8—
Joshua 2–11:
The Conquest under the Leadership of the House of Joseph
Joshua does not appear in the description of the conquest in Judg. 1,[29] but in the block of stories in Josh. 2–11 he appears as the leader from the tribe of Ephraim[30] who is
[29] On the introduction "After the death of Joshua" in Judg. 1:1, see section 1 of this chapter.
[30] Num. 13:8; 1 Chron. 7:27; Josh. 19:49; 24:29–30; Judg. 2:9.
responsible for the entire conquest. Whereas the Judean tradition in Judg. 1 was interested in relating the entire conquest to Judah, the writer of Josh. 2–11 is interested in relating the conquest to the house of Joseph and to its leader Joshua. The house of Joseph, which dwelt in the center of the land of Israel, was numerous and powerful (see Deut. 33:17), so it is not surprising that their leader succeeded in being transformed into the central hero of the conquest, even though his actual sphere of activity is concentrated in the region of the Ephraimite hill country. In an early tribal tradition, Josh. 17:17–18, it is Joshua who acquired an inheritance for the house of Joseph and, through victory in the Aijalon Valley (Josh. 10:9–14), secured authority over the hill country of Ephraim as far as Azekah in the Elah Valley (see below). Moreover, Josh. 19:50 preserves a very ancient tradition about a personal act of Joshua that was tied to the hill country of Ephraim: the building of the city Timnath Serah/Heres[*] in this region. As Y. Kaufmann perceived,[31] we have here a reliable historical event that may serve as evidence that Joshua actually founded a city in the hill country of Ephraim,[32] a city remembered because his grave was preserved there (Josh. 24:30; cf. Judg. 2:9), a suggestion of the great importance attached to graves of leaders who established settlements and headed cities.[33] Timnath Serah/Heres was a habitation apparently located in Mount Heres[*] ,[34] where accord-
[31] In his commentary to Joshua 19:50.
[32] "He built the city and dwelt in it"; cf. the verse on the settlement of the Danites in Judg. 18:27–29, "They built the city and dwelt in it," and cf. Josh. 19:47. See also the term "build" (bnh ) in connection with settlement in Judg. 1:26, and also in the passages in Num. 32:24 ff. See above, pp. 48 f., 62 f.
[33] On this matter, see, recently, I. Malkin, Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece (Leiden, 1988), pp. 189 ff.
[34] See Z. Kallai, "Timnath-heres[*] ," Encyclopedia Miqra'it[*] , vol. 8, pp. 602–03. According to B. Mazar the reading Timnath-Serah[*] is preferable. He connects this with Serah the daughter of Asher, who like Beriah, son of Asher, settled in the hill country of Ephraim (1 Chron. 7:30 ff.). SeeB. Mazar, Canaan and Israel: Historical Essays (Jerusalem, 1976), p. 112, n. 56.
ing to Judg. 1:35 Amorites dwelt in early times; later, it was ruled by the house of Joseph. Joshua's expulsion of the Amorite kings from the Ephraimite hill country leads us to postulate that his victory is at the bottom of this notice of how the house of Joseph seized power in the area (and see Chapter 2).
Northern priestly traditions also connect Joshua to a particular holy place in the hill country of Ephraim, that is, Shiloh. According to these traditions, Joshua divided the land into inheritances for the tribes at Shiloh, in partnership with Eleazar the priest.[35] Similarly, he sought Eleazar's counsel before going forth to battle (Num. 27:19–23; and see Chapter 2). Joshua, the leader from the house of Joseph, received prophetic legitimation for his activities at the Shiloh sanctuary in the hill country of Ephraim. It is worth noting that alongside the tradition about the tomb of Joshua in Timnath Serah/Heres[*] (Josh. 19:50; 24:30; Judg. 2:9), we find another tradition concerning a grave in the Ephraimite hill country, that of Eleazar, son of Aaron, the priest, in Gibeah of Phinehas. (Josh. 24:33). Interestingly, we also find a tradition in Greece about the grave of a founder that is near the grave of the prophetic priest who aided him (see Chapter 2). The Israelite traditions apparently can be traced to Shiloh, because the tabernacle of Shiloh was understood in the priestly tradition as the place where Joshua and Eleazar the priest divided up the land by lot "before YHWH" (Josh. 18:1–10; 19:51); According to these traditions, Phinehas, son of Eleazar, continued to serve as priest in the Shiloh sanctuary after the death of Joshua (Josh. 22:9–34)
[35] Num. 34:17; Josh. 14:1; 17:4; 19:51; 21:1. One should note that these verses were attached to the traditions at a later stage (see Auld, Joshua (n. 20), 53 ff.) and reflect additions from priestly sources. Yet this does not indicate the time of the basic tradition about Joshua and Eleazar at Shiloh. This tradition was certainly not invented after the destruction, even if it was added to the verses in a late period.
