Historical Facts behind the Israelite Settlement Pattern

In the previous section, I analyzed the typology of the conquest and presented a conventional pattern of settlement that was prevalent in Greece and in ancient Israel. I did not, however, investigate the possible historical reality behind this pattern, an inquiry that I shall undertake here as a continuation of the previous study, with reference to the events that shaped the settlement model.

The Camp Formation

A basic feature in the typology of the conquest is the movement of people in camps toward their destination. This is best exemplified in the story about the expedition of the Danites (Judg. 18). The Danites set out on their journey to Laish with their children, their cattle, and their household goods in front (Judg. 18:21). In a period parallel to that of the settlement of the Israelite tribes, the Sea Peoples used to travel in a similar manner as they migrated into the areas of Syria and Palestine in search of new lands in which to settle. In an inscription of Ramesses III (1194–1162 B.C.E. ), it is

[46] See also Strabo 10:3,5; Polybius 34 1:3.

related that the Sea Peoples, organized militarily, set up camp at Amurru,^[47] and in some drawings on the wall of the Temple of Ramesses III in Medinet Habu these people are depicted as moving with women and children in wagons harnessed to oxen. From these illustrations we can learn that these Sea Peoples, like the Israelites, set out on expeditions for the purpose of settlement.^[48] As A. Malamat has shown,^[49] the Pentateuchal stories of the tribes of Israel in their encampments on their way toward the promised land in order to settle there parallel, from a typological point of view, the story of the migration of the tribe of Dan, and they are based on the model under discussion here: a wandering group of people, on their way to settle in a new land. Yet it seems that on their arrival in the promised land the migrating tribes intended to settle in unoccupied territory rather than in the cities that were already inhabited, and only after confrontation with the inhabitants of the cities were they forced to resort to warfare and military conquest. The same applies to the Sea Peoples, who also, as I have already suggested, had the goal of settlement, and it was only after they had been settled by Pharaoh of Egypt in the coastal cities that they became a prominent political force in the area.^[50]

[47] W. F. Edgerton and J. A. Wilson, Historical Records of Ramses III, The Texts of Medinet Habu (Chicago, 1936), pp. 49 ff.

[48] For a discussion of this matter, see N. K. Sandars, The Sea Peoples, Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean 1250–1150B.C. (London, 1978), pp. 120–21, 169.

[49] Israel in Biblical Times (Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 149 ff. (Hebrew); see also "The Danite Migration and the Pan-Israelite Exodus-Conquest—A Biblical Narrative Pattern," Biblica 51 (1970), pp. 1–16.

[50] Sandars correctly observes in Sea Peoples (n. 48), pp. 169–70, that the Philistines did not intend to settle along the coast at all, but rather to take possession of the areas further inland; the Philistine cities were situated at some distance from the coast.

See papyrus Harris I from the period of Ramesses III: W. Ericksen, Papyrus Harris I (Brussels, 1933), = ANET , p. 262; cf. A. Alt, "Ägyptische Tempel in Palästina und die Landnahme der Philister," Kleine Schriften 1 (Munich, 1953), pp. 216–30.

In light of all this, one must consider seriously the various descriptions of the "camps" in the books of Joshua and Judges, for they can provide us with reliable information about the way in which the tribes of Israel settled during the period in which they established themselves in the land. In these books we read of the following camps: the camp of Gilgal (Josh. 2–10); the camp of Makkedah (Josh. 10:21); the camp of Shiloh (Josh. 18:1–10; Judg. 21:12) and the two camps of Dan (Judg. 13:25; 18:12).

It appears, from the description of the census of the people of Israel in the Wilderness (Num. 1–2; 10:11–29), that there were camps for the various tribes or groups of tribes. If we attempt to relate the camps enumerated above to the various tribes, it appears that the camp of Benjamin was at Gilgal (see below), the camp of Ephraim at Shiloh, the camp of Dan at Kiriath-jearim, and the camp of Judah at Makkedah (see Josh. 15:41), and it was only after the tribes achieved political unity that Gilgal and Shiloh were understood as the camps for all the tribes of Israel. The preeminence of the house of Eli, on the one hand, and the prominence of Ephraim, on the other, caused Shiloh on Mt. Ephraim to be viewed by tradition as the camp of (all) Israel (Josh. 18:9; Judg. 21:12), for it was there that the people of Israel erected the tent of meeting and began, under the leadership of Joshua and Eleazar the priest, the division of the land by lot before the Lord (Josh. 18:1–10; 19, 51; 21, 1–2).^[51] Apparently, it was only after the enthronement of Saul at Gilgal that this camp, which belonged to Benjamin, of Saul's tribe, was understood to be the central Israelite camp.

