Introduction
The fate of the land is the focal point of Biblical historiography. Beginning with the patriarchal stories in Genesis and ending with the destruction of Jerusalem in the book of Kings, the historiography of Israel hinges upon the land. The patriarchal stories envision the promise of the Land to Israel, and the remainder of the Pentateuch—the Exodus, the giving of the Law at Sinai and at the Plains of Moab, and the wanderings in the desert—describe a kind of preparation for the entrance into the Land. The historiography of the books of Joshua through Kings was motivated by a need to answer three questions: Why did the Israelites not conquer the Land in its ideal borders? (Compare Josh. 1:1–4 with Josh. 23:4–5, 13; Judg. 2:11–3:4.) Why was the northern land taken away from the Israelites (2 Kings 17:1–23)? And what was the cause of the fall of Jerusalem (2 Kings 21:11–15)? In this study I attempt to consider all the aspects of the theme of inheritance of the land of Israel: literary, historical, geographical, ideological, and theological.
This investigation begins with the issue of the promise of the land in the patriarchal narratives. As we shall see, the story of the settlement of the Israelite tribes in the land of Canaan unfolds in two stages: a first stage telling us about the first ancestor who leaves his homeland with his family to reach the new destined land, and a second stage, which takes place hundreds of years later, depicting the settlement by descen-
dants of the first ancestor in the destined land. In both stages we find rival traditions both about the location of the events and about the identity of the national hero under whom the events take shape. Thus, in the first stage we find two rival cycles of ancestral stories: the cycle of Abraham, which elevates the place of Hebron in the south as the site of the ancestor, and that of Jacob, which identifies Shechem and Bethel in the north as the sites of the first ancestor. Similarly, in the second stage we find competing claims with respect to Gilgal and Shechem as the place of the foundation ceremony when entering the promised land (compare Josh. 3–5 with Josh. 8:30–35). The traditions also vary in specifying the first settler and conqueror: the northern tradition adopts Joshua, the chieftain of Ephraim (Num. 13:8), as first settler and conqueror, whereas the Judahites adopt Caleb, the chieftain of Judah (Num. 13:6), as first settler and conqueror in the area of Hebron (Judg. 1:12–15, 20).
The first stage—the arrival of the first ancestor with his family—is dealt with in Chapter 1, while the second stage—the national enterprise of the settlement—is discussed in Chapter 2.
Both stages have parallels in the Greek pattern of colonization. The first stage, depicting the first ancestor as migrating with his family to a new land and bearing a mission of becoming a great nation and ruling other peoples (Gen. 12:2; 27:29), is clearly reflected in the Aeneid epic. This epic, as we shall see, is based on the Greek pattern of foundation of new sites. The second stage, too, parallels the Greek tradition in which a new colony is established by a group of settlers led by the hero-founder. And as in Israel, rival stories are told in Greece concerning the founding of a new city and the identity of its founder.
The basic elements common to Greek and Israelite settlement are as follows:
1. Consultation of the divine oracle before settlement.
2. Central role of the founder in the settlement.
3. Cooperation of the founder with a priest or seer who guides him.
4. Casting of the lot for division of the land.
5. Erection of pillars, stones, and altars in the new territory.
6. Commitment of the settlers to observe the laws of the deity.
7. Interpretation of the new land as given by divine promise.
Chapter 3 addresses two divergent biblical views concerning the extent of the promised land—the borders of the land of Israel. The priestly school, which originated in Shiloh, delineates borders that exclude Transjordan, south of the lake of Kineret (Num. 34), based on the borders of the Egyptian province of Canaan (during the thirteenth century B.C.E. ), which did not include Transjordan. This delineation contradicts the sources that describe the land of Israel as stretching from the river Euphrates to the River of Egypt (Gen. 15:18; compare Exod. 23:31; Deut. 1:7; 11:24; Ps. 72:8), including, of course, the territory of Transjordan. The more inclusive view was adopted by the Deuteronomic school, which sees the beginning of the conquest in the passage of the river Arnon in Transjordan, and not just in the passage of the Jordan.
Chapter 4 discusses the ban (herem[*] ) of the Canaanites that was a theoretical demand raised by the Deuteronomic school of the seventh century B.C.E. The older sources speak about expelling (grs[*] ) the Canaanites or dispossessing (hwrys[*] ) them, but never about exterminating (hrm[*] ) them. The genuine herem was an ad hoc institution that applied to specific cases of severe enmity involving fighting, such as at Arad (Num. 21:1–3), Jericho (Josh. 6:17), and Amaleq (1 Sam. 15). The Deuteronomic school, however, applied the herem theoretically to the
pre-Israelite population as a whole (Deut. 7:2; 20:17–18; Josh. 10:40–41, 11:12–15). In reality, the Canaanites were neither completely expelled nor exterminated, as may be deduced from Judg. 1:21–33 and 1 Kings 9:20–21.
Chapter 5 discusses the complex problem of how the Israelites conquered the land of Canaan: by sword, or by gradual, quiet infiltration? Apparently, one means does not exclude the other; the settlement started quietly, but as it expanded settlers became involved in clashes with the Canaanites. On the other hand, some assimilation did occur, as with the tribe of Judah, which expanded through symbiosis with the Calebites, Kenezites, and Yerachmelites.