and served before the ark of the covenant at Bethel (Judg. 20:28), which was also in the Ephraimite hill country.[36]
These priestly traditions, which are interested not in descriptions of war but rather in description of parceling out and dividing the land, constitute an important link in the history of the tribes' settlement in the land of Israel. They recount matters that are not reported at all in the other traditions about the conquest, such as the role of prophecy in the settlement, the determination of the central sacral site, and the division of the land by lot for the various tribes. These matters are also known from the world of Greek colonization (see Chapter 2).
The Greek parallels indicate that the priestly traditions about the settlement in the Pentateuch and book of Joshua are not late theological speculations but are anchored in and bound to the reality of the actual process of making new settlements in antiquity, particularly in the eastern basin of the Mediterranean after the collapse of the kingdoms at the end of the thirteenth century B.C.E. As we saw above, (Chapter 2), the Sea peoples who sought to settle in the area operated by methods similar to those employed by the Israelite tribes in their settlement of the land of Canaan.
Other traditions in the book of Joshua connect the tribe of Ephraim, and its leader Joshua, to Shechem in the Ephraimite hill country (Josh. 21:21).[37] According to Josh. 24:25, Joshua made a covenant with the people in Shechem and set for them "statutes and ordinances" (hoq umispat[*] ), and according to the tradition of the Deuteronomistic stratum in Josh. 8:30–35 Joshua built an altar to YHWH there (on Mt. Ebal) and conducted the ceremony of blessing and cursing. It should be noted that Shechem controlled all the mountain area from the
[36] On the attempt to find traces of this tradition in the addition in the LXX to Josh. 24:28–33, see A. Rofé, "The End of the Book of Joshua According to the Septuagint," Shnaton 2 (1977), pp. 217–27 (Hebrew).
[37] "The Mount of Ephraim" includes the entire central area of the land of Israel and thus encompasses Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin. See Kallai, Geography (n. 21), 47.
Jezreel Valley to the lowland of Judah in the period before the settlement of the Israelites.[38] Thus, if Joshua seized power over the hill country of Ephraim, it is possible that he entered Shechem, too, though it should be admitted that we do not know when or how the Israelites penetrated Shechem because the Bible does not preserve a tradition about a battle in this city.[39] It seems that the Israelites succeeded in making a treaty with the inhabitants of the place,[40] similar to the treaty they made with the Gibeonites. As we have indicated above (Chapter 2), the tradition about the penetration of the Hebrews into Shechem appears to be ancient.
Next to Shechem was an ancient sacred site at which the tribes of Israel would gather for religious ceremonies. Joshua, who achieved such great victories in the hill country of Ephraim, conducted these assemblies, according to the tradition, a role that made him like a "judge," who acquired a central position after his victory in battle (Judg. 8:27 ff.; 11:6). In any event, it seems that the descriptions of Joshua's activity at Shechem in Josh. 8:30–35; 24 are motivated by the late national tradition about Shechem's place in the history of Israel (cf., for example, Gen. 12:6–7; 33:18–20), and that their origin is in a desire to connect Joshua to an important city that was, in the words of A. Alt, "the uncrowned queen of the land of Israel."[41] The Deuteronomist attributed to Joshua the setting up of an altar at Mt. Ebal and the writing of a "copy of the instruction of Moses" on stones there, in agreement with Deut. 27:1–8, whereas the tradition in Josh. 24:1–28, presupposing that he stood at the head of a federation of twelve
[38] See recently on this matter, N. Na'aman[*] , "Society and Culture in the Late Bronze Age," in I. Eph'al[*] , ed., The History of Eretz Israel 1 (Jerusalem, 1982), p. 216 (Hebrew).
