gibeah, 176 Gibeon, 228 Gilead, 59 Gilgal, 34, 40, 58, 90, 94, 129, 161, 174, 247, 254 god(s), 139, 259, 282, 283, 285, 299, 302, 317, 322 God anger (wrath), 259, 284 authority, 36, 319

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Subject Index fair, 174 faithfulness, 81, 82, 86, 239, 282, 283 fighter, 10:14, 25, 29, 42, 281, 282, 285 good, 80 holy, 324 jealous/zealous, 325 leader, 65, 80 names, 261 of Israel, 317 of your ancestors, 173, 174, 311 only, 282, 318 plan, 96, 135, 175 power of, 34, 92 sovereignty, 97, 188 heads of tribes, 87, 92, 158, 260, 316 Hebron, 86, 90, 95, 198 Heshbon, 53, 67 Hexateuch, 15, 89, 222, 235, 273, 298, 299, 304, 309, 312, 327, 338, 340, 341, 352 high priest, 194, 201 hill country, 137, 145 history, 14, 35, 36, 52, 59, 64, 92, 121, 125, 126, 167, 183, 198, 199, 215, 223, 253, 254 Hittites, 64, 188, 300 Hivites, 188 Horeb, 86 Ibleam, 144 inheritance, 41, 66, 87, 91, 138, 162, 219, 236, 297 Israel disobedience, 181 failure, 80, 124, 146, 173, 179 faithfulness, 255, 311, 321 farms, 35, 41, 92, 153, 167 identity, 41, 93, 126, 172, 281, 282, 284, 300, 301, 327 obedient, 146, 172, 174, 175, 187, 188, 189, 281, 310 unity, 204, 252, 253, 255, 256, 260, 280, 310 impurity, 260 Issachar, 181 Jebusites, 123, 138, 143, 188 JEDP, 11, 36, 37, 42, 248 Jericho, 151 Jerusalem, 11, 40, 58, 123, 138, 161, 175, 199, 223, 228 Joseph, 111, 122, 128, 139, 141, 142, 144, 145, 159, 338 Joshua and tent of meeting, 172 faithful, 34, 62, 96 leadership, 36, 62, 67, 80, 159, 160, 189, 255, 323, 343 military victor rather than land occupier, 68 obedient, 35, 65, 68, 81, 129, 143, 204 old and weak, 62, 80, 280, 283 servant of Yahweh, 35, 341

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 357

357

spy, 94 Josiah, 35 Judah, 90, 93, 94, 97, 128, 134, 136, 159, 178 justice, 204 Kadesh-Barnea, 94, 104 Kenizzite, 88, 94 king(ship), 80, 91 Kiriath-Arba, 96 Kiriath-Jearim, 138 land, 34, 35, 188 Canaan, 36, 91, 121, 252 distributed, 57, 89, 92, 96, 158, 161, 236 idealistic, 66, 68 kingdom of David, 36, lost, 146, 284 not conquered, 68, 81, 82 occupied, 69 promised, allotted, and given by God, 66, 80, 81, 95, 123, 124, 129, 145, 171, 173, 187, 188, 189, 228, 226, 281, 283 promised from Nile to Euphrates, 36 law (Torah), 37, 128, 129, 146, 189, 204, 215, 239, 256, 284, 301, 328, 329, 341 leadership, 80, 81, 82, 87, 281, 283 Lebanon, 62 Lebo (entrance to) Hamath, 65, 71 levites, 12, 56, 68, 87, 89, 93, 159, 174, 194, 215, 216, 226, 233, 301 levitical cities, 215, 233 lots, 41, 92, 158, 174, 197, 226 love, 256, 23 loyalty, 88, 95, 97, 252 Machir, 143 man of God, 94 man of war, 143 maṣṣēbôt, 329 Medeba, 54 Megiddo, 144 midbar/wilderness, 137 mizpah, 175 Moab, 51, 54, 61, 70 Moses, 51, 56, 66, 81, 87, 93, 94, 128, 135, 145, 172, 188, 199, 201, 202, 204, 226, 255, 257, 219, 327, 342 Mount Hermon, 59 Naphtali, 183, 184, 185 narrative study, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94, 130, 169, 250, 313 nations, 34, 68, 94, 97 Negev, 137 Nephtoah, waters of, 135 obedience, 81, 87, 92, 93, 143, 174, 179, 255, 281 occupation and settlement, 187 oral tradition, 11, 51, 97, 127, 297, 299, 304 Othniel, 127, 136

