Why, after so many English versions, a new translation of the Hebrew Bible? There is, as I shall explain in detail, something seriously wrong with all the familiar English translations, traditional and recent, of the Hebrew Bible. Broadly speaking, one may say that in the case of the modern versions, the problem is a shaky sense of English and in the case of the King James Version, a shaky sense of Hebrew. The present translation is an experiment in re-presenting the Bible—and, above all, biblical narrative prose—in a language that conveys with some precision the semantic nuances and the lively orchestration of literary effects of the Hebrew and at the same time has stylistic and rhythmic integrity as literary English. I shall presently give a more specific account of the kind of English I have aimed for and of the features of the Hebrew that have prompted my choices, but I think it will be helpful for me to say something first about why English translations of the Bible have been problematic—more problematic, perhaps, than most readers may realize.
It is an old and in some ways unfair cliché to say that translation is always a betrayal, but modern English versions of the Bible provide unfortunately persuasive evidence for that uncompromising generalization. At first thought, it is rather puzzling that this should be the case. In purely quantitative terms, we live in a great age of Bible translation. Several integral translations of the Bible have been done since the middle of the twentieth century, and a spate of English versions of individual biblical books has appeared. This period, moreover, is one in which our understanding of ancient Hebrew has become considerably more nuanced and precise than it once was, thanks to comparative Semitic philology aided by archaeology, and also thanks to the careful reanalysis of the formal structures—syntax, grammar, morphology, verb tenses—of biblical Hebrew. One might have expected that this recent flurry of translation activity, informed by the newly focused awareness of the meanings of biblical Hebrew, would have produced at least some English versions that would be both vividly precise and closer to the feel of the original than any of the older translations. Instead, the modern English versions—especially in their treatment of Hebrew narrative prose—have placed readers at a grotesque distance from the distinctive literary experience of the Bible in its original language. As a consequence, the King James Version, as Gerald Hammond, an eminent British authority on Bible translations, has convincingly argued, remains the closest approach for English readers to the original—despite its frequent and at times embarrassing inaccuracies, despite its archaisms, and despite its insistent substitution of Renaissance English tonalities and rhythms for biblical ones.
Some observers have sought to explain the inadequacy of modern Bible translations in terms of the general decline of the English language. It is certainly true that there are far fewer people these days with a cultivated sensitivity to the expressive resources of the language, the nuances of lexical values, the force of metaphor and rhythm; and one is certainly much less likely to find such people on a committee of ecclesiastical or scholarly experts than one would have in the first decade of the seventeenth century. There are, nevertheless, still some brilliant stylists among English prose writers; and if our age has been graced with remarkable translations of Homer, Sophocles, and Dante, why not of the Bible?
Part of the explanation, I suspect, is in the conjunction of philological scholarship and translation. I intend no churlish disrespect to philology. On the contrary, without it, our reading of the Bible, or indeed of any older text, is no better than walking through a great museum on a very gloomy day with all the lights turned out. To read the Bible over the shoulder of a great philological critic, like Abraham ibn Ezra (1092–1167), one of the earliest and still eminently worth studying, is to see many important things in fine focus for the first time. There is, however, a crucial difference between philology as a tool for understanding literary texts and philology as an end in itself, for literature and philology work with extremely different conceptions of what constitutes knowledge. To be fair to the broad enterprise of philology, which has included some great literary critics, I use the term here as shorthand for “biblical philology,” a discipline that, especially in its Anglo-American applications, has often come down to lexicography and the analysis of grammar.
For the philologist, the great goal is the achievement of clarity. It is scarcely necessary to say that in all sorts of important, but also delimited, ways clarity is indispensable in a translator’s wrestling with the original text. The simplest case, but a pervasive one, consists of getting a handle on the meaning of particular terms. It is truly helpful, for example, to know that biblical naḥal most commonly indicates not any sort of brook, creek, or stream but the kind of freshet, called a wadi in both Arabic and modern Hebrew, that floods a dry desert gulch during the rainy months and vanishes in the heat of the summer. Suddenly, Job’s “my brothers betrayed like a naḥal” (Job 6:14) becomes a striking poetic image, where before it might have been a minor puzzlement. But philological clarity in literary texts can quickly turn into too much of a good thing. Literature in general, and the narrative prose of the Hebrew Bible in particular, cultivates certain profound and haunting enigmas, delights in leaving its audiences guessing about motives and connections, and, above all, loves to set ambiguities of word choice and image against one another in an endless interplay that resists neat resolution. In polar contrast, the impulse of the philologist is—here a barbarous term nicely catches the tenor of the activity—“to disambiguate” the terms of the text. The general result when applied to translation is to reduce, simplify, and denature the Bible. These unfortunate consequences are all the more pronounced when the philologist, however acutely trained in that discipline, has an underdeveloped sense of literary diction, rhythm, and the uses of figurative language; and that, alas, is often the case in an era in which literary culture is not widely disseminated even among the technically educated.
The unacknowledged heresy underlying most modern English versions of the Bible is the use of translation as a vehicle for explaining the Bible instead of representing it in another language, and in the most egregious instances this amounts to explaining away the Bible. This impulse may be attributed not only to a rather reduced sense of the philological enterprise but also to a feeling that the Bible, because of its canonical status, has to be made accessible—indeed, transparent—to all. (The one signal exception to all these generalizations is Everett Fox’s 1995 American version of the Torah. Emulating the model of the German translation by Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig [begun in 1925, completed in 1961], which flaunts Hebrew etymologies, preserves nearly all repetitions of Hebrew terms, and invents German words, Fox goes to the opposite extreme of other modern versions: his English has the great virtue of reminding us verse after verse of the strangeness of the Hebrew original, but it does so at the cost of often being not quite English and consequently of becoming a text for study rather than a fluently readable version that conveys the stylistic poise and power of the Hebrew.) Modern translators, in their zeal to uncover the meanings of the biblical text for the instruction of a modern readership, frequently lose sight of how the text intimates its meanings—the distinctive, artfully deployed features of ancient Hebrew prose and poetry that are the instruments for the articulation of all meaning, message, insight, and vision.
One of the most salient characteristics of biblical Hebrew is its extraordinary concreteness, manifested especially in a fondness for images rooted in the human body. The general predisposition of modern translators is to convert most of this concrete language into more abstract terms that have the purported advantage of clarity but turn the pungency of the original into stale paraphrase. A good deal of this concrete biblical language based on the body is what a linguist would call lexicalized metaphor—imagery, here taken from body parts and bodily functions, that is made to stand for some general concept as a fixed item in the vocabulary of the language (as “eye” in English can be used to mean “perceptiveness” or “connoisseur’s understanding”). Dead metaphors, however, are the one persuasive instance of the resurrection of the dead—for at least the ghosts of the old concrete meanings float over the supposedly abstract acceptations of the terms, and this is something the philologically driven translators do not appear to understand. “Many modern versions,” Gerald Hammond tartly observes, “eschew anything which smacks of imagery or metaphor—based on the curious assumption, I guess, that modern English is an image-free language.” The price paid for this avoidance of the metaphorical will become evident by considering two characteristic and recurrent Hebrew terms and the role they play in representing the world in the biblical story.