[39] There is no description of the conquest of Shechem, and the name of the king of Shechem is lacking in the list of thirty-one kings in Josh. 12.
[40] See H. Reviv, "Governmental Authority in Shechem in the Period of El Amarna and the Time of Abimelech," Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society (Yediot ) 27 (1963–64), pp. 270–75.
[41] "Jerusalems Aufstieg." KS 3, p. 246.
tribes, attributed to him the making of a covenant with the people of Shechem. Actually, the covenant at Shechem and the setting up of an altar and stones there represent the entrance to the promised land, analogous to the setting up of the stone at Gilgal in Josh. 3–4. The erection of stones at Gilgal by Joshua is actually a tradition that rivals that of setting up an altar of stones at Mt. Ebal.[42]
From a typological perspective, the traditions of Shechem and Gilgal are foundation legends (Greek ktisis ),[43] which recount the establishment of Israel in its land as accompanied by impressive religious ceremonies.[44] The Pentateuchal literature deals with the establishment of the people before they came to the land of Israel, at Sinai and the Plain of Moab, so we find similar accompanying ceremonies there.[45] However, as Bin-Gorion recognized in his book,[46] the Sinai covenant and that of Shechem traditions compete with one another. The tradition in Josh. 24 is totally ignorant of the Sinai covenant made by Moses (Exod. 24), and sets up in its place the covenant at Shechem made by Joshua (v. 25). Joshua established "statutes and ordinances" in Shechem and wrote down a "book of God's instruction" (spr twrt 'lhym[*] ; v. 26), much as Moses did at Sinai (Exod. 24:3–7; and see above, p. 110).
[42] According to M. Haran, the story about Gilgal belongs to the Yahwist source, while the story about Mt. Ebal belongs to the Elohist source; in both of the stories, altars of stone were erected. See his article "Shechem Studies," Zion 38 (1973), pp. 13 ff. (Hebrew).
[43] J. Licht dealt with this matter in "The Biblical Claim about the Foundation," Shnaton 4 (1980), pp. 98 ff. (Hebrew), but he is referring to the establishment of Israel in the Plains of Moab (Deut. 26:16; 27:9–10).
[44] See Chapter 2.
[45] The foundation ceremony in the Plains of Moab, in which it is proclaimed "this day you have become a people to YHWH your God" (Deut. 27:9), is tied there actually with the ceremony at mounts Gerizim and Ebal. The covenant at the Plains of Moab, in my opinion, mixes "foundation" in the wilderness with a "foundation" in the land. Compare the erection of the twelve pillars at Sinai (Exod. 24:4) to the erection of the twelve stones at Gilgal.
[46] Sinai und Garizim (Berlin. 1926).