9/18/14 9:20 AM

358

Subject Index

peace, 175, 189 Pentateuch, 11, 14, 15, 34, 37, 39, 51, 160, 175, 200, 204, 247, 272, 297, 298, 303, 304, 307, 312, 319, 327, 331, 335, 339, 340 people of God, 12, 256 faithfulness, 82, 284 loyalty, 283 people of the land, 62 Perizzites, 188 Philistines, 72 – 79, 125, 129, 135, 137, 254 Phinehas, 254, 258, 342 Phoenicians, 62, 65 pottery, 77 presence of God, 160, 253, 262, 281 priestly, 12, 52, 158, 161, 171, 200, 201, 247, 254, 259, 297, 305 priests, 87, 174 promises, 34, 65, 88, 281 land, 34, 42, 80, 87 military, 66 political, 36, 137 prophet, 94,146, 172, 193, 215, 317, 320 purpose, 56, 175 administrative pattern for David to control premonarchic population scattered through empire, 61 claim territories that are claimed by other states such as Moab, 61 fulfillment of Yahweh’s promise of land, 80 not the display of cultural realities, 77 paint a picture of Israelite identity over against Egypt, 61 teach proper lifestyle, 57, 124 Rabbah, 55, 71, 138 redaction, 12 rest, 81, 95, 96, 146, 172, 236, 237, 238, 256, 280 Reuben, 257 sacrifice, 261 Salecah, 54 Samson, 78 Saul, 129, 176, 254 scribes and scholars, 62 Sea Peoples, 75, 78 seranim, 76 service of God, 300, 313, 322 service of other gods, 178, 259, 262, 279, 282, 283, 284, 299, 300, 302, 310, 311, 313, 317, 318, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 330, 331, 332, 340

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 358

setting, 13, 60, 89, 129, 201, 222, 253, 278, 312, 341 Shechem, 40, 58, 229, 297, 298, 299, 300, 308, 316, 328, 338, 341 Shephelah, 137 Shihor, 63 Shiloh, 40, 58, 159, 161, 162, 172, 175, 188, 247, 248, 252, 254, 257, 299, 301 Sidon, 64 Sihon, 54, 56, 59, 70 Simeon, 159, 176, 177, 178 source, 11, 51, 57, 68, 86, 124, 160, 200, 216, 217, 218, 247, 271, 301, 302, 338 spies, 94 spy narrative, 86, 173 story tellers, 11 structural study, 13, 50, 58, 60, 85, 88, 110, 123, 129, 158, 162, 192, 201, 215, 219, 235, 246, 251, 277, 297, 309, 337 Succoth, 71 Taanach, 144 tabernacle, 260 tent of meeting, 171, 172, 174 Tetrateuch, 42 textual study, 10, 46, 59, 87, 158 theology, 34, 81, 172, 237, 283, 297, 304, 331 Timnath-heres, 40 town (city) lists, 11, 37, 52, 53, 111, 121, 122, 125, 126, 138, 139, 160, 167, 168 tradition history, 11, 51, 86, 111, 138, 158, 215, 246, 268, 297, 337 East Jordan settlement, 51, 174, 246, 251, 257 lack of levitical territories, 51, 58 land and peoples who remain, 51, 62, 111, 123, 124, 222, 281, 283 land commission, 159, 173, 174, 258, 259, 262 promised borders, 51, 111 Sihon and Og tradition, 51, 56, 58, 60 treaty form, 41, 42, 57, 300 tribes, 62, 120, 168, 255 trust, 281 unintentional sin, 202 worship, 247, 248, 252, 253, 263, 300, 318 writing, 159 Zebulun, 178, 180 Zelophehad, 111, 128, 143, 160

