Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

CONQUEST: BIBLICAL NARRATIVE

In narrative parts of Exodus and Numbers, Moses leads the unified 12 tribes of Israelites delivered from Egypt through the desert to the land of Canaan. Before arriving at the Jordan River, the Israelites conquer the lands of kings Sihon and Og east of the Jordan and carry out the ethnic cleansing of their inhabitants (Num. 21:21-35; Deut. 2:24–3:17). After distributing these lands to two and a half of the tribes (Num. 32:33-42; Josh. 13:8-32) and appointing Joshua his successor (Num. 27:18-23; Deut. 3:28; 31:7-23), Moses dies. Joshua leads the Israelites across the Jordan where, in an orgy of terror, violence, and mayhem, they conquer the land of Canaan and attempt to cleanse it of inhabitants. Joshua oversees the distribution of this land to the remaining tribes, and all the tribes settle in their new possessions (Josh. 1–19, 21–22).

This conquest is presented as the climax of the story that begins with the curse of Canaan (Gen. 9:25-26) and God’s promise of the land of Canaan to Abram and his descendants (13:15). But it was not always so. The earliest narrative strands (J, E) that make up the first four books of the Bible give little or no indication how God’s land grant is to be fulfilled and give no hint of an impending conquest and ethnic cleansing. These strands have many distinctive themes, and these are unrelated to conquest and conclude in Exodus (E) and Numbers (J). Neither strand leaves any trace in Deuteronomy and Joshua. Joshua’s role in Exodus and Numbers is secondary to these strands, in which he is unlikely to have appeared at all.

The story of conquest purports to be about tribal warfare, but notable features point to a monarchic rather than tribal perspective, in particular of the house of David. A monarchic context is indicated by the simple unity of the tribes, the precise delineation of an immense territory to be uniformly inhabited by them, the mass slaughter based on the law of dedicating victims and booty to a central shrine (Heb. ḥērem, “ban”), and the requirement of strict military loyalty to a single commander, who takes counsel with no one. The bulk of the account of conquest is limited to the territory of Benjamin, immediately north of Davidic Jerusalem (Josh. 2–9). This section focuses on three Benjaminite localities which later play an important role in the rise of the house of David and its claim to monarchic sovereignty over Israel, as presented in the Deuteronomistic history: Gilgal (1 Sam. 13:8-14), Ai near Bethel (cf. Josh. 12:9; Bethel, 1 Kgs. 12:25–13:3, fulfilled in 2 Kgs. 23:15-20), and Gibeon (2 Sam. 2:12–3:1; 21:1-14). Benjamin is the tribe of the house of Saul, whom David usurped. The Conquest concludes with two stereotyped campaigns, one in Judah instigated by the king of Jerusalem, later the City of David (Josh. 10), the other against an alliance centered at Hazor in the north (11:1-15). The highland heartland of Israel plays no role in the Conquest as such: the peaceable references to Shechem in Josh. 8:30-35; 24:1-28 are secondary. In the distribution of land to the tribes, Judah receives by far the most detailed treatment (Josh. 14:6–15:63). The land distribution concludes with three episodes that likewise reflect a monarchic perspective: the cities of refuge, designed to curtail blood feuds; the towns and pasturage assigned to Levi throughout the other tribes; and a dispute over an altar built by the Transjordanian tribes in potential violation of the Deuteronomic law of centralization (Deut. 12:2-27). More than any other geographical feature the Jordan, which in the long history of Palestine was normally not regarded as a natural boundary (thus the tribe of Manasseh appeared on both sides), defines the territory conquered under Joshua; this perspective reflects Assyrian administration in Palestine in the 8th and 7th centuries b.c.e.

Thus in all likelihood the narrative of conquest reflects the interests of the house of David late in their rule over Judah, and was probably formulated at that time. After the fall of Samaria in 722, the house of David revived their claim to the territory of Israel, which became one of the chief components of the centralizing reforms of both Hezekiah and Josiah. The account of conquest in their histories of Davidic sovereignty, the basis of the so-called Deuteronomistic history, reflects their concept of how a monarchic hero once conquered — and now might reconquer — the Canaan at one time supposedly under Davidic sovereignty. An early version of the Deuteronomistic history was composed for Hezekiah to support his plan to recover the territory of Israel not long after the fall of Samaria, against Assyrian interests. In its present form the history reflects mainly the Davidic temple centralization promulgated by Josiah in 622 and extended into Israelite territory, consistent with Assyrian interests (2 Kgs. 22:1–23:25).

