1—
From Lebo-hamath to the Wadi of Egypt

As indicated, the border system of this type does not include Transjordan south of the lake of Kinneret, which seems difficult to understand because the Israelites inhabited Transjordan from the beginning of their settlement in the area (cf. Judg. 11:26). This problem was addressed by B. Mazar, and later by R. de Vaux, who observed that the border delineation of Canaan in Num. 34 corresponds to the region of the Egyptian province of Canaan in the period before the Israelite settlement.^[7] The Egyp-

[5] Josh. 19:28–30. Compare 2 Sam. 24:6–7. This area belongs, according to Z. Kallai, to the "remaining land" divided among the tribes, as opposed to other areas in the Lebanon that are part of the remaining land but were not divided among the tribes at all. Cf. Kallai, "Territorial" (n. 1). According to Na'aman, "Inheritances" (n. 1), Israelites did not settle in Tyre and Sidon, and these two cities were not divided among the tribes.

[6] Compare Deut. 1:2, 11:14; Josh. 1:4.

[7] B. Mazar, "Lebo-hamath—the Northern Border of Canaan," in S. Ahituv and B. Levine, eds., The Early Biblical Period: Historical Studies (Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 189–202, orig. pub. in Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society (Yediot ) 12 (1946), pp. 91–102 (Hebrew); and, later, R. de Vaux, "Le Pays de Canaan," Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968), pp. 23–29. It may be that this extent of the province "Canaan" was accepted many hundreds of years prior to the entering of the Israelites into the land of Canaan, and that it does not necessarily reflect the limits of Canaan at the end of the period of Egyptian rule, as Mazar maintains. Cf. N. Na'aman, "Shihor of Egypt" (n. 2), p. 207.

Map 1
Borders of the Promised Land, Numbers 34:3-12.

Map 2
Borders of the Promised Land, Genesis 15:18-21.

tian province of Canaan includes the land of Upe, the Damascene region, but excludes Transjordan just as in Num. 34.

This system conforms to the view accepted in most biblical sources in which the crossing of the Jordan marks the beginning of the conquest of the land of Canaan and also signals the point at which the commandments specific to the Land of Israel become binding.^[8] The realization of the promise to the patriarchs came with the crossing of the Jordan, hence the dramatization of the event and the ceremony of the foundation at Gilgal, as expressed in the beginning of the stories of the conquest in Josh. 3–4.^[9] In addition, it should be noted that the manna the Israelites ate in the desert stopped after the crossing of the Jordan^[10] and that the circumcision of the Israelites upon their arrival in the Land of Canaan, shortly before they celebrated the first Passover in the Land, took place after crossing the Jordan to Gilgal to the west (Josh. 5:2–11). The setting up of the stones that the Israelites were commanded to erect on Mt. Ebal, and the ceremony accompanying this act, could only be fulfilled after the passage of the Jordan: "As soon as you have crossed the Jordan . . . you shall set up large stones . . . in order that you may come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you."^[11] This is an ancient tradition, despite its appearance in a late book.

Furthermore, the angel who was supposed to bring the

[8] Cf., for example, regarding the commandments of the dispossession in Num. 33:51–52: "When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, you shall dispossess," etc.; and concerning the commandments of the cities of refuge in Num. 35:10: "When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, you shall provide yourselves with places to serve you as cities of refuge," etc.

[9] Cf. my article, "The Tradition of Inheritance of the Tribes of Israel in Canaan: the Model and Its Nature," Cathedra 44 (June/July 1987), pp. 12–13 (Hebrew).

[10] Josh. 5:12; compare Exodus 16:35.

[11] Deut. 27:2–3. Concerning the significance of this ceremony, cf. my article "Tradition of Inheritance" (n. 9), pp. 11–12.