The Hebrew noun zeraʿ* has the general meaning of “seed,” which can be applied either in the agricultural sense or to human beings, as the term for semen. By metaphorical extension, semen becomes the established designation for what it produces, progeny. Modern translators, evidently unwilling to trust the ability of adult readers to understand that “seed”—as regularly in the King James Version—may mean progeny, repeatedly render it as offspring, descendants, heirs, progeny, posterity. But I think there is convincing evidence in the texts themselves that the biblical writers never entirely forgot that their term for offspring also meant semen and had a precise equivalent in the vegetable world. To cite a distinctly physical example, when Onan “knew that the seed would not be his,” that is, the progeny of his brother’s widow should he impregnate her, “he would waste his seed on the ground, so to give no seed to his brother” (Genesis 38:9). Modern translators, despite their discomfort with body terms, can scarcely avoid the wasted “seed” here because without it the representation of spilling semen on the ground in coitus interruptus becomes unintelligible. E. A. Speiser substitutes “offspring” for “seed” at the end of the verse, however, and the Revised English Bible goes him one better by putting “offspring” at the beginning as well (“Onan knew that the offspring would not count as his”) and introducing “seed” in the middle as object of the verb “to spill” and scuttling back to the decorousness of “offspring” at the end—a prime instance of explanation under the guise of translation. But the biblical writer is referring to “seed” as much at the end of the verse as at the beginning. Onan adopts the stratagem of coitus interruptus in order not to “give seed”—that is, semen—to Tamar, and, as a necessary consequence of this contraceptive act, he avoids providing her with offspring. The thematic point of this moment, anchored in sexual practice, law, and human interaction, is blunted by not preserving “seed” throughout.
Even in contexts not directly related to sexuality, the concreteness of this term often amplifies the meaning of the utterance. When, for example, at the end of the story of the binding of Isaac, God reiterates His promise to Abraham, the multiplication of seed is strongly linked with cosmic imagery—harking back to the Creation story—of heaven and earth: “I will greatly bless you and will greatly multiply your seed, as the stars in the heavens and as the sand on the shore of the sea” (Genesis 22:17). If “seed” here is rendered as “offspring” or “descendants,” what we get are two essentially mathematical similes of numerical increase. That is, in fact, the primary burden of the language God addresses to Abraham, but as figurative language it also imposes itself visually on the retina of the imagination, and so underlying the idea of a single late-born son whose progeny will be countless millions is an image of human seed (perhaps reinforced by the shared white color of semen and stars) scattered across the vast expanses of the starry skies and through the innumerable particles of sand on the shore of the sea. To substitute “offspring” for “seed” here may not fundamentally alter the meaning but it diminishes the vividness of the statement, making it just a little harder for readers to sense why these ancient texts have been so compelling down through the ages.
The most metaphorically extended body part in biblical Hebrew is the hand, though head and foot are also abundantly represented in figurative senses. Now it is obvious enough, given the equivalent usages in modern Western languages, that “hand” can be employed figuratively to express such notions as power, control, responsibility, and trust—to which biblical Hebrew adds one meaning peculiar to itself, commemorative monument. But most modern translators substitute one or another of these abstract terms, introducing supposed clarity where things were perfectly clear to begin with and subverting the literary integrity of the story. In the two sequential episodes that end with Joseph’s being cast into a pit—the first is a dry cistern, the second an Egyptian prison, but the two are explicitly linked by the use of the term bor for both—the recurrently invoked “hand” is a focusing device that both defines and complicates the moral themes of the story. Reuben, hearing his brothers’ murderous intentions, seeks to rescue Joseph “from their hands.” He implores his brothers, “Lay not a hand upon him,” just as, in the other strand of the story, Judah says, “Let not our hand be against him.” E. A. Speiser, faithful to the clarifying impulse of the modern Bible scholar’s philological imagination, renders both these phrases as “do away with,” explaining that it would be illogical to have Reuben, or Judah, say “Don’t lay a hand on him,” since in fact the counsel proffered involves seizing him, stripping him, and throwing him into the pit. But in fact this alleged illogic is the luminous logic of the writer’s moral critique. Reuben pleads with his brothers not to lay a hand on Joseph, that is, not to shed his blood (this is the phrase he uses at the beginning of his speech), but neither his plea nor Judah’s proposal is an entirely innocent one: although each urges that the brothers lay no hand on Joseph, there is a violent laying on of hands necessitated by the course of action each proposes. Even more pointedly, once Joseph is headed south with the caravan, those same fraternal hands will take his ornamented tunic (the King James Version’s “coat of many colors”), slaughter a kid, dip the garment in the blood, and send it off to Jacob.
The image of hands holding a garment belonging to Joseph that is turned into false evidence brilliantly returns at the climactic moment of the next episode involving him, in Genesis 39. When Joseph flees from the lust of his master’s wife, “he left his garment in her hand” because she has virtually torn it off his back in trying to effect her reiterated “Lie with me” by seizing him. In her accusation of Joseph, she alters the narrator’s twice-stated “in her hand” to “by me,” implying that he disrobed deliberately before attempting to rape her. But the narrator’s cunning deployment of repeated terms has conditioned us to zero in on these two pivotal words, wayaʿazov beyad, “he left in the hand of,” for in the six initial framing verses of the story, “hand” appears four times, with the last, most significant occurrence being this summary of the comprehensiveness of Joseph’s stewardship: “And he left all that he had in Joseph’s hands” (39:6). (Hebrew idiom allows the writer to use “hand” in the singular, thus creating an exact phrasal identity between the figurative reference to the hand in which the trust of stewardship is left and the literal reference to the hand in which the garment belonging to the object of sexual desire is left.) The invocation of “hand” in chapters 37 and 39—the story of Judah and Tamar lies between them—forms an elegant A B A B pattern: in chapter 37 hands are laid on Joseph, an action carried forward in the resumptive repetition at the very beginning of chapter 39 when he is bought “from the hands of the Ishmaelites”; then we have the supremely competent hand, or hands, of Joseph, into which everything is placed, or left, and by which everything succeeds; then again a violent hand is laid on Joseph, involving the stripping of his garment, as in the episode with the brothers; and at the end of the chapter, Joseph in prison again has everything entrusted to his dependable hands, with this key term twice stated in the three and a half verses of the closing frame. A kind of dialectic is created in the thematic unfolding of the story between hand as the agency of violent impulse and hand as the instrument of scrupulous management. Although the concrete term is probably used with more formal precision in this particular sequence than is usually the case elsewhere, the hands of Joseph and the hands upon Joseph provide a fine object lesson about how biblical narrative is misrepresented when translators tamper with the purposeful and insistent physicality of its language, as here when “hand” is transmuted into “trust” or “care.” Such substitutions offer explanations or interpretations instead of translations and thus betray the original.