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Author Index Abel, F.-M., 47, 134 Aharoni, Yohanan, 17, 38, 39, 69, 70, 71, 122, 129, 135, 138, 141, 166, 211, 212, 231 Ahituv, S., 167 Albertz, R., 215 Albright, W. F., 79, 155, 193, 211, 222, 223, 227 Alt, Albrecht, 37, 40, 52, 69, 122, 138, 173, 222, 231 Anbar, M., 291, 308, 339 Andersen, F. I., 17, 260 Anderson, B. W., 261 Artus, Olivier, 59 Assis, E., 42, 66, 173, 248, 253, 255, 256, 257, 258, 263 Auerbach, E., 339 Auld, A. G., 47, 48, 49, 50, 84, 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 123, 152, 157, 161, 191, 192, 198, 199, 209, 210, 211, 215, 217, 218, 219, 222, 243, 252, 293 Aurelius, E., 284, 296, 306, 327 Avigad, N., 230 Avi-Yonah, M., 67 Avner, U., 330 Bächli, O., 156, 159, 174 Baltzer, K. D., 274, 275, 300, 308 Barmash, P., 193 Barr, J., 226, 328 Barrois, G. A., 329 Barthélemy, 47, 48, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 154, 155, 156, 157, 210, 211, 212, 244, 245, 246, 294, 336 Bartusch, M. W., 61, 66, 157, 160, 168, 187, 218, 224 Beck, J. A., 52, 317 Becker, U., 235, 272, 304, 306, 309, 312, 323, 326, 327, 332, 338, 339 Beltz, W., 127, 128 Ben Zvi, E., 209, 222, 223, 317 Betz, A., 63 Biton, G., 231 Blum, E., 339, 340 Boecker, H. J., 249, 258 Boling, R. C., 106, 267 Bratsiotis, N. P., 94 Brettler, M. Z., 305, 312 Bright, John, 58, 86, 87, 105, 156 Brooke, A. E., 49 Buhl, F., 47 Burnside, 202 Butler, T. C., 123, 124, 136, 187, 215, 317, 337 Callaway, R., 248, 249, 254, 258 Campbell, E. F., Jr., 229

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 359

Childs, B. S., 87, 172, 295, 319 Clarke, T. A., 238 Clements, R. E., 239 Clines, D. J. A., 226, 295 Coats, G. W., 319 Cohen, S., 69, 142 Coogan, M. D., 39 Coote, R. B., 35, 68, 81, 82, 89, 92, 95, 97, 121, 128, 129, 135, 183, 192, 194, 215, 227, 248, 251, 313, 327 Cortese, E., 42, 273 Creach, J. F. D., 97, 204, 248, 253, 255, 268, 278, 300, 308, 325, 326, 331 Cross, Frank, M., 38, 94, 137, 138, 166, 173 Dahl, George, 109 Daviau, P. M., 69 David, M., 197 de Geus, C. H. J., 39, 93, 122, 123, 141, 168 de Pury, A., 308 de Tilesse, G. Minette, 68 de Vaux, R., 69, 70, 135, 143, 222 De Vos, J. C., 39, 104, 152, 160, 167, 174 Dearman, J. A., 67, 69 Deckert, B., 229 Delekat, L., 197, 198, 199, 203, 209 Demsky, A., 166, 168 den Hertog, 46, 47, 104 Dever, W. G., 229 Dillmann, A., 244, 246, 294 Dommershausen, W., 92 Dothan, M., 78, 94 Drews, R., 76, 145 Drinkard, J., 46 Driver, G. R., 106 Earl, 59, 89, 129, 146, 297, 302, 324, 332 Eddinger, T., 231 Edelman, D. V., 71, 295 Edenburg, C., 79 Ehrlich, C. S., 106, 245 Eissfeldt, O., 37, 86, 157 Elitzur, Y., 69 Emerton, J. A., 53, 68, 293 Fewell, D. N., 135, 136 Finkelstein, I., 40, 53, 76, 77, 78 Fishbane, 200 Fleishman, S., 136 Floss, J. P., 282, 308, 318, 321, 323 Frankel, R., 64 Franken, H. J., 71 Fritz, V., 47, 48, 49, 50, 63, 65, 67, 69, 70, 79, 80, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 93, 94, 95, 105, 106,