Israelites to the Land and drive out before them the Canaanites, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites appears only after Joshua arrives at Gilgal and before the conquest of Jericho.^[12] This angel, called "captain of the Lord's host," reveals himself to Joshua by saying "Now I have come" (Josh. 5:14), which means: now that I have arrived, the time of the conquest of the Land of Canaan has come. This same angel later goes up from Gilgal to the Bochim and admonishes Israel for not having destroyed the Canaanite altars (Judg. 2:1–4).

It is clear, then, that the realization of the promise of the Land of Canaan to the Israelites did not begin until Israel arrived at Gilgal. The territory of Transjordan was not included, at the outset, in the borders of the promise, and it was actually conquered only incidentally: because Sihon, the king of the Amorites, did not let the Israelites pass through his land on their way to the land of Canaan, they were obliged to fight him, and in this way his land was conquered and passed into the hands of Israel. With respect to the land of Og, king of the Bashan (Num. 21:33–35), it is evident that the relevant passage in the book of Numbers is an addition that was introduced under the influence of Deut. 3:1–3.^[13] The chance nature of the

[12] Exod. 23:20; 32:34; 33:2. Compare Exod. 14:19; Num. 20:16. The angel in its soteriological role is intentionally omitted from the book of Deuteronomy. Cf. my article, "The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents," in N. Lohfink, ed., Das Deuteronomium, Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (Leuven, 1985), p. 84.

[13] The Bashan is beyond the horizon of the traditions of the conquest in Num. 32 (for v. 42, cf. below). Moreover, the Bashan is included within the borders of the Promised Land according to Num. 34, which means that its conquest cannot be considered random, like the conquering of the land of Sihon. Cf. Z. Kallai, "Conquest and Settlement of Trans-Jordan: A Historiographical Study," ZDPV 99 (1983), pp. 110–18.

Concerning the influence of Deut. 3:1–3, cf. A. Dillmann, Numeri , Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament (Leipzig, 1886), pp. 133–34; S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy ICC (Edinburgh), 1902,pp. 46–47. The idioms in this passage are of a Deuteronomic character, especially "that no survivor was left," which is characteristic of Deuteronomic descriptions of the conquest. Cf. my book, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford 1972), p. 344.

conquest of Transjordan is made clear in Num. 32: when the Reubenites and the Gadites ask to settle in Transjordan, their request is something of a surprise to Moses, who considers it a sin equal in weight to the sin of the spies (Num. 32:20–22).

In fact, the whole tradition about the settlement in Transjordan in Num. 32 is apologetic,^[14] attempting to justify the settlement of the tribes on the eastern side of the Jordan by proving that the Gadites and the Reubenites actually fought with the rest of the tribes on the western side and were therefore allowed to settle on the eastern side. Only after they had committed themselves to go to war "before the Lord" (Num. 32:20–22)—in other words, at the place in which the tabernacle is located, on the western side of the Jordan—were they granted permission to build their cities in Gilead and to leave their families and herds there. Actually, Gilead was settled primarily by immigrants from the tribes of Manasseh (see below) and Ephraim,^[15] and Num. 32 serves as a kind of legitimization of this settlement outside the borders of the Promised Land. Although the Gadites and the Reubenites did settle at a very early stage in the southern part of Transjordan,^[16] the major settlement in Gilead, which is the heart of Transjordan,

[14] Cf. in this matter S. E. Loewenstamm "The Settlement of Gad and Reuben as related in Num. 32:1–38—Background and Composition," From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible and Its Oriental Background (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 109–30.

[15] Num. 32:39–42. Cf. Judg. 12:4 ff.; 2 Sam. 18:6: "the forest of Ephraim."

[16] The Reubenites were a nomadic tribe, as we learn from 1 Chron. 5:9–10: "He [Reuben] dwelt to the east as far as the fringe of the wilderness . . . and they occupied their tents throughout all the region east of Gilead." They maintained the institution of the nasi '^[*] until the days of their exile, in the days of Tiglath-pileser III (1 Chron. 5:6).

took place after the conquest of Cisjordan and was something of a new colony of the motherland in the west.^[17]

The father-founder (oikist )^[18] of the colony in Gilead, which in its broad sense included all the territory of the tribes settled in Transjordan,^[19] was Machir, the son of Manasseh.^[20] In the Song of Deborah, Machir appears in the region between Ephraim and Benjamin in the south and Zebulun and Issachar in the north (Judg. 5:14); this region corresponds to the territory of the tribe of Manasseh on the western side of the Jordan.