There are, alas, more pervasive ways than the choice of terms in which nearly all the modern English versions commit the heresy of explanation. The most global of these is the prevalent modern strategy of repackaging biblical syntax for an audience whose reading experience is assumed to be limited to Time, Newsweek, the New York Times or the Times of London, and the internet. Now, it is often asserted, with seemingly self-evident justice, that the fundamental difference between biblical syntax and modern English syntax is between a system in which parallel clauses linked by “and” predominate (what linguists call “parataxis”) and one in which the use of subordinate clauses and complex sentences predominates (what linguists call “hypotaxis”). Modern English has a broad array of modal and temporal discriminations in its system of verbs and a whole armament of subordinate conjunctions to stipulate different relations among clauses. Biblical Hebrew, on the other hand, has only two aspects† (they are probably not tenses in our sense) of verbs, together with one indication of a jussive mode—when a verb is used to express a desire or exhortation to perform the action in question—and a modest number of subordinate conjunctions. Although there are certainly instances of significant syntactic subordination, the characteristic biblical syntax is additive, working with parallel clauses linked by “and”—which in the Hebrew is not even a separate word but rather a particle, waw‡ (it means “hook”), that is prefixed to the first word of the clause.
The assumption of most modern translators has been that this sort of syntax will be either unintelligible or at least alienating to modern readers, and so should be entirely rearranged as modern English. There are two basic problems with this procedure. First, it ignores the fact that parataxis is the essential literary vehicle of biblical narrative: it is the way the ancient Hebrew writers saw the world, linked events in it, artfully ordered it, and narrated it, and one gets a very different world if their syntax is jettisoned. Second, rejection of biblical parataxis presupposes a very simplistic notion of what constitutes modern literary English. The implicit model seems to be, as I have suggested, the popular press, as well as perhaps high-school textbooks, bureaucratic directives, and ordinary conversation. But serious writers almost never accept such leveling limitation to a bland norm of popular usage. If one thinks of the great English stylists among twentieth-century novelists—writers like Joyce, Nabokov, Faulkner, and Virginia Woolf—there is not one among them whose use of language, including the deployment of syntax, even vaguely resembles the workaday simplicity and patly consistent orderliness that recent translators of the Bible have posited as the norm of modern English. It is also well to keep in mind that literary style, like many other aspects of literature, is constantly self-recapitulative, invoking recollections of its near and distant literary antecedents, so that modernists like Joyce and Faulkner sometimes echo biblical language and cadences, and a mannered stylist like Hemingway, in making “and” his most prominent connective, surely has the King James Version of the Bible in mind. And in any event, the broad history of both Semitic and European languages and literatures evinces a strong differentiation in most periods between everyday language and the language of literature.
The assumption of biblical philologists that parallel syntax is alien to modern literary English is belied by the persistent presence of highly wrought paratactic prose even at the end of the twentieth century and beyond. A variety of self-conscious English stylists in the modern era, from Gertrude Stein to Cormac McCarthy, have exhibited a fondness for chains of parallel utterances linked by “and” in which the basic sentence-type is the same structurally as that used again and again in biblical prose. What such a style makes manifest in a narrative is a series of more or less discrete events, or micro-events, in a chain, not unlike the biblical names of begetters and begotten that are strung one after another in the chains of the genealogical lists. The biblical writers generally chose not to order these events in ramified networks of causal, conceptual, or temporal subordination, not because hypotaxis was an unavailable option, as the opening verses of the second Creation story (Genesis 2:4–5) clearly demonstrate. The continuing appeal, moreover, for writers in our own age of this syntax dominated by “and,” which highlights the discrete event, suggests that parallel syntax may still be a perfectly viable way to represent in English the studied parallelism of verbs and clauses of ancient Hebrew narrative.
Since a literary style is composed of very small elements as well as larger structural features, an English translator must confront the pesky question of whether the ubiquitous Hebrew particle that means “and” should be represented at all in translation. This is obviously not a problem when the waw simply connects two nouns—as in “the heavens and the earth”—but what of its constant use at the beginning of sentences and clauses prefixed to verbs? The argument against translating it in these cases is that the primary function of the waw appended to a verb is not to signify “and” but to indicate that the Hebrew prefix conjugation, which otherwise is used for actions yet to be completed, is reporting past events (hence its designation in the terminology of classical Hebrew grammar as “the waw of conversion”). It is far from clear, as modern Bible scholars tend to assume, that the fulfillment of one linguistic function by a particle of speech automatically excludes any others; on the contrary, it is entirely likely that for the ancient audience the waw appended to the verb both converted its temporal aspect and continued to signify “and.” But, semantics aside, the general practice of modern English translators of suppressing the “and” when it is attached to a verb has the effect of changing the tempo, rhythm, and construction of events in biblical narrative. Let me illustrate by quoting a narrative sequence from Genesis 24 first in my own version, which reproduces every “and” and every element of parataxis, and then in the version of the Revised English Bible. The Revised English Bible is in general one of the most compulsive repackagers of biblical language, though in this instance the reordering of the Hebrew is relatively minor. Its rendering of these sentences is roughly interchangeable with any of the other modern versions—the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jewish Publication Society, Speiser—one might choose. I begin in the middle of verse 16, where Rebekah becomes the subject of a series of actions.
And she came down to the spring and filled her jug and came back up. And the servant ran toward her and said, “Pray, let me sip a bit of water from your jug.” And she said, “Drink, my lord,” and she hurried and tipped down her jug on one hand and let him drink. And she let him drink his fill and said, “For your camels, too, I shall draw water until they drink their fill.” And she hurried and emptied her jug into the trough, and she ran again to the well to draw water and drew water for all his camels.
And this is how the Revised English Bible, in keeping with the prevailing assumptions of most recent translations, renders these verses in what is presumed to be sensible modern English:
She went down to the spring, filled her jar, and came up again. Abraham’s servant hurried to meet her and said, “Will you give me a little water from your jar?” “Please drink, sir,” she answered, and at once lowered her jar on her hand to let him drink. When she had finished giving him a drink, she said, “I shall draw water also for your camels until they have had enough.” She quickly emptied her jar into the water trough, and then hurrying again to the well she drew water and watered all the camels.
There is, as one would expect, some modification of biblical parataxis, though it is not so extreme here as elsewhere in the Revised English Bible: “And she let him drink his fill” is converted into an introductory adverbial clause, “When she had finished giving him a drink” (actually in consonance with the otherwise paratactic King James Version): “and she hurried” is compressed into “quickly”; “and she ran again” becomes the participial “hurrying again.” (Moves of this sort, it should be said, push translation to the verge of paraphrase—recasting and interpreting the original instead of representing it.) The most striking divergence between these two versions is that mine has fifteen “and’s,” corresponding precisely to fifteen occurrences of the particle waw in the Hebrew, whereas the Revised English Bible manages with just five. What difference does this make? To begin with, it should be observed that the waw, whatever is claimed about its linguistic function, is by no means an inaudible element in the phonetics of the Hebrew text: we must keep constantly in mind that these narratives were composed to be heard, not merely to be decoded by a reader’s eye. The reiterated “and,” then, plays an important role in creating the rhythm of the story, in phonetically punctuating the forward-driving movement of the prose. The elimination of the “and” in the Revised English Bible and in all its modern cousins produces—certainly to my ear—an abrupt, awkward effect in the sound pattern of the language, or to put it more strictly, a kind of narrative arrhythmia.