The block of chapters 2–10 in the book of Joshua tells us about the tradition of the sanctuary at Gilgal and its connection with Joshua. The scene of the wars in this section is the inheritance of Benjamin (Gilgal, Jericho, Ai, and Gibeon). The place that served there as the deployment site for war was Gilgal (9:6; 10:6, 15, 43; cf. 14:6). Scholars have assumed that the sanctuary at Gilgal is the place where the stories in this group of chapters were created,[47] a reasonable assumption. The upper boundary chronologically for the formation of this sort of string of stories is the period of King Saul, and we might note a number of indications that link this block of stories with Saul or the time of Saul. (1) Saul, of Benjaminite origin, was made a king in the sanctuary of Gilgal (1 Sam. 11:14–15) and operated mainly at this sanctuary (13:12–18; 15:12). (2) Only when the Israelite tribes were unified politically for royal rule was it likely that a desire arose to concretize in written tradition the national epic of the conquest of the land by one leader. (3) The zeal of king Saul, who, "by his zeal for the Israelites and Judah" (2 Sam. 21:2 ff.), plotted against the Amorites inhabiting the land, corresponds to the idea of herem[*] ("ban") expressed vigorously in the story about the conquest of Jericho and the deed of Achan. The type of herem used against Jericho in Josh.—"men and women, young and old, and cattle, flock animals, asses, by the sword" (v. 21)—brings to mind the herem that Saul was commanded to carry out in 1 Sam. 15:3 and in Saul's ban against Nob, the priestly city, in 1 Sam. 22:19: "men and women, children and infants, cattle, asses, and flock animals, by the sword" (see Chapter 4). (4) The description of presenting the tribes in order to determine the guilty party by lot (Urim and Thummin) is congruent with the description of inquiring of YHWH in 1 Sam. 14:40 ff. in connection with Saul and Jonathan. (5) The central place of the ark of the covenant in Josh. 3, 4, and 6 indicates that these stories were
[47] M. Noth, Josua , HAT (Tübingen, 1953), pp. 12 ff.; cf. also J. A. Soggin, Joshua , OTL (London, 1972), pp. 10 ff.
crystalized in a period when the ark of the covenant of YHWH was used to accompany warriors to battle. (6) Is it possible to suppose that the description of the Gibeonites, who tricked Israel by their request to make a treaty (Josh. 9:3–18), has its source in the house of Saul and seeks to justify Saul's breach of the treaty (2 Sam. 21)?
Even if the consolidation of these stories in Joshua cannot be attributed to the period of Saul, the events described therein clearly occurred in the region of the land of Benjamin and have a special connection with Gilgal. If so, their place of creation is likely in the land of Benjamin. The fact that Achan, the troubler of Israel, is from the tribe of Judah probably testifies to the antagonism toward Judah in these stories (Josh. 7:1, 18).
We will try now to track traditions of the conquest in Josh. 2–11. Chapter 2, which opens with the description of Joshua sending out spies, probably reflects a reliable historical event. Sending out men for reconnaissance was a widespread phenomenon in the east.[48] Moreover, a prostitute's or innkeeper's house was the accustomed place for meeting with spies, conspirators, and the like. Thus, for example, we read in Hammurabi Code: "If scoundrels plot together [in conspiratorial relationships][49] in an innkeeper's house, and she does not seize them and bring them to the palace, that innkeeper shall be put to death" (law § 109). In a Mari letter we read about two men who sow fear and panic and cause rebellion in an army.[50] Also, the pattern of a three-day stay in an area when pursuing escapees has support in ancient eastern sources; for example, the
[48] The spies at Mari are called "men of tongue," awile[*] sa[*] lisanim[*] . We also find in the descriptions of an Egyptian battle on the walls of a sanctuary two spies who are beaten to make them reveal the place of the "vanquished leader of the Hittites"; see H. J. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt 3 (New York, 1906), pp. 329–30.
[49] ittarkasu is from the root rakasu[*] = "bind." Like the Hebrew qsr[*] , it has a sense of physical binding and another sense of treacherous conspiracy; cf. Ps. 31:21.
[50] See J. M. Sasson, The Military Establishments at Mari (Rome, 1969), pp. 39 ff.