9/18/14 9:20 AM

360

Author Index

107, 108, 109, 110, 124, 125, 137, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 161, 192, 199, 200, 209, 210, 211, 212, 217, 231, 243, 244, 245, 247, 249, 266, 267, 293, 294, 295, 296, 335, 336 Frolov, S., 335 Gerlemann, G., 91, 228 Giblin, C. H., 308, 309, 310 Glueck, N., 52 Gold, V. R., 232 Görg, M., 134, 135 Gottwald, Norman, K., 39, 93, 139, 168, 260 Grabbe, L. L., 76 Graesser, C., Jr., 329 Graf, 222 Grätz, 266 Gray, J., 48, 78, 105, 109, 144, 153, 159, 245 Greenberg, Moshe, 193, 197 Grey, 144 Grohman, E. D., 69, 232 Habel, N., 66 Halbe, J., 271, 310 Hallo, W. H., 67 Haran, M., 172, 209, 222, 229, 260 Harris, J. G., 62, 86, 96, 128, 136, 144, 171, 175 Harstad, A. L., 80, 85, 89, 105, 171, 194, 233, 243, 256, 300 Hauer, C., Jr., 223 Hawk, D. L., 57, 66, 88, 94, 95, 136, 143, 145, 163, 173, 187, 204, 219, 225, 236, 238, 239, 252, 264, 284, 324, 331 Hayes, J., 259, 317 Heidelberg, 92 Henke, O., 70 Hentschke, R., 71 Hertzberg, H. W., 47, 85, 105, 109, 110, 142, 143, 153, 156, 211, 212, 245, 318, 323 Hess, R. S., 9,, 14, 37, 40, 41, 53, 57, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 80, 87, 93, 95, 97, 120, 121, 122, 125, 129, 136, 138, 141, 142, 144, 163, 167, 168, 171, 174, 177, 178, 180, 185, 187, 193, 198, 215, 219, 222, 224, 225, 231, 232, 236, 246, 261, 284, 295, 300, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 Hillers, D. R., 300 Hoftijzer, J., 48, 68 Hollenberg, J., 58, 192, 211, 267, 293, 295 Holmes, S., 48, 49, 109, 157, 192, 209, 210, 211, 212, 243, 244, 245, 246, 266, 267, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297 Hölscher, Gustav, 38 Holstein, J. A., 94 Holtz, S. E., 41 Holzinger, H., 104, 153, 192, 243, 244, 246 Hoppe, L., 297, 311, 312 House, P. R., 278, 317, 332 Howard, David, 8, 36, 39, 40, 65, 66, 68, 77, 80, 81, 86, 95, 96, 107, 108, 109, 110, 134,

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 360

136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 153, 154, 162, 172, 175, 176, 177, 180, 201, 202, 203, 205, 209, 211, 212, 222, 224, 255, 256, 257, 259, 280, 283, 320, 321, 323, 327, 328, 335 Hubbard, R. L., 9, 39, 47, 71, 80, 95, 96, 136, 138, 173, 174, 176, 183, 187, 203, 205, 219, 224, 226, 227, 230, 233, 237, 238, 257, 262, 263, 274, 282, 295, 311, 312, 326, 327, 329 Hulst, A. R., 260 Humbert, P., 319 Irwin, B. P., 79 Jamieson, H. M., 233 Janzen, Waldemar, 171 Japhet, S., 63 Jaroš, K., 229, 303, 308, 329 Jenks, A. W., 298 Jenni, E., 256 Jepsen, A., 321 Jobling, D. K., 248 Johns, C. N., 232 Kallai-Kleinmann, Z., 38, 206 Kallai, Z., 104, 141, 148, 151, 154, 159, 162, 167, 178 Kang, S.-M., 319 Kaufmann, Y., 193, 222 Keil, C. F., 108 Keller, C. A., 282 Kellermann, D., 137 Kempinski, A., 254 Killebrew, A. E., 77 King, P. J., 259 Kitz, A. M., 41, 92, 162, 163, 283 Klein, S., 222 Knauf, A. E., 53, 58, 62, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 81, 89, 92, 94, 110, 121, 122, 125, 135, 137, 139, 141, 142, 143, 145, 171, 172, 175, 178, 181, 183, 185, 186, 187, 193, 200, 226, 235, 238, 253, 256, 260, 261, 277, 293, 312, 316, 338 Knight, D. A., 246, 253, 255, 260, 263 Köhler, L., 294, 295 Koopmans, W., 275, 276, 285, 293, 295, 296, 297, 301, 302, 303, 304, 306, 308, 309, 310, 313, 316, 318, 319, 321, 323, 326, 327, 328, 330, 335, 340, 341 Koorevaar, H. J., 58, 162, 175 Kreller, B. C., 188 Kreuzer, S., 301 Kühlwein, J., 94 Kuschke, A., 69, 70, 71, 142, 144 Kutsch, E., 327 L’Hour, J., 294, 308, 330, 339 Lambdin, T. O., 152 Lang, B., 261 Lapp, Paul, W., 233