After the enthronement of David, the tribe of Judah became the leading camp of Israel. In the description of the standards

[51] Eli was the last judge (1 Sam. 4:18), whose sons were to have officiated after him in a priestly capacity. Thus there occurred a transition from spontaneous to institutionalized leadership by succession similar to that of the monarchy. Similarly, Samuel was the successor of Eli. See T. Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel (Berlin, 1977), pp. 26–31.

of the people of Israel in the Wilderness, in Num. 1–2, we find that the standard of the camp of Judah is mentioned first, followed by the standards of Reuben, Ephraim, and finally, Dan. In this description, whose source is the priestly circles of Judah (P), the camp of Judah has priority (instead of the camp of Benjamin at Gilgal). The camps of Ephraim and Dan continue to hold a superior position,^[52] as before, while the camp of Reuben represents the camp east of the Jordan (Reuben and Gad), to which Simeon in the south is attached.^[53] A reference to the camp of the Israelites on the east bank of the Jordan is preserved for us in the biblical tradition of the encampment of Israel in the steppes of Moab: "They encamped by the Jordan from Beth-jeshimoth as far as Abel-Shittim, in the steppes of Moab" (Num. 33:49). According to a southern (Benjamite) tradition, the people of Israel set out from Shittim for Gilgal by way of the Jordan River (Josh. 3:1), which reminds us of a passage from the prophecy of Micah: "From Shittim to Gilgal" (6:5). Gilgal as a center from which Israelite tribes set out to conquer the west bank of the Jordan also appears in Judg. 2:1: "An angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim." It seems, however, that the Israelite tribes were actually concentrated not in this area but in the Valley of Sukkoth, which is north of Shittim and Gilgal. This seems to be reflected in the Inscription of Merneptah: "Gezer has been taken, Yeno'am^[*] has been made as that which does not exist. Israel has been laid waste, his seed is not."

[52] Dan appears here together with the northern tribes, Asher and Naphtali, which shows us that, at the time of the composition of this list, Dan was already situated in the north, as in the list of Num. 13:4–15 and in contrast with that of Num. 34:21–23, where Dan appears between Benjamin and Joseph.

[53] On the Mosaic league in Transjordan, see D. N. Freedman, "The Poetic Structure of Deuteronomy 33," in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of C. H. Gordon (New York, 1980), pp. 28–30. On the general view of Freedman concerning the pre-monarchic period, which reflects Albright's attitude, see the collection of Freedman's articles in Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry (Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Ind., 1980).

Yeno'am^[*] is identified with Tell El 'Abeidiyeh^[*] , south of Chinnereth,^[54] and the name "Israel," which appears after Yeno'am, must therefore be east of the Jordan.^[55] According to B. Mazar, the inscription refers to a settlement of Israelite tribes in the Valley of Sukkoth.^[56] Penuel, which is near Sukkoth, is considered in folk tradition to be the place where the angel appeared to Jacob, changing his name to Israel (Gen. 32:29).^[57] This may mean that the name "Israel" is anchored in the first tribal federation of Israel on the east bank of the Jordan. Mazar also connects to this area the settlement of Adam (= Tell ed-Damiyeh^[*] ) in the Jordan region (Josh. 3:16; Ps. 78:60), where, in his opinion, the altar was erected by the tribes east of the Jordan, provoking the tribes west of the river to prepare for war against their brothers in the east (Josh. 22:9–34).

It is also possible that the story of Mahanaim in the Valley of Sukkoth, in which Jacob divides his people into two camps (Gen. 32:8), reflects the ancient reality of the existence of Israelite camps east of the Jordan analogous to those on the west bank. The existence of an Israelite camp in the area of Sukkoth may be reflected in Ps. 78:60: "he forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent he had set ('hl skn^[*] ) b'dm^[*] (= in Adam)."^[58] Besides the tabernacle at Shiloh, there was a tent at Adam, i.e., the tent of the Israelite at the city of Adam, which paralleled the tabernacle of Shiloh at the Shilonite camp.

[54] Cf. Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography , 2d ed., A. F. Rainey, ed. and transl. from Hebrew (London, 1979), p. 33. According to N. Na'aman^[*] , "Yeno'am," Tel-Aviv 4 (1977), pp. 168–77, it is to be identified with Tell-Esh-Shihab, west of Edrei on the Yarmuk river.

[55] Cf. Na'aman^[*] , ibid., p. 171.

[56] B. Mazar, "Biblical Archaeology Today—The Historical Aspect," Biblical Archaeology Today (Jerusalem, 1985), pp. 16–20.

[57] The LXX omitted the phrase "he called his name Israel" in Gen. 35:10 because it contradicts Gen. 32:29.

[58] See S. D. Goitein, "The City of Adam in the Book of Psalms," Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society (Yediot ) 13 (1947), pp. 277–79 (Hebrew), and Mazar's comment on this article on pp. 17–18.