instructions to the Hittite tower commanders specify that if an enemy invades a place he must be pursued for three days. In the same collection of instructions we find that it is forbidden to build an inn (arzana )[51] in which prostitutes live near the fortress wall, apparently because of the kind of danger described in Josh. 2. Rahab's method of hiding the spies has a parallel in the story of hiding Jonathan and Ahimaaz in 2 Sam. 17:19–20. Moreover, we find that letting down an endangered person through a window, in the story about David and Michal in 1 Sam. 19:12, is similar to the story in Joshua 2. In ancient Greek literature we read about a whore in whose memory a sanctuary of Aphrodite was dedicated, after she helped an enemy escape outside a wall.[52] All these bits of evidence indicate that the story about Rahab has a firm foundation in reality, that the city was conquered by stratagem,[53] much as in Judg. 1:22–26, and that the continuation of the story about the real conquest of Jericho was cut short, to make room for a miraculous and supernatural story (Josh. 6). There is some tension between the story in chapter 2 and the legendary description of the conquest of Jericho in chapter 6. According to 2:15, Rahab is dwelling in the wall structure, whereas 6:20 says that despite the wall having fallen, Rahab was removed from her house (v. 22 ff.). Similarly, it is difficult to understand the reason for sending the spies to Jericho if the
[51] See E. von Schuler, Hethistiche Dienstanweisungen (Osnabrück, 1957), p. 42, col. 1:15–16; p. 44, col. 2:27–28. For an explanation of the term arzana , see H. Hoffner, "The Arzana House" Anatolian Studies Presented to H. G. Güterbock (Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Institut in Het Nabije Oosten, 1974), pp. 113–21.
[52] On this story and similar stories in Greek and Roman literature, see H. Windisch, "Zur Rahabgeschichte (Zwei Parallelen aus der Klassischen Literatur)," ZAW 37 (1917–18), pp. 188 ff.; G. Hölscher, "Zum Ursprung der Rahabsage," ZAW 38 (1919–20), pp. 54 ff.; S. Wagner, "Die Kundschaftergeschichten in Alten Testament," ZAW 76 (1964), pp. 255 ff.
[53] Also see, recently, A. Malamat, Israel in Biblical Times (Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 69–72 (Hebrew).
walls were simply going to fall down miraculously anyway. And Josh. 24:11 says that the nobles of Jericho fought with Israel, a datum that does not fit with the story in chapter 6.
In light of all this, it is reasonable to think that at one time the story about the spies at Jericho existed by itself, like the story about the reconnaissance mission of the Josephites at Bethel (Judg. 1:22–26), and that only later the spy story was tied to Joshua and all of Israel, and the tradition about the miraculous conquest of the city came into being. Encircling the city with the ark of the Covenant accompanied by horn blasts came from a liturgical ceremony that was customary at Gilgal.[54]
The conquest of Ai and the story about the herem[*] of Achan (chaps. 7–8) have some basis in reality, but archaeological discoveries make clear that in the period of the Israelite conquest there was no Canaanite settlement in Ai and that it remained desolate for hundreds of years before the period of the conquest. The Israelite settlement began only in the second half of the twelfth century B.C.E. It is possible, then, that the story reflects a local battle of Israelites with a weak Canaanite settlement (cf. Josh. 7:3), and that later the battle was attached to the wars of conquest.[55]
The story about the pact with the Gibeonites and the war with the five Amorite kings (chaps. 9–10) reflects one of the important events in the period of the conquest. The area north of Jerusalem as far as Beth-Horon belonged to the land of Jerusalem, as we learn from letter #290 from el-Amarna, which says that Bit Ninurta = Beth-Horon, "the city of the land of Jerusalem," joined with the Habiru[*] people, that is, it
[54] The celebration of the Passover at Gilgal in Josh. 5 is also anchored in a ceremony in which the event of the exodus from Egypt is dramatized in the sanctuary of Gilgal. See on this matter Soggin, Joshua (n. 47), pp. 54 ff. and bibliography.
[55] See J. A. Callaway, "New Evidence on the Conquest of 'Ai[*] ," JBL 87 (1968), pp. 312 ff.
rebelled against Jerusalem.[56] In view of this, the Gibeonite treaty with the Israelites, which was formed later in the period of the conquest, must have further endangered the position of the king of Jerusalem; he therefore organized a coalition of five Amorite kings and went out to fight against the Gibeonites and the Israelites. The battle in the Aijalon Valley brought a crushing defeat for the king of Jerusalem and those who had made a pact with him (Josh. 10:8–14). Through this battle, dominion over the hill country of Ephraim was assured by the Israelites. We can imagine that over the years, the victory in the Aijalon Valley magnified Joshua's reputation among the Israelite tribes and transformed him into the conqueror of the land of Canaan (see above).