9/18/14 9:20 AM

Author Index Latvus, K., 267, 272, 275, 277, 281 Lemke, W. E., 94 Lewis, J., 172 Libb, H., 69, 70 Liedke, G., 92 Lindars, B., 93 Lindblom, J., 92 Lipin´ski, E., 96 Liver, J., 69, 143 Loewenstamm, S. E., 198 Löhr, M., 197 Maag, V., 308 Maisler, B., 64 March, W. E., 259 Margolis, M. L., 49, 50, 85, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 154, 155 Master, D. M., 78 Mattingly, G. L., 69 Mayes, A. D. H., 39, 259, 295, 300, 339 Mazar, B., 168, 222, 223, 225 Mazor, L., 245 McCarthy, C., 274, 298, 299, 307, 308, 317, 323, 327, 328, 330 McConville, J. G., 34, 89, 128, 134, 171, 172, 187, 205, 235, 236, 257, 284, 318, 324 McLean, N., 49 Menes, A., 247 Merling, D., 34, 41, 89, 162 Mettinger, T. N. D., 124, 143 Metzger, M., 93 Milgrom, J., 171, 172, 244, 248 Miller, J. M., 69, 176 Miller, P. D., 94 Mitchell, G., 34, 58, 62, 63, 64, 123, 124, 143, 318, 326 Mitchell, T. C., 79 Mittmann, Siegfried, 38, 52, 55, 71, 80, 143, 233 Möhlenbrink, K., 226, 247, 254, 288, 323 Mowinckel, Sigmund, 38 Muilenburg, J., 308 Müller, H. P., 324 Müller, R., 306 Na’aman, N., 11, 35, 36, 39, 40, 56, 57, 63, 65, 75, 78, 79, 122, 141, 156, 167, 168, 175, 176, 209, 211, 218, 222, 223, 229 Naveh, J., 79 Nelson, R. D., 35, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 58, 59, 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 81, 84, 85, 88, 91, 93, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 135, 136, 138, 144, 145, 146, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 161, 162, 166, 167, 183, 187, 191, 192, 195, 198, 200, 201, 204, 210, 211, 212, 215, 219, 224, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 253, 256, 266, 267, 272, 274, 275, 277, 281, 283, 293, 294, 295,

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 361

361

296, 297, 299, 304, 309, 310, 322, 324, 325, 327, 329, 335, 336, 337 Nentel, J., 274, 306 Neumann-Gorsolke, U., 152 Nibbi, A., 76 Niccacci, A., 69 Nicholson, E. W., 106, 339 Nicolsky, N. M., 196, 197, 203 Nielsen, E., 308, 326 Niemeyer, 38 Noort, E., 36, 37, 41, 43, 56, 57, 61, 76, 304, 312, 318, 325 North, Robert, 135 Noth, Martin, 8, 37, 38, 47, 52, 58, 85, 93, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 135, 151, 153, 155, 156, 157, 200, 209, 211, 212, 222, 228, 231, 232, 233, 244, 245, 246, 272, 273, 301, 308, 323, 338, 339 Obed, B., 71 Organ, B. E., 258, 262 Ortiz, S. M., 76, 77, 78, 79 Otto, E., 122, 130, 141, 142, 144, 229, 247, 254, 301, 316, 317, 329 Ottosson, M., 35, 69, 70, 71, 80, 233, 248 Parunak, 39 Perles, F., 109 Perlitt, L., 278, 297, 298, 303, 305, 307, 308, 309, 317, 318, 322, 323, 327, 340 Peterson, J. A., 70 Peterson, J. L., 224, 231, 232 Phillips, A., 203 Pitkänen, P. M. A., 58, 87, 123, 171, 193, 233, 247, 248, 251, 257, 279, 306 Polzin, R., 237 Popovic, M., 297, 298, 301, 304, 305, 306, 308, 318, 320, 322, 323, 325, 331 Pressler, C., 34, 36, 68, 82, 86, 92, 97, 129, 143, 199, 204, 263, 283, 299, 309 Provan, I. V., 80 Rake, M., 123, 125, 339, 342 Rendtorff, R., 70, 261 Renner, E., 92 Richter, W., 299, 319, 336 Ringgren, H., 259 Rofé, A., 191, 193, 212, 335, 336, 337 Römer, T., 271, 272, 274, 284, 293, 294, 295, 296, 303, 305, 306, 308, 312 Rose, M., 95, 254 Rösel, H. N., 54, 108, 212, 273, 306, 336, 337 Ross, J. P., 217 Rost, L, 171, 299 Rudolph, W., 52, 110, 294, 323 Sauer, J. A., 260 Schäfer-Lichtenberger, 256, 342 Scharbert, J., 96 Schley, D. G., 248, 254