It would appear that a division of opinion existed among the Israelite tribes over the sanctity of the camp east of the Jordan, and that the Shilonite priests, who claimed exclusive sanctity for the camp of Shiloh, declared the area east of the river to be unclean (Josh. 22:19) and did not include Gilead within the framework of the borders of the promised land (see Num. 34:1–12).^[59] This priestly circle, which stands behind the Priestly Code, did not accept the tradition of Penuel as the site of the revelation to Jacob in which his name was changed to Israel, and transferred this event to Bethel (Gen. 35:9–13).

In any event, the tradition of a "camp of Israel" in the periods of the wilderness wandering and settlement (Josh. 6:18, 23) reflects a historical situation in which the settlers organized themselves into camps as they set out to settle in a new land. However, whereas in the actual period of settlement there were separate camps for the various tribes, in later times the tribes described themselves as one camp of Israel (e.g., Gilgal), from which all Israel's allied tribes went forth to war and to which they returned (Josh. 4:19; 5:10; 9:6; 10:6, 15, 43).

This organization into camps was a military one for the purpose of forestalling enemy attack on the way, since the Israelite settlement was connected with warfare, as were many of the Greek settlements whose program involved warfare and the expulsion of the indigenous population.^[60] For example, the tribe of Dan settled in the north after attacking the inhabitants of Laish with the sword and burning down the city (Judg. 18:27), and the people of Ephraim settled in Bethel only after they had razed it to the ground, smiting the inhabitants of the city with the sword (Judg. 1:24–26). It seems that other cities on Mt. Ephraim, such as Tappuah (Josh. 12:17), became the possession of the settlers by means of warfare.

However, these cases were essentially different in nature

[59] On this matter, see Chapter 3.

[60] On the military enterprises of the founder, see Leschhorn, Gründer der Stadt (n. 14), and the references there.

from the descriptions of the great conquest, as we have them in Josh. 1–11. As is well known, the conquests of Jericho and Ai are problematic from both the archaeological and the literary (etiological) points of view. On the other hand, the great wars of the south (Josh. 10), and at the Waters of Merom in the north (Josh 11:1–15), were fought after the settlement and as a consequence of its expansion. These wars took place after the tribes of Mt. Ephraim and the Galilean mountains had succeeded in gaining a foothold in the area and, as a result of this expansion, came into conflict with the Canaanite centers (see below).

The Development of the Tradition about the Founder

The Gilgal tradition linked Joshua to Gilgal and to the erecting of the stones there, whereas in the Shechem tradition Joshua was linked to Shechem, where stones were erected on Mt. Ebal and an altar was built. We are thus confronted with two competing traditions among the Israelite tribes—Ephraim (or rather, Joseph) and Benjamin—concerning the place where the act of foundation occurred. In fact, it seems that neither Gilgal nor Shechem was originally connected with Joshua; by the time Joshua was drawn to these two sites, they were already important places—one as the point of crossing of the Jordan and the other as the central city of Mt. Ephraim.

What, then, was the genuine place of Joshua's activity? How did it happen that Joshua turned into the founder and conqueror on a national scale?

In the Greek traditions of colonization we find three stages in the development of the image of the founder. In the first stage, he appears as leader of the expedition of a group of settlers; in the second stage, he is the builder of the city and its temple; and in the third stage, he appears as legislator and administrator concerned with the welfare of the settlement.^[61]

In fact, what we have here is the merging of various figures who were active in the foundation of the settlement over a considerable period of time into one central figure.

The same process may be discerned in the crystallization of the figure of Joshua in the Israelite traditions. In the original tradition, Joshua was the founder of a particular settlement, which he established and where he lived and was buried. In the course of time, on account of his particular success, his name became associated with the central city in the area and its shrine, and finally he became identified as the founder and legislator of the whole nation. Let me explain the process.

According to Josh. 19:50 Joshua built the city of Timnath-heres^[*] /serah^[*] in Mt. Ephraim and settled in it: "at the command of YHWH they gave him the town that he asked for, Timnath-serah^[*] in the hill country of Ephraim; he built the town and settled in it"; and according to Josh. 24:30 he was buried in the same city (cf. Josh. 24:29–30; Judg. 2:9).