The pericope about the covenant with the Gibeonites undoubtedly reflects a real event, as we learn from the story in 2 Sam. 21:1–6, but whether Joshua actually participated in making this treaty is in doubt. A priestly tradition inserted in Josh. 9 says that the chieftains of the congregation (nsy'y h'dh[*] ), not Joshua, made the treaty.[57] (vv. 15, 21). Also, we need to remember that Gibeon belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, not Ephraim.
In contrast to the story about the battle in the Aijalon Valley, which reflects an actual event, the story about the conquest of Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir (Josh. 10:28–39) belongs to a later editorial stratum; its description is stereotypical[58] and full of Deuteronomistic for-
[56] See Z. Kallai and H. Tadmor, "Bit[*] Ninurta" (ch. 5, n. 34), pp. 138 ff.
[57] See what I have written on this issue in "Review Article on Gibeon and Israel , by J. Blenkinsopp," IEJ 26 (1976), pp. 62–63.
[58] It is not a description of a real event, but rather a schema built on (1) capture, (2) smiting by the sword, and (3) putting under ban and not leaving a remnant (which is formulated in the style of Deuteronomy): "and they captured it . . . smote it . . . and all living creatures . . . he did not leave anyone alive."
mulas, and it contradicts the early traditions about the conquest of Hebron and Debir by Caleb and Othniel ben-Kenaz (see above, p. 128 f.). If authentic information has been preserved in the story,[59] it reflects later battles of the tribe of Judah with the cities of the region,[60] and not Joshua's campaign at Aijalon. Needless to say, Josh. 10:40–43 is an editorial summary, which extrapolated from the battle in the Aijalon Valley the conquest of the entire south.
As for the story about the war at the Waters of Merom and the conquest of Hazor in Josh. 11, one must note that archaeological excavations at Hazor lead to the unambiguous conclusion that the city was destroyed at the end of the thirteenth century B.C.E. , the period of the Israelite settlement.[61] Nevertheless when the passage about the war at the Waters of Merom is compared to the story of the war of Deborah and Barak (Judg. 4–5), many difficulties are apparent. Some scholars claim that the war with Sisera preceded that of the Waters of Merom,[62] and that Hazor fell only after the break-
[59] The verse "then Horam the king of Gezer went up to help Lachish" (v. 33) is taken apparently from an earlier source, since archival material generally begins by "then" ('az[ *] ), as in Akkadian introductions (ina ume[*] ). See J. A. Montgomery, "Archival Data in the Book of Kings," JBL 53 (1934), pp. 49–52, and recently, M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, "Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser in the Book of Kings: Historiographic Considerations," Eretz-Israel 14 (1978), p. 56.
[60] Lachish was destroyed in the twelfth and not the thirteenth century B.C.E. ; see D. Ussishkin, "Excavations at Tel Lachish 1978–1983: Second Preliminary Report," Tel-Aviv 10 (1983), pp. 92–175. According to N. Na'aman[*] the basic description in Josh. 10 about the king of Jerusalem who stands at the head of a pact of southern kingdoms "is not consistent with what we know from the documents. It is not possible to suppose that Jerusalem had the power to lead cities like Lachish and Eglon"; "Society and Culture" (n. 38), p. 220. But this view can be contested.
[61] See Y. Yadin, Hazor (Oxford, 1972), pp. 9 ff., 131 ff.
[62] See B. Mazar, "The Exodus from Egypt and the Conquest of the Land," The History of the People of Israel 2, The Patriarchs and the Judges , pp. 198–99; and Malamat, Israel (n. 53), pp. 221–22; also see Aharoni, Land (n. 2), pp. 220 ff.
down of the Canaanite military order in the Jezreel Valley. The association of Hazor's destruction with Joshua is then a tendentious creation of the writer of chapters 2–11 in the book of Joshua.[63]
In light of all this, it would appear that the settlement of the tribes in the land of Israel took quite a long time, and that only after they became numerous and powerful did they succeed in exercising dominion over most of the area. The Canaanite cities on the coast and in the valleys maintained their status as independent cities until the time of David. The block of traditions in Josh. 2–11 came into being, then, out of a desire to ascribe to Joshua all the wars of conquest, even though in terms of actual historical development these wars occurred over the period of many generations.