9/18/14 9:20 AM

362

Author Index

Schmid, H. H., 92 Schmidt, L., 191, 192, 198, 200, 201, 203, 215, 217, 224 Schmidt, W. H., 70, 172 Schmitt, G., 110, 144, 158, 159, 293, 294, 296, 323, 328, 330 Schunck, Klaus-Dietrich, 38, 122, 135, 138, 141 Seebass, H., 61, 93, 125, 308, 322 Seely, D. R. 134 Sellin, E., 308 Simons, J., 47 Smelik, W. F., 267 Smend, R., 50, 54, 56, 110, 271, 273, 285 Snaith, N. H., 244, 254 Soggin, J. A., 47, 48, 49, 70, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 135, 142, 153, 155, 156, 157, 192, 209, 210, 211, 212, 244, 245, 246, 254, 267, 293, 294, 329 Sperber, A., 85 Sperling, S. D., 304, 313 Spina, F. A., 167 Spronk, K., 303, 337, 339 Stager, L. E., 78, 259 Stem, E., 79 Steuernagel, 37, 47, 104, 105, 106, 109, 154, 155, 243, 244, 245, 246, 266, 267 Stith, D. M., 134 Stoebe, H. J., 79, 254 Stolz, F., 85 Stone, L. G., 61 Svensson, J., 36 Sweeney, M., 317

Terrien, S., 172 Tov, E., 107, 109, 110, 191, 294, 337

Tappy, R. E., 125 Tatlock, J. R., 232 Täubler, E., 122 Tengström, Sven, 39, 123, 130, 222, 229, 298

Yadin, Y., 273, 122 Yeivin, Shmuel, 38 Younger, K. Lawson, 14, 67, 123, 238, 267, 273 Younker, R. W., 69

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 362

Ulrich, E., 109, 110 van Beek, G. W., 231 Van der Kooij, 191 van der Meer, 46, 109, 243, 244, 273, 296, 336 van Selms, A., 155 van Zyl, A. H., 69 Vink, J. G., 161, 247 Vriezen, T. C., 324 Wallis, G., 299 Watson, G. E., 309 Wazana, Nili, 41 Wehmeier, G., 96, 256, 262 Weinfeld, M., 40, 41, 53, 271, 274, 328 Weippert, H., 78 Wellhausen, J., 37, 193, 222 Westermann, C., 96, 173, 238 Whitelam, K. W., 280 Wildberger, H., 321 Williams, 34, 89, 128, 134, 171, 172, 187, 205, 235, 244, 257, 284, 318, 324, 244 Willis, J. T., 256 Wilson, K. A., 31, 232 Wilson, R. A., 173 Winter-Nielsen, N., 47, 88, 106, 126, 268, 343 Wright, George Ernest, 38, 78, 137, 138, 166, 229, 293, 329 Wüst, Manfred, 39, 46, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 63, 67, 69, 70, 71, 80, 84, 273

9/18/14 9:20 AM

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 363

9/18/14 9:20 AM

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 364

9/18/14 9:20 AM

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 365

9/18/14 9:20 AM

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 366

9/18/14 9:20 AM

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 367

9/18/14 9:20 AM

9780310520122 wbcjoshua_b_int_CS6_5th pages.indd 368

9/18/14 9:20 AM