The relationship between Joshua and Josiah is suggested by Joshua’s own royal character: he succeeds Moses as though by dynastic succession; his charge follows the form of royal installation (Josh. 1:1-9), in which the promise to the nation (Deut. 11:24-25) is concentrated on a single commander (Josh. 1:5); he studies the law day and night as prescribed for the king (Deut. 17:18-19, Josh. 1:7-8); he commands absolute obedience on pain of death; and he supervises the redistribution of conquered land to his followers. The Deuteronomistic historian uses the expression “not to deviate from the law to the right hand or the left” with respect to only Joshua and Josiah (Josh. 1:7; 23:6; 2 Kgs. 22:2), and the phrase “book of the law” with respect to only Joshua and Josiah (Josh. 1:8; 2 Kgs. 22:8, 11; cf. 14:6). Equally important, the Conquest begins with the recapitulation and keeping of Passover (Josh. 3:1–5:12), which is then not kept again, according to the history, until Josiah reinstitutes it as the climax of his reform, following the prescription of the newly discovered law (2 Kgs. 23:21-23). In sum, the biblical conquest of Canaan, though employing more ancient forms, motifs, and traditions, originated as such as a reflex of the revanchist reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah.

The episodes of Jericho, Ai, and Gibeon which form the bulk of the Conquest account involve little territory. They are complex narratives which address numerous issues, but their main purpose is to intimidate potential opponents of Davidic centralization. This they do by illustrating how the terrorizing ḥērem, which requires the killing of every last inhabitant of Canaan and the dedication of all booty to Yahweh — for the Deuteronomist this means the Davidic temple — is applied to redefine who belongs in and out of the Israelite camp (Deut. 20:10-18). Canaanites Rahab and her family are included (Josh. 2–6), Judahite Achan and his family are excluded (chs. 7–8), and the Gibeonite inhabitants are included (ch. 9), all based not on their original “ethnic” identity, but on loyalty or disloyalty to the project of conquest and annihilation.

Given the probable late Davidic origin of the Conquest narrative, it is not surprising that archaeological evidence comports with little of the destruction described in Joshua. Jericho, Ai, and Gibeon show no evidence of significant occupation during the Late Bronze Age. Of 16 sites said to have been destroyed, only three — Bethel, Lachish, and Hazor — show evidence of destruction, and Hazor was destroyed as much as a century before Lachish. Moreover, the archaeology of the levitical towns in Josh. 21 shows that this group of settlements could not have existed before the 8th century. Nevertheless, enthusiasm for the historical veracity of the Conquest was revived especially in the United States following World War II and in the new state of Israel in reaction to German scholarship which questioned its veracity.

By the end of the 20th century, however, it had become apparent to most authorities familiar with the archaeological, historical, and social scientific evidence regarding early Israel that Israel originated as a typical tribal formation in Late Bronze Age Palestine, and that this formation participated with others in the gradual extensive resettlement of the highlands throughout the Early Iron Age. The main impetus for this resettlement was not a concerted conquest of one people by another, but rather the complex set of factors that drive the cycle of extension and contraction of settlement and agriculture in the long-term history of Palestine.

See Settlement: Archaeology.

Bibliography. M. D. Coogan, “Archaeology and Biblical Studies: The Book of Joshua,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, ed. W. Propp, B. Halpern, and D. N. Freedman (Winona Lake, 1990), 19-30 ; R. B. Coote, Early Israel (Minneapolis, 1990); I. Finkelstein and N. Naʾaman, eds., From Nomadism to Monarchy (Washington, 1994); R. D. Nelson, “Josiah in the Book of Joshua,” JBL 100 (1981): 531-40; L. L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence. JSOTSup 226 (Sheffield, 1996); J. Van Seters, “Joshua’s Campaign of Canaan and Near Eastern Historiography,” SJOT 2 (1990): 1-12; K. L. Younger, Jr., Ancient Conquest Accounts. JSOTSup 98 (Sheffield, 1990).

Robert B. Coote