As we already hinted, the aim of these stories was to immortalize the impressive national experience of the conquest of the land of Canaan under Joshua's leadership, which in actuality had constituted the beginnings of the establishment of Israel in its land. The wonders and miracles adduced here echo the events of the exodus from Egypt: crossing the Jordan on dry ground (chaps. 3–4); the revelation of the chief of YHWH's army to Joshua (5:13–15); and the victory when Joshua stretches out the javelin in his hand toward the city and does not draw his hand back, which brings to mind the victory when Moses holds up his hands (8:18, 26; cf. Exod. 17:11). Like Moses, Joshua sends out spies, performs a Passover (Josh.
[63] The description of the battle as it appears before us, the Canaanite pursuit "to Sidon the Great up to Misrephoth on the west, and to the Valley of Mizpah on the east" (Josh. 11:8), does not predate the united kingdom because the geographic scope here fits the territorial scope of the united kingdom. See Z. Kallai, "The Boundaries of Canaan and the Land of Israel in the Bible: Territorial Models in Biblical Historiography," Eretz-Israel 12 (N. Glueck volume, 1975), pp. 27–34 (Hebrew); also N. Na'aman[*] , "The Inheritances of the Cis-Jordanian Tribes of Israel and the 'Land That Yet Remaineth,'" Eretz-Israel 16 (H. M. Orlinsky volume, 1982), pp. 154 ff. (Hebrew).
5:2–12), organizes covenant ceremonies (8:30–35; cf. 24:26, where Joshua writes in a book of God's Torah), and more. The ark of the covenant plays an honored part in these stories: it passes before the Israelites when they cross the Jordan (chaps. 3–4) and accompanies them when they encircle the walls of Jericho (chap. 7). These data show that the entrance of the Israelites into the promised land was performed according to all the rules of holiness, and that God was with them in their battles (10:14). As we suggested above, it seems that in the days of Saul all these events were identified with the sanctuary at Gilgal, with the liturgical ceremonies that appear in these chapters serving to tie the exodus from Egypt to the conquest of the promised land.
The stories, religio-educational in character, were made concrete in the eyes of the reader by an etiological motif that accompanied each of them. The stories at Gilgal are put forth "for a memorial to the Israelites forever" (Josh. 4:7), since it was here that the Israelites crossed the Jordan. The circumcision that enabled the people to celebrate the passover (cf. Exod. 12:43–48) explains the name Gilgal (Josh. 5:9); the conquest of Jericho is immortalized by the sight of destroyed walls, and the breach of herem[*] , by the pile of stones in the valley of Achor (7:24–26). The treaty with the Gibeonites is rendered concrete by the existence of hewers of wood and drawers of water at the sanctuary (9:27), and the cave at Makkedah and the trees near it bring to mind the war with the Amorite kings (10:26–28). This invocation of etiology does not imply that the stories were invented for the purpose of etiological explanation, as a few scholars have claimed, because it is merely secondary, used only to add extra power to a tradition that already exists.[64] The goal of the stories was to
[64] See the articles of I. L. Seeligmann, "Aetiological Elements in Biblical Historiography," Zion 26 (1960–61), pp. 141–61 (Hebrew), and B. S. Childs, "A Study of the Formula 'Until this Day,'" JBL 82 (1963), pp. 279–92. Also see J. Bright, Early Israel in Recent History Writing (London, 1956), pp. 79 ff.
make the religious experience tangible and real, and to make it a didactic tool of great power, as is expressed clearly in the "children's question" ("and when your children ask") in Josh. 4:6–7, 21–24. Indeed, the "children's question" appears in a similar form in stories of the exodus from Egypt in the Torah (Exod. 12:26;[65] 13:14), the goal of which is to impart national education by means of the Passover ceremony. The exodus from Egypt and the entrance to the promised land were, then, a basis for educating the younger generation, and the two events together were actualized in rites: the first by the Passover offering and the second by the procession of the ark at Gilgal.