As will be shown in chapter 3, the phrase "he built . . . and settled" (wybn wysb^[*] ) is characteristic of the tradition of the foundation of new settlements, and the marking of the famous grave also belongs to the foundation typology. Timnath-heres is related to the region of Mt. Heres^[*] , which extended as far as the valley of Aijalon and Shaalbim, as may be learned from Judg. 1:35.^[62] According to that verse, the Amorites who dwelt

[62] Cf. Z. Kallai, "The Settlement Traditions of Ephraim—A Historiographical Study," ZDPV 102 (1986), pp. 68–74; I. Finkelstein, S. Bunimowitz and Z. Lederman, "Excavations at Shiloh, 1981–1983" Qadmoniot 17, no. 1 [65] (1984), pp. 15–25 (Hebrew); I. Finkelstein and A. Brandl, "A Group of Metal Objects from Shiloh," The Israel Museum Journal 4 (1985), pp. 17–26.

in Mt. Heres^[*] , Aijalon, and Shaalbim pushed the Danites into the hill country, but the Amorites were later dispossessed by the house of Joseph. Taking into account the tradition described in Josh. 10:10–14 about Joshua's pursuit of the Amorites from Gibeon along Beth-horon^[*] as far as Aijalon, we may legitimately surmise that the victory of Joshua, the leader of the house of Joseph (cf. Josh. 17:14–18), is connected with the dispossession of the Amorites depicted in Judg. 1:35 (see Kallai [n. 61]).

The settlement of Timnath-heres^[*] was made through oracular inquiry: "at the command of YHWH they gave him the town that he asked for" (Josh. 19:50); and similarly, we find in the tradition of Greek colonization that oracular responses from Delphi came mostly post factum , after the site for settlement was chosen, as was the case with Joshua. It is possible that at this early stage Joshua consulted the priests of the shrine of Shiloh, which served as a sacred site for the whole area from ancient times, as I. Finkelstein has recently suggested.^[63]

The settlement of this area, which took place after a struggle with the Amorites, gave Joshua a reputation as a successful conqueror, thus bringing about his integration into the story of the fierce battle against the Amorite coalition led by the king of Jerusalem (Josh. 10:1–14), which resulted in a great victory for the Israelites. On account of this victory, Joshua was accorded the title of leader of the "house of Joseph" at Shechem, the central city of Mt. Ephraim, and in this capacity he came to be associated with the foundation ceremony at Mt. Ebal (Josh. 8:30–35) and the enactment of the covenant at the shrine of Shechem (Josh. 24). Later, the final victory at Hazor was ascribed to him (Josh. 11:1–15). In the course of time, during the days of Saul at the Gilgal shrine, it would seem that a cycle of traditions developed connecting Joshua with Gilgal, ascrib-

[63] "Excavations at Shiloh 1981–1984: Preliminary Report," Tel-Aviv 12 (1985), pp. 159 ff.

ing to him the position of the supreme conqueror.^[64] In these traditions he was also made the leading figure in the foundation ceremony at Gilgal, where the stones were erected, and the initiator of the ceremony of circumcision,^[65] which was followed by the Passover offering (Josh. 5), two rituals basic to the religion of Israel. In the Gilgal cycle we also find the rigorous application of ban (herem^[*] ) of the Canaanites (Josh. 6:17), apparently influenced by the stringent policy of Saul toward the Amorites (1 Sam. 21:2).^[66]

The Shilonite tradition, however, which stressed the priestly, oracular aspect of the settlement, is reflected—as indicated above—in the first stage of the tradition about the founder (Josh. 19:50) and therefore seems to be most ancient. One must bear in mind that the priestly Shilonite traditions were kept and fostered for hundreds of years in ancient Israel, and that therefore not all the details can be considered reliable. However, on the basis of comparison with the Greek procedure of colonization, the division of land according to divine lot and the resort to an oracle of a central shrine, so well preserved in the Shilonite tradition, appear to constitute genuine features of the settlement process in ancient Israel, save that they underwent schematization and nationalization as the priestly literature developed.

[64] In the period of Saul, the central sanctuary was at Gilgal and, as shown below (Chap. 6), the upper limit for the formation of the traditions in Josh. 2–9 was the period of King Saul. Only with the political unification of the tribes of Israel into a kingdom could the idea of a national epic of the conquest of the land under one leader have been formed. The shift of the victorious figure from Ephraim to Benjamin may have been caused by the fact that Aijalon later became part of expanding Benjamin, as may be deduced from the comparison of 1 Chron. 7:21 with 1 Chron. 8:13; see Kallai, "Ephraim" (n. 62).

[65] Circumcision is connected with the covenant in Gen. 17, and in Judaism it is called "covenant" to the present day.

[66] This policy changed in the Davidic period; see S. Abramsky, "The Attitude towards the Amorites and Jebusites in the Book of Samuel: Historical Foundation and Ideological Significance," Zion, Jubilee Volume 50 (1985), pp. 27–58 (Hebrew).

I. Finkelstein concluded on the basis of his excavations (see nn. 62, 63) that the greatest concentration of early Israelite settlements were in the region of Shiloh because, in his opinion, Shiloh had been chosen as the first Israelite sacred center. My observations about Shiloh and its role in the settlement process may corroborate Finkelstein's conclusions.