More is at stake here than pleasing sounds, for the heroine of the repeated actions is in fact subtly but significantly reduced in all the rhythmically deficient versions. She of course performs roughly the same acts in the different versions—politely offering water to the stranger, lowering her jug so that he can drink, rapidly going back and forth to the spring to bring water for the camels. But in the compressions, syntactical reorderings, and stop-and-start movements of the modernizing version, the encounter at the well and Rebekah’s actions are made to seem rather matter-of-fact, however exemplary her impulse of hospitality. This tends to obscure what the Hebrew highlights, which is that she is doing something quite extraordinary. Rebekah at the well presents one of the rare biblical instances of the performance of an act of “Homeric” heroism. The servant begins by asking modestly to “sip a bit of water,” as though all he wanted were to wet his lips. But we need to remember, as the ancient audience surely did, that a camel after a long desert journey can drink as much as twenty-five gallons of water, and there are ten camels here whom Rebekah offers to water “until they drink their fill.” The chain of verbs tightly linked by all the “and’s” does an admirable job in conveying this sense of the young woman’s hurling herself with prodigious speed into the sequence of required actions. Even her dialogue is scarcely a pause in the narrative momentum, but is integrated syntactically and rhythmically into the chain: “And she said, ‘Drink, my lord,’ and she hurried and tipped down her jug… . And she hurried and emptied her jug into the trough, and she ran again to the well to draw water and drew water for all his camels.” The parallel syntax and the barrage of “and’s,” far from being the reflex of a “primitive” language, are as artfully effective in furthering the ends of the narrative as any device one could find in a sophisticated modern novelist.
Beyond these issues of syntax and local word choice lies a fundamental question that no modern translator I know of has really confronted: What level, or perhaps levels, of style is represented in biblical Hebrew? There is no reason, I believe, to be awestruck by the sheer antiquity of the text. If biblical Hebrew could be shown to reflect a pungent colloquial usage in the ancient setting, or a free commingling of colloquial and formal language, it would be only logical to render it with equivalent levels of diction in modern English. As a matter of fact, all the modern translators—from Speiser to Fox to the sundry ecclesiastical committees in both America and England—have shown a deaf ear to diction, acting as though the only important considerations in rendering a literary text were lexical values and grammatical structures, while the English terms chosen could be promiscuously borrowed from boardroom or bedroom or scholar’s word hoard, with little regard to the tonality and connotation the words carried with them from their native linguistic habitat.
Whatever conclusions we may draw about the stylistic level of biblical Hebrew are a little precarious because we of course have no record of the ancient spoken language, and if, as seems likely, there were extracanonical varieties or genres of Hebrew writing in the ancient world, the vestiges have long since crumbled into dust. Did, for example, the citizens of Judah in the time of Jeremiah speak in a parallel syntax, using the waw consecutive, and employing roughly the same vocabulary that we find in his prophecies, or in Deuteronomy and Genesis? Although there is no proof, my guess is that vernacular syntax and grammar probably differed in some ways from their literary counterparts. In regard to vocabulary, there is evidence that what we see in the canonical books would not have been identical with everyday usage. First, there is the problem of the relative paucity of vocabulary in biblical literature. As the Spanish Hebrew scholar Angel Sáenz-Badillos has observed in his History of the Hebrew Language (1993), the biblical lexicon is so restricted that it is hard to believe it could have served all the purposes of quotidian existence in a highly developed society. The instance of the poetry of Job, with its unusual number of words not found elsewhere in Scripture, is instructive in this regard: the Job-poet, in his powerful impulse to forge a poetic imagery that would represent humankind, God, and nature in a new and even startling light, draws on highly specific language from manufacturing processes, food preparation, commercial and legal institutions, which would never be used in biblical narrative. The plausible conclusion is that the Hebrew of the Bible is a conventionally delimited language, roughly analagous in this respect to the French of the neoclassical theater: it was understood by writers and their audiences, at least in the case of narrative, that only certain words were appropriate for the literary rendering of events.
There is evidence, moreover, that people in everyday life may have had different words for many of the basic concepts and entities that are mentioned in the Bible. This argument was persuasively made by the Israeli linguist Abba ben David in his still indispensable 1967 study, available only in Hebrew, The Language of the Bible and the Language of the Sages. Ben David offers a fascinating explanation for one of the great mysteries of the Hebrew language—the emergence, toward the end of the pre-Christian era, of a new kind of Hebrew, which became the language of the early rabbis. Now, it is widely recognized that this new Hebrew reflected the influence of the Aramaic vernacular in morphology, in grammar, and in some of its vocabulary, and that, understandably, it also incorporated a vast number of Greek and Latin loanwords. But what is puzzling is that rabbinic Hebrew also uses a good many indigenous Hebrew terms that are absent from the biblical corpus, or reflected only in rare and marginal biblical cognates. The standard terms in rabbinical Hebrew for sun and moon, and some of its frequently used verbs like to look, to take, to enter, to clean, are entirely different from their biblical counterparts, without visible influence from any of the languages impinging on Hebrew. Where did these words come from? Ben David, observing, as have others before him, that there are incipient signs of an emergent rabbinic Hebrew in late biblical books like Jonah and the Song of Songs, makes the bold and, to my mind, convincing proposal that rabbinic Hebrew was built upon an ancient vernacular that for the most part had been excluded from the literary language used for the canonical texts. This makes particular sense if one keeps in mind that the early rabbis were anxious to draw a line between their own “Oral Torah” and the written Torah they were expounding. For the purposes of legal and homiletic exegesis, they naturally would have used a vernacular Hebrew rather than the literary language, and when their discourse was first given written formulation in the Mishnah in the early third century C.E., that text would have recorded this vernacular, which probably had a long prehistory in the biblical period. It is distinctly possible that when a ninth-century B.C.E. Israelite farmer mopped his brow under the blazing sun, he did not point to it and say shemesh, as it is invariably called in biblical prose texts, but rather ḥamah, as it is regularly designated in the Mishnah.
There is, of course, no way of plotting a clear chronology of the evolution of rabbinic Hebrew from an older vernacular, no way of determining how far back into the biblical period various elements of rabbinic language may go. It is sufficient for our effort to gauge the level of style of the Bible’s literary prose merely to grant the very high likelihood that the language of the canonical texts was not identical with the vernacular, that it reflected a specialized or elevated vocabulary, and perhaps even a distinct grammar and syntax. Let me cite a momentary exception to the rule of biblical usage that may give us a glimpse into this excluded vernacular background of a more formal literary language. It is well-known that in biblical dialogue all the characters speak proper literary Hebrew, with no intimations of slang, dialect, or idiolect. The single striking exception is impatient Esau’s first speech to Jacob in Genesis 25: “Let me gulp down some of this red red stuff.” Inarticulate with hunger, he cannot come up with the ordinary Hebrew term for “stew,” and so he makes do with haʾadom haʾadom hazeh—literally “this red red.” But what is more interesting for our purpose is the verb Esau uses for “feeding,” halʿiteini. This is the sole occurrence of this verb in the biblical corpus, but in the Talmud it is a commonly used term with the specific meaning of stuffing food into the mouth of an animal. One cannot be certain this was its precise meaning in the biblical period because words do, after all, undergo semantic shifts in a period of considerably more than a thousand years. But it seems safe to assume, minimally, that even a millennium before the rabbis halʿit would have been a cruder term for feeding than the standard biblical haʾakhil. What I think happened at this point in Genesis is that the author, in the writerly zest with which he sought to characterize Esau’s crudeness, allowed himself, quite exceptionally, to introduce a vernacular term for coarse eating or animal feeding into the dialogue that would jibe nicely with his phrase “this red red stuff.” After the close of the biblical era, this otherwise excluded term would surface in the legal pronouncements of the rabbis on animal husbandry, together with a host of vernacular words used in the ancient period but never permitted to enter the canonical texts.