It is clear, then, that Machir migrated to the eastern side of the river not long before the period of Deborah in the middle of the twelfth century B.C.E.^[21] There were Gileadites in Transjordan while Machir was still on the western side of the Jordan (Judg. 5:14, 17), but they became part of the federation of the twelve tribes only after affiliating with Machir-Manasseh. The tradition about the dwelling of the tribe of Gad in Gilead does not date as far back as this period; if it did, we would expect to find Gad, not Gilead, mentioned next to Reuben (Judg. 5:15–17). It should be noted that with the single exception of Gilead, all the ethnic groups in the Song of Deborah are designated by

[17] On the relationship of Gad to Gilead and the settlement of Gad in Transjordan, with a discussion of "the land of Gad and Gilead" in 1 Sam. 13, cf. M. Noth, "Gilead and Gad," ZDPV 75 (1959), pp. 14–73.

[18] On the colonization pattern in ancient Greece and in Israel, see above, Chapter 2.

[19] Deut. 34:1; Josh. 22:9, 15; 2 Kings 10:33. For a discussion of Gilead in all its aspects, cf. N. Ottosson, Gilead: Tradition and History (Lund, 1969).

[20] Num. 26:29; 27:1; 36:1; Josh. 17:1, et al.

[21] In the opinion of Y. Aharoni, "Machir was the strongest family in the northern part of Mount Ephraim and only upon the migration of most of the family to Transjordan did the name of Manasseh ascend to the head of the western tribe. Machir became the patriarch of Gilead and due to its being the strongest family the rest of the families and clans of Gilead claimed descent from it over time." "The Settlement and the Inheritance," in B. Mazar, ed., The History of the People of Israel 2, The Patriarchs and the Judges (Jerusalem, 1967), p. 216 (Hebrew).

their tribal name: Ephraim, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Naftali, and Asher.

This situation is reflected in the story of Jephthah (Judg. 11), in which "the Gilead" designates both a land of origin and a people (Jephthah, the Gileadite), as well as a region.^[22] Perhaps part of the Reubenite tribe also originated in Cisjordan, because Reubenite tribal names, such as Carmi, Hezron, and Bela, are found in the genealogical lists of Judah and Benjamin, while "the stone of Bohan, son of Reuben" is located not in the territory of the tribe of Reuben, as might be expected, but rather in the territory of Judah (Josh. 15:6, 18:17). In any case, there is ample evidence that Transjordan was settled by immigrants from Cisjordan;^[23] in addition to Machir from the tribe of Manasseh, Ephraimite tribesmen also established colonies there.

Moreover, in the ancient accounts of the establishment of settlements in Transjordan by the Israelites,^[24] a clear typology of colonization, as we have seen in the Greek tradition (see Chapter 1) reveals the following elements: (1) departing: "he went" (hlk ); (2) conquering the territory: "he captured it" (lkd ); (3) building a settlement: "he built a city" (bnh ); (4) naming the place after the conqueror or settler (qr' sm^[*] ): "The descendants of Machir . . . went to Gilead and captured it; "Jair, son of Manasseh, went and captured  . . . and he renamed them Havvothjair"; "And Nobah went and captured Kenath and its dependencies, renaming it Nobah after himself"; "The Gadites . . . and the Reubenites built  . . . and they gave names to towns they built" (Num. 32:34–42). The language of this story is similar

[22] Note Mizpeh of Gilead (Judg. 11:29), as opposed to Josh. 13:26, where the name "Mizpeh" is associated with the tribe of Gad.