Chapter 6 is devoted to various views concerning the campaign to conquer the land. According to the tradition of the house of Joseph and Benjamin (Josh. 2–11), the leader of the tribe of Ephraim was the one who led the campaign. In contrast, according to the tradition of Judah, the conquest was led by the tribe of Judah and Caleb the Kenezite (Judg. 1). The Joseph-Ephraimite tradition prevailed, as edited by scribes in accordance with Deuteronomic commands for the total annihilation (herem[*] ) of the Canaanites. In the view of these scribes the conquest is seen as a blitz campaign, in which Joshua and "all Israel" conquer the whole land from Baal Gad in Lebanon to Mount Halaq in the south. In this campaign Joshua essentially destroyed the entire native population of Canaan and did not leave any survivors in the land (Josh. 10:28–43; 11:11–23)—a utopian conception that developed during King Josiah's time in the seventh century B.C.E.
Chapter 7 deals with the historiosophy of the period of the conquest and the judges, and especially with the sin of the period of the judges. According to the old historiosophy (Judg. 1:1–2:5), the sin of the Israelites during the period of the judges was non-dispossession of the Canaanites, the previous inhabitants of the land, and intermarriage with them (Judg. 3:5–6), which entailed the worshipping of their gods.
In contrast, the Deuteronomic historiographer, who por-
trayed the conquest as total extermination of the pre-Israelite population, describes the sin of the period of the judges as worship of the gods of Israel's surrounding countries. Within the land itself, no more non-Israelites survived; all had been exterminated following the Deuteronomic law of herem[*] . According to the Deuteronomic editor of the book of Judges, the sin of the Israelites in the period of the judges was not the non-dispossession of the Canaanites, since these had already been annihilated by Joshua. Thus, the non-dispossession—according to this view—was not a sin against God but a punishment from God, and it involved non-dispossession of the inhabitants of the "remaining land" in Lebanon and on the Philistine coast (Judg. 3:1–4).
Chapter 8 treats the theological aspect of the promise of the land and its realization. The Land of Israel was considered a great gift bestowed by God upon the people of Israel—hence the importance of the "Promise of the Land" in the faith of Israel. The Israelites deemed the inheritance of their land a privilege for which they must be worthy. Should they fail to be worthy, the land would be taken away from them as it had been from the Canaanites before them. The danger of exile, to which Israel became exposed following the rise of the Assyrian empire in the eighth century B.C.E. , opened a process of national self-examination and led to the recognition that maintaining the land was contingent upon the fulfillment of God's will and his commandments. This recognition served as an impetus for the development of the historiography of ancient Israel as presented in the books of Joshua and Kings. The exile of northern Israel as well as that of Judah was explained in these works as resulting from the sins of the people. An intense feeling of guilt prevailed among the people in exile, which caused them to return fervently to God. Their goal was not the renewed conquest of the land but rather the renewal of the religious center in Jerusalem. The Temple and its sanctity, as well as observance of the Torah, were set forth as the primary objective for the people who returned from exile, and for this
cause they were prepared to give their lives. Thus "the Land" became the means to an end and not the end itself. Even when proclaiming war on their neighbors, they were motivated not by a need to conquer portions of the promised land but rather by devotion to God, his Temple, and his law.
Furthermore, toward the end of the Second Temple period there developed a process of spiritualization of the concept of "the land," corresponding to a similar development regarding the concept of Jerusalem. "Inheritance of the Land" was interpreted as inheriting "a share in the world to come" (hlq b'wlm hb'[*] ), just as Jerusalem, the city, acquired the meaning of heavenly Jerusalem. However, in contradistinction to the prevailing tendency in Christianity to strip "the Land" and Jerusalem of their realistic, earthly meanings and to see them merely as symbols, in Judaism the real land and physical Jerusalem were always retained as the basis for the spiritual values and symbols mounted upon them. Without the real Land and the earthly city, Messianic redemption was inconceivable in Judaism.
Chapter 9 treats the nature of the divine covenantal promise to the patriarchs concerning the land. In contradistinction to Sinaitic covenant, in which the Israelites pledge to keep the law of God, in the Abrahamic covenant it is God who commits himself to give the land to the Patriarchs and their descendants. Also, the Sinaitic covenant constitutes an obligation of the people, who promise to fulfill the Lord's commandments in the future, while the Abrahamic covenant is a promise of God based on Abraham having already proved himself in the past as his loyal servant (Gen. 15:6; 22:18; 26:5). A covenant of the same type is concluded with David, who is promised a dynasty forever (2 Sam. 7) since he proved himself as a loyal servant of God in the past (1 Kings 3:14; 8:18; 9:4, etc.). Both contracts, the Abrahamic and the Davidic, constitute a gift forever and without any condition.
Such legal commitments of the sovereign are found in the Hittite and Assyrian royal grants of land to their faithful ser-
vants. Like the covenants of God with Abraham and David, these grants are perpetual and unconditional. And like the Davidic covenant in 2 Sam. 7:14–16 that even if the Judean king sins he will be punished but God's grace (=gift) will never be canceled, we find in the Hittite royal land-gifts that the sovereign will punish the vassal for his sins but will not cancel his commitment. Only after the fall of Samaria and the cessation of the Davidic dynasty were the promissory covenants perceived as conditional, a perception that comes to expression in the Deuteronomic literature.