All this strongly suggests that the language of biblical narrative in its own time was stylized, decorous, dignified, and readily identified by its audiences as a language of literature, in certain ways distinct from the language of quotidian reality. The tricky complication, however, is that in most respects it also was not a lofty style, and was certainly neither ornate nor euphemistic. If some of its vocabulary may have reflected a specialized literary lexicon, the language of biblical narrative also makes abundant use of ordinary Hebrew words that must have been in everyone’s mouth from day to day. Just to mention the few recurrent terms on which I have commented, “hand,” “house,” “all,” and “seed” are primary words in every phase of the history of Hebrew, and they continue to appear as such in the rabbinic language, where so much else is altered. Biblical prose, then, is a formal literary language but also, paradoxically, a plainspoken one, and, moreover, a language that evinces a strong commitment to using a limited set of terms again and again, making an aesthetic virtue out of the repetition. It should be added that the language of the Bible reflects not one level of diction but a certain range of dictions, as I shall explain presently.
What is the implication of this analysis for an appropriate modern English equivalent to ancient Hebrew style? The right direction, I think, was hit on by the King James Version, following the great model of Tyndale a century before it. There is no good reason to render biblical Hebrew as contemporary English, either lexically or syntactically. This is not to suggest that the Bible should be represented as fussily old-fashioned English, but a limited degree of archaizing coloration is entirely appropriate, employed with other strategies for creating a language that is stylized yet simple and direct, free of the overtones of contemporary colloquial usage but with a certain timeless homespun quality. An adequate English version should be able to indicate the small but significant modulations in diction in the biblical language—something the stylistically uniform King James Version, however, entirely fails to do. A suitable English version should avoid at all costs the modern abomination of elegant synonymous variation, for the literary prose of the Bible turns everywhere on significant repetition, not variation. Similarly, the translation of terms on the basis of immediate context—except when it becomes grotesque to do otherwise—is to be resisted as another instance of the heresy of explanation. Finally, the mesmerizing effect of these ancient stories will scarcely be conveyed if they are not rendered in cadenced English prose that at least in some ways corresponds to the powerful cadences of the Hebrew. Let me now comment more particularly on the distinctive biblical treatment of diction, word choice, syntax, and rhythm and what it implies for translation.
The biblical prose writers favor what we may think of as a primary vocabulary. They revel in repetition, sometimes of a stately, refrainlike sort, sometimes deployed in ingenious patterns through which different meanings of the same term are played against one another. Elegant synonymity is alien to biblical prose, and it is only rarely that a highly specialized term is used instead of the more general word. Here is a characteristic biblical way of putting things: “And God made the two great lights, the great light for dominion of day and the small light for dominion of night, and the stars” (Genesis 1:16). In addition to the poised emphasis of the internal repetitions in the sentence, one should note that the primary term for a source of light—maʾ or, transparently cognate with ʾor, the light that is divided from the darkness in 1:4—is placed in the foreground. In fact, there are half a dozen biblical synonyms for “light,” suggesting a range roughly equivalent to English terms like “illumination,” “effulgence,” “brilliance,” and “splendor,” but these are all reserved for the more elaborate vocabulary of poetry, whereas in prose the writer sticks to the simplicity of ʾor and maʾor, and everywhere it behooves a translator to do the same with English equivalents.
Some biblical scholars might object that my example is skewed because it is taken from the so-called Priestly source (P), which has a stylistic predilection for high decorousness and cadenced repetitions. But the stylistic difference in this regard between P and the two other conjectured source documents of the Pentateuch, designated J and E, is one of degree, not kind. Thus, when the second version of the Creation story, commonly identified as J’s, begins in Genesis 2:4, we do get some greater degree of specification in the language, in keeping with the way creation is here imagined. Instead of the verbs “to create” (bara’) and “to make” (ʿasah) that accompany God’s speaking the world into being in chapter 1 we are given the potter’s term “to fashion” (yatsar) and the architectural term “to build” (banah). These remain, however, within the limits of a primary vocabulary. The nuanced and specialized lexicon of manufacturing processes one encounters in the poetry of Job and of Deutero-Isaiah is firmly excluded from the stylistic horizon of this narrative prose, though the subject might have invited it.
The translator’s task, then, is to mirror the repetitions as much as is feasible. Let me cite one small example, where I learned from my own mistake. When Joseph’s brothers recount to Jacob what happened on their first trip to Egypt, they say, in the English of my first draft, “The man who is lord of the land spoke harshly to us and accused us of being spies in the land” (Genesis 42:30). (The verb “accused” is also used in the New Jewish Publication Society translation.) On rereading, I realized that I had violated the cardinal principle, not to translate according to context. The Hebrew says, very literally, “gave us as spies,” “give” in biblical usage being one of those all-purpose verbs that variously means “to set,” “to place,” “to grant,” “to deem.” I hastened to change the last clause to “made us out to be spies” because “to make,” with or without an accompanying preposition, is precisely such a primary term that serves many purposes and so is very much in keeping with biblical stylistic practice.
What is surprising about the biblical writers’ use of this deliberately limited vocabulary is that it can be so precise and even nuanced. Our own cultural preconceptions of writers scrupulously devoted to finding exactly the right word are associated with figures like Flaubert and Joyce, who meticulously choose the terms of their narratives from a large repertory of finely discriminated lexical items. Biblical prose often exhibits an analogous precision within the severe limits of its primary vocabulary. There are, for example, two paired terms, masculine and feminine, in biblical Hebrew to designate young people: naʿar/naʿarah (in this translation, “lad” and “young woman”) and yeled/yaldah (in this translation, “child” and “girl”). The first pair is somewhat asymmetrical because naʿar often also means “servant” or anyone in a subaltern position, and sometimes means “elite soldier,” whereas naʿarah usually refers to a nubile young woman, and only occasionally to a servant girl. Though there are rare biblical occurrences of yeled in the sense of “young man,” it generally designates someone younger than a naʿar—etymologically, it means “the one who is born,” reflecting a development parallel to the French enfant.
With this little to work with, it is remarkable how much the biblical writers accomplish in their deployment of the terms. In the first part of the story of the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael (Genesis 21), Ishmael is referred to consistently as “the child,” as was his infant half brother Isaac at the beginning of this chapter. The grief-stricken mother in the wilderness says to herself, “Let me not see when the child dies.” From the moment God speaks in the story (verse 17), Ishmael is invariably referred to as “the lad”—evidently with an intimation of tenderness but also with the suggestion that he is a young man, naʿar, who will go on to have a future. In the elaborately parallel episode in the next chapter that features Abraham and Isaac in the wilderness, Isaac is referred to by man and God as “the lad,” and the term is played off against “the lads” who are Abraham’s servants accompanying him on his journey, and not his flesh and blood (“And Abraham said to his lads, ‘Sit you here with the donkey and let me and the lad walk ahead’”).
In the story of the rape of Dinah (Genesis 34), she is first referred to as “Leah’s daughter”—and not Jacob’s daughter, for it is Leah’s sons, Simeon and Levi, who will exact vengeance for her. The initial designation of “daughter” aligns her with both “the daughters of the land” among whom she goes out to see, and Shechem, Hamor’s son (“son” and “daughter” are cognates in Hebrew), who sees her, takes her, and rapes her. After the act of violation, Shechem is overcome with love for Dinah, and he implores his father, “Take me this girl [yaldah] as wife.” Speaking to his father, then, he identifies—tenderly?—the victim of his own lust as a girl-child. When he parleys with Dinah’s brothers, asking permission to marry her, he says, “Give me the young woman [naʿarah] as wife,” now using the term for a nubile woman that is strictly appropriate to betrothal negotiations. After the brothers stipulate their surgical precondition for the betrothal, the narrator reports, “And the lad [naʿar] lost no time in doing the thing, for he wanted Jacob’s daughter.” Suddenly, as the catastrophe of this gruesome tale becomes imminent, we learn that the sexually impulsive man is only a lad, probably an adolescent like Dinah—a discovery that is bound to complicate our task of moral judgment. And now Dinah is called Jacob’s daughter, not Leah’s, probably because that is how Shechem sees her, not realizing that the significant relationship is through her mother to her two full brothers who are plotting a terrible retribution for her violation.
It should be clear from all this that a translation that respects the literary precision of the biblical story must strive to reproduce its nice discrimination of terms, and cannot be free to translate a word here one way and there another, for the sake of variety or for the sake of context. It must be admitted, however, that some compromises are inevitable because modern English clearly does not coincide semantically with ancient Hebrew in many respects. The stuff from which the first human is fashioned, for example, ʾadamah, manifestly means “soil,” and it continues to have that meaning as it recurs at crucial junctures in the story of the Garden and the primordial banishment. But, alas, ʾadamah also means “land,” “farmland,” “country,” and even “earth,” and to translate it invariably as “soil” for the sake of terminological consistency (as Everett Fox does) leads to local confusions and conspicuous peculiarities. To take a more extreme example, a term that has no semantic analogue in English, the Hebrew nefesh, which the King James Version, following the Vulgate, often translates as “soul,” refers to the breath of life in the nostrils of a living creature and, by extension, “lifeblood” or simply “life,” and by another slide of association, “person”; and it is also used as an intensifying form of the personal pronoun, having roughly the sense of “very self.” In the face of this bewildering diversity of meaning, one is compelled to abandon the admirable principle of lexical consistency and to translate, regretfully, according to immediate context.
Finally, though many recurring biblical terms have serviceable English equivalents (like “lad” for naʿar), there are instances in which a translation must make another kind of compromise because, given the differences between modern and biblical culture, the social, moral, and ideological connotations of terms in the two languages do not adequately correspond. Consider the tricky case of verbs for sexual intercourse. In English, these tend to be either clinical and technical, or rude, or bawdy, or euphemistic, and absolutely none of this is true of the verbs used for sex in the Bible. In Genesis, three different terms occur: “to know,” “to lie with,” and “to come into.” “To know,” with one striking antithetical exception, indicates sexual possession by a man of his legitimate spouse. Modern solutions such as “to be intimate with,” “to cohabit with,” “to sleep with,” are all egregiously wrong in tone and implication. Fortunately the King James Version has established a strong precedent in English by translating the verb literally, and “carnal knowledge” is part of our language, so it is feasible to preserve the literal Hebrew usage in translation. (There is, I think, a good deal to be said for the general procedure of Tyndale and the King James Version in imitating many Hebrew idioms and thus giving the English a certain Hebraic coloration.) “Lie with” is a literal equivalent of the Hebrew, though in English it is vaguely euphemistic, whereas in Hebrew it is a more brutally direct or carnally explicit idiom for sexual intercourse, without, however, any suggestion of obscenity.
The most intractable of the three expressions is “to come into” or “to enter.” In nonsexual contexts, this is the ordinary biblical verb for entering, or arriving. “To enter,” or “to come into,” however, is a misleading translation because the term clearly refers not merely to sexual penetration but to the whole act of sexual consummation. It is used with great precision—not registered by biblical scholarship—to indicate a man’s having intercourse with a woman he has not yet had as a sexual partner, whether she is his wife, his concubine, or a whore. The underlying spatial imagery of the term, I think, is of the man’s entering the woman’s sphere for the first time through a series of concentric circles: her tent or chamber, her bed, her body. A translator, then, ought not surrender the image of coming into, but “come into” by itself doesn’t quite do it. My own solution, in keeping with the slight strangeness of Hebraizing idioms of the translation as a whole, was to stretch an English idiom to cover the biblical usage: this translation consistently renders the Hebrew expression in question as “come to bed with,” an idiom that in accepted usage a woman could plausibly use to a man referring to herself (“come to bed with me”) but that in my translation is extended to a woman’s reference to another woman (“come to bed with my slavegirl”) and to a reference in the third person by the narrator or a male character to sexual consummation (“Give me my wife,” Jacob says to Laban, “and let me come to bed with her”).
Biblical syntax, beyond the basic pattern of parallel clauses, provides another occasion for what I have called a slight strangeness. The word order in biblical narrative is very often as finely expressive as the lexical choices. In many instances, the significant sequence of terms can be reproduced effortlessly and idiomatically in English, and it is a testament to the literary insensitivity of modern translators that they so often neglect to do so. Here, for example, is how the narrator reports Abimelech’s discovery of the conjugal connection between Isaac and the woman Isaac had claimed was his sister: “Abimelech … looked out the window and saw—and there was Isaac playing with Rebekah his wife” (Genesis 26:8). The move into the character’s point of view after the verbs of seeing is signaled by the so-called presentative, wehineh (rather like voici in French), which in this case I have represented by “there” but usually render as “look” (following the King James Version’s “behold” and so deliberately coining an English idiom because the biblical term is so crucial for indicating shifts in narrative perspective). What follows “and there” is the precise sequence of Abimelech’s perception as he looks out through the window: first Isaac, then the act of sexual play or fondling, then the identity of the female partner in the dalliance, and at the very end, the conclusion that Rebekah must be Isaac’s wife. All this is perfectly fluent as English, and modern translations like the Revised English Bible, the New Jewish Publication Society, and Speiser that place “wife” before Rebekah spoil a nice narrative effect in the original.
But biblical syntax is also more flexible than modern English syntax, and there are hundreds of instances in the Hebrew Bible of significant syntactical inversions and, especially, emphatic first positioning of weighted terms. Syntactical inversion, however, is familiar enough in the more traditional strata of literary English, and if one adopts a general norm of decorous stylization for the prose of the translation, as I have done on the grounds I explained earlier, it becomes feasible to reproduce most of the Hebrew reconfigurations of syntax, preserving the thematic or psychological emphases they are meant to convey. The present translation does this, I think, to a greater degree than all previous English versions.
God repeatedly promises the patriarchs, “To your seed I will give this land” (e.g., Genesis 12:7), pointedly putting “your seed” at the beginning of the statement. Less rhetorically, more dramatically, when Hagar is asked by the divine messenger in the wilderness where she is going, she responds, “From Sarai my mistress I am fleeing” (Genesis 16:8), placing Sarai, the implacable source of her misery, at the beginning of the sentence. Still more strikingly, when Jacob is told by his sons that Simeon has been detained as a hostage in Egypt and that the Egyptian regent insists Benjamin be brought down to him, the old man begins his lament by saying, “Me you have bereaved” (Genesis 42:36). It is profoundly revelatory of Jacob’s psychological posture that he should place himself as the object of suffering at the very beginning of his utterance (and again at the end, in a little formal symmetry). Normally, biblical Hebrew indicates a pronominal object of a verb by attaching a suffix to the verb itself. Here, however, instead of the usual accusative suffix we get an accusative first-person pronoun—’oti—placed before the verb, a procedure that beautifully expresses Jacob’s self-dramatization as anguished and resentful father continually at the mercy of his sons. The “me” urgently needs to be thrust into the ear of the listener. Many translations simply suppress the inversion, but to put it decorously as “It is I” (Everett Fox) or paraphrastically as “It is always me” (New Jewish Publication Society) is to dilute the dramatic force of the original.
The sharpness and vividness of biblical style are also diluted when it is represented in English, as virtually all the versions do, by a single, indifferent level of diction. As I noted earlier, there seems to be nothing genuinely colloquial in the prose used by the narrator; but there is a palpable variation between passages that are more cadenced, more inclined to balanced structures of terms and elevated language, like the narrative of the Flood, and looser, more stylistically flexible passages. There are many instances, moreover, of single word choices that pointedly break with the stylistic decorum of the surrounding narrative, and for the most part these are fudged by the sundry English translations. When Hagar and Ishmael use up their supply of water in the wilderness, the despairing mother “flung the child under one of the bushes” (Genesis 21:15). The verb here, hishlikh, always means “to throw,” usually abruptly or violently. This is somewhat softened by the King James Version and Fox, who use “cast.” The Revised English Bible is uncomfortable with the idea of throwing a child and so translates “thrust.” Speiser and the New Jewish Publication Society Bible altogether disapprove of spasmodic maternal gestures and hence dissolve “flung” into a gentler “left.” In all such manipulation, the violence of Hagar’s action and feelings disappears. When Laban berates Jacob for running off with his daughters, he says, “What have you done, … driving my daughters like captives of the sword?” (Genesis 31:26). All the English versions represent the verb here as “carrying away” or some approximation thereof, but nahag is a term for driving animals, and is used precisely in that sense earlier in this very chapter (verse 18). To translate it otherwise is to lose the edge of brutal exaggeration in Laban’s angry words. In the throes of the great famine, the destitute Egyptians say to Joseph, “Nothing is left for our lord but our carcasses and our farmland” (Genesis 47:18). Most English versions use “bodies” instead of “carcasses,” with a couple of modern translations flattening the language even more by rendering the term as “persons.” But the Hebrew gewiyah, with the sole exception of one famous mythopoeic text in Ezekiel, invariably means “corpse” or “carcass.” What the miserable Egyptians are saying to their great overlord is that they have been reduced to little more than walking corpses, and he might as well have those. This sort of pungency can be conveyed if the translator recognizes that the Hebrew does not operate at a single bland level and that literary expression is not inevitably bound to decorous “logic.”
These last two examples were taken from dialogue, and it is chiefly in dialogue that we get small but vivid intimations of the colloquial. Again, these are eliminated in the flat regularity of conventional Bible translation. When God rebukes Abimelech for taking Sarah into his harem, the king vehemently protests that he has acted in good conscience: “Did not he say to me, ‘She is my sister’? and she, she, too, said, ‘He is my brother’” (Genesis 20:5). The repetition of “she, she, too” is a stammer or splutter of indignation clearly indicated in the Hebrew. In some English versions, it disappears altogether. The King James Version turns it into a rhetorical flourish: “she, even she herself.” Everett Fox, because of his commitment to literalism, comes closer but without quite the requisite feeling of colloquial mimesis: “and also she, she said.” The seventeen-year-old Joseph reports the first of his dreams to his brothers in the following manner: “And, look, we were binding sheaves in the field, and, look, my sheaf arose and actually [wegam] stood up, and, look, your sheaves drew round and bowed to my sheaf” (Genesis 37:7). The language here is surely crafted mimetically to capture the gee-gosh wonderment of this naïve adolescent who blithely assumes his brothers will share his sense of amazement at his dream. The presentative hineh (“look”) is the conventional term dreamers use to report the visual images of their dreams, perhaps partly because it readily introduces a surprising new perception, but here Joseph repeats the term three times in one breathless sentence, and the effect of naïve astonishment is equally expressed in his redundant “arose and actually stood up” (the Hebrew adverb gam most often means “also” but fairly frequently serves as well as a term of emphasis or intensification). The point is that the adolescent Joseph speaking to his brothers does not at all sound like the adult Joseph addressing Pharaoh, and a translation should not reduce either dialogue or narrator’s language to a single dead level.
In the range of diction of the biblical text, the complementary opposite to these moments of colloquial mimesis occurs in the poetic insets. Most of these in the Torah are only a line or two of verse, though Genesis and Deuteronomy conclude with relatively long poems, and Exodus incorporates the Song of the Sea as Numbers does Balaam’s oracles. Now, it has long been recognized by scholarship that biblical poetry reflects a stratum of Hebrew older than biblical prose: some of the grammatical forms are different, and there is a distinctive poetic vocabulary, a good deal of it archaic. No previous English translation has made a serious effort to represent the elevated and archaic nature of the poetic language in contradistinction to the prose, though that is clearly part of the intended literary effect of biblical narrative. The present translation tries to suggest this contrast in levels of style—through a more liberal use of syntactic inversion in the poetry, through a selective invocation of slightly archaic terms, and through the occasional deployment of rhetorical gestures broadly associated with older English poetry (like the ejaculation “O”). I wish I could have gone further in this direction, but there is a manifest danger in sounding merely quaint instead of eloquently archaic, and so the stylistic baggage of “anent” and “forsooth” had to be firmly excluded.
Two minute examples will illustrate how these discriminations of stylistic level are made in the Hebrew and how they might be conveyed in English. The enigmatic notice about the Nephilim, the human-divine hybrids of the primeval age, concludes with these words: “They are the heroes of yore, the men of renown” (Genesis 6:4). This line could conceivably be a fragment from an old mythological poem; more probably, it reads in the original as a kind of stylistic citation of the epic genre. The clearest clue to this in the Hebrew is the word “they,” which here is hemah rather than the standard hem. This variant with the extra syllable is in all likelihood an older form: it occurs four times more often in poetry than in prose, and even in prose is often reserved for rather ceremonial gestures. There is no English variant of “they” that is similarly marked as poetic diction, and my translation compensates by using “of yore” instead of the phrase “of old” adopted by the King James Version and by most later English versions. In the next chapter, the unleashing of the Deluge is reported in this line of verse, with emphatic semantic parallelism and four Hebrew accents against three in the two halves of the line: “All the wellsprings of the great deep burst, / and the casements of the heavens opened” (7:11). In order to convey a sense that this is poetry, beyond the mechanics of typography, a translator of course has to create a good deal of rhythmic regularity, but there remains a problem of diction. The Hebrew word represented by “casements” is ʾarubot. It is a rare term, occurring only a few times elsewhere in the Bible, and it clearly means “window” or “window-like niche.” The decision of several different modern translators to render it as “sluices” or “floodgates” has no philological warrant and is a conspicuous instance of translation by context. “Windows” in the King James Version is on target semantically but not stylistically. The occurrence of a cognate of ʾarubot in Ugaritic poetry, several centuries before the composition of Genesis, is further indication that the term is poetic and probably somewhat archaic for the later Hebrew audience. “Casements,” with its echoes of Keats and of Shakespeare behind Keats, seemed like a happy solution to the problem of diction. Though not all shifts in stylistic level in the Hebrew can be so readily represented by English equivalents, a translation that tries to do justice to the richness of the Hebrew must aim for some approximation of the nuances of diction in the original.
The most pervasive aspect of the magic of biblical style that has been neglected by English translators is its beautiful rhythms. An important reason for the magnetic appeal of these stories when you read them in the Hebrew is the rhythmic power of the words that convey the story. The British critic A. Alvarez has aptly described the crucial role of rhythm in all literary art: “the rhythm—the way the sounds move, combine, separate, recombine—is the vehicle for the feeling… . And without that inner movement or disturbance, the words, no matter how fetching, remain inert. In this way at least, the dynamics of poetry—and probably of all the arts—are the same as the dynamics of dreaming.” I know of no modern English translation of the Bible that is not blotted by constant patches of arrhythmia, and the result is precisely the sense of inertness of which Alvarez speaks. The King James Version, of course, has its grand rhythmic movements—cultivated people around 1611 clearly had a much firmer sense of expressive sound in language than has been true of recent generations. But these rhythms are more orotund, less powerfully compact, than those of the Hebrew, and in fact there are far more local lapses in rhythm than nostalgic readers of the King James Version may recall.
The final arbiter of rhythmic effectiveness must be the inner ear of the sensitive reader, but I would like to show that there is a vital dimension of biblical prose that translation has to engage by quoting a couple of verses in transliteration and then in three English versions, together with my own. In regard to the transliteration, it should be kept in mind that we have an approximate notion, not an exact one, of how biblical Hebrew was originally pronounced. There is some question about vowels in particular because vowel-points were added to the consonantal texts by the Masoretes—the Hebrew scholars of sixth- to tenth-century Tiberias who fixed the text of the Bible, with full punctuation, standard since then—more than a millennium after the texts were composed. There was, however, a continuous tradition for recitation of the texts on which the Masoretes drew, and anyone who has listened to the Masoretic Text read out loud can attest to its strong rhythmic integrity, which argues that its system of pronunciation was by no means an arbitrary imposition. Here is the narrative report of Noah’s entering the ark as the Deluge is unleashed (Genesis 7:13–14). (Acute accents are used to indicate accented syllables. W is used for the letter waw [pronounced as v in modern Hebrew but as w in biblical times], especially to distinguish it from bet without dagesh, pronounced as v. Ḥ indicates a light fricative [something like Spanish j]; kh represents a heavier fricative, like the German ch in Bach.)
13. Beʿétsem hayóm hazéh ba’ nóaḥ weshém-weḥám wayéfet benei-nóaḥ weʾéshet nóaḥ ushlóshet neshéi-vanáw ʾitám’ el hateváh. 14. Hémah wekhol-haḥayáh lemináh wekhol-habehemáh lemináh wekhol-harémes haromésʿal-ha’árets leminéhu wekhol-haʿóf leminéhu kól tsipór kol-kanáf.
The Hebrew rhythm unfolds in groupings of three or four words marked by three or four stresses, usually with no more than one or two unstressed syllables between the stressed ones, and the sense of the words invites a slight pause between one grouping and the next. The overall effect is that of a grand solemn sweep, a sort of epic march, and that effect is reinforced in the diction by the use of hémah instead of hem for “they” at the beginning of the second verse.
Here is the King James Version:
13. In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14. they, and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
The first of the two verses (up to “into the ark”) is nearly perfect. I envy the freedom of the King James Version to follow the Hebrew syntax and write “entered Noah,” an inversion feasible at the beginning of the seventeenth century but a little too odd, I am afraid, at the beginning of the twenty-first. But in the second verse rhythmic difficulties emerge. The repeated “after its kind,” with its sequencing of a trochee and an iamb and its two stresses, is an ungainly equivalent of the Hebrew lemináh; “every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” is a whole mouthful of syllables in exchange for the compactness of the Hebrew; and “every bird of every sort” falls flat as a final cadence (apart from being inaccurate as a translation).
Here is E. A. Speiser’s version of these two verses—a version, to be sure, intended to be accompanied by a philological commentary, but one that helped set a norm for recent Bible translations:
13. On the aforesaid day, Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons had entered the ark—14. they as well as every kind of beast, every kind of creature that creeps on earth, and every kind of bird, every winged thing.
The initial phrase, “on the aforesaid day,” is an ill-starred beginning in regard to diction as well as to rhythm. Something as mechanical as the list of the passengers of the ark is divided up in a way that undercuts its rhythmic momentum: at best, one can say that this version has intermittent moments of escape into rhythm.
Everett Fox, the most boldly literal of modern Bible translators, does a little better, but his attention to rhythm is by no means unflagging.
13. On that very day came Noah, and Shem, Ham, and Yefet, Noah’s sons, Noah’s wife and his three sons’ wives with them, into the Ark, 14. they and all wildlife after their kind, all herd-animals after their kind, all crawling things that crawl upon the earth after their kind, all fowl after their kind, all chirping-things, all winged-things.
The first short clause, with the courageous inversion of verb and subject, rings nicely in the ear. But the simple deletion of the “and” between Shem and Ham collapses the rhythm, and Fox’s grouping of the list is not much better rhythmically than Speiser’s. As in the King James Version, the decision to use “after” four times introduces a series of unwelcome extra syllables, and rhythm is virtually lost in “all herd-animals after their kind, all crawling things that crawl upon the earth after their kind.”
Here is my own version, far from perfect, but meant to preserve more of the phonetic compactness of the Hebrew and to avoid such glaring lapses into arrhythmia:
13. That very day, Noah and Shem and Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons together with them, came into the ark, 14. they as well