[23] On the various traditions regarding Reuben, Gilead-Gad and Manasseh-Machir, cf. R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel (London, 1978), pp. 551 ff.

[24] On the antiquity of these lists and their similarity to the lists in Judg. 1, cf. G. B. Gray, Numbers , ICC, (Edinburgh, 1903), pp. 439 ff. Compare especially Judg. 1:26: "The man went . . . founded a city . . . and named it."

to that used to describe the settlement of the Danites in the north: "they built the city . . . settled in it and called its name Dan" (cf. above, pp. 34–35).

Settlement east of the Jordan, then, was considered secondary and therefore was not apportioned along with land on the western side by the casting of lots before the Lord at Shiloh (Josh. 14–19). Indeed, the eastern side of the Jordan is regarded in the ancient sources as an "impure land" that was not included in the inheritance of the Lord (Josh. 22:19). The Rabbis also saw in the conquest of Transjordan an act that had not received the a priori approval of God: with respect to the verse "you shall take some of every first fruit of the soil, which you harvest from the land that the Lord your God is giving you," Rabbi Simeon says, "Except Transjordan, which you took by yourself."^[25]

The negation of the national-religious status of Transjordan finds expression in Josh. 22, a chapter of a priestly author, who delineates the borders of the Land without Transjordan (Num. 34:1–12). In Josh. 22:11–12, the Israelite tribes that are affiliated with the Tabernacle at Shiloh in Mt. Ephraim are appalled at the sight of the altar erected in Transjordan;^[26] they condemn its builders as traitors and rebels, and they even invite the Transjordanian tribes to abandon their "impure" inheritance to cross over and acquire holdings "in the land of the Lord's own holding," wherein dwells the Tabernacle of the Lord (in Shiloh).^[27]

[25] Deuteronomy 26:2; Sifrei Deuteronomy 299.

[26] In the opinion of B. Mazar, in his article "Biblical Archaeology Today: The Historical Aspect," Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress of Biblical Archaeology: Jerusalem, April 1984 (Jerusalem, 1985), p. 17, the altar in question is the altar erected by the Transjordanian tribes in Adam the City (Tel ed-Damiyeh^[*] ), which is at the fords of the Jordan; compare "the tent He set up at Adam" in Ps. 78:60, and cf. above, p. 45.

[27] Cf. vv. 16–19. The passage in Ps. 78–60 says: "He forsook the tabernacle at Shiloh, the tent He had set up at Adam"; if that is the case, it means that the two centers in the north, the one east of the Jordan in Adamthe City and the one west of the Jordan in Shiloh, were both abandoned by God.

The priests of Shiloh, in whose circles the Israelite Priestly Code originated,^[28] conceived of the boundaries of the land of Canaan in accordance with boundaries accepted in the Egyptian empire on the eve of the Israelite conquest; in other words, the land of Canaan as given to Israel encompasses the same boundaries as the province of Canaan that had been delineated beforehand under the rule of Egypt. Just as God took the Israelites out of Egypt, so he took away the land of Canaan from the hand of Egypt and gave it to Israel.^[29] Therefore, "the land of Canaan with its boundaries" ('rs kn'n lgbltyh^[*] ) in Num. 34 corresponds to the land of Canaan as it was in the days of the Egyptian empire. This view, endorsed by the tribes of Israel, did not change after the two and a half tribes settled in Transjordan; the priests of Shiloh, who saw in the land of Canaan without Transjordan the portion cast by lot before the Lord at Shiloh,^[30] were not willing to compromise in this matter, despite other, more popular views in which—as we shall see—Transjordan was considered an inseparable part of the original inheritance of Israel. Thus, in contrast to the tradition that identifies Penuel in Transjordan as the place where the God of Israel was revealed to Jacob and his name was changed to Israel (Gen. 32:25–33), the priestly tradition relates that the revelation to Jacob, as well as the changing of his name took place not in Penuel but in Beth-el, on the western side of the Jordan (Gen. 35:1–15; cf. above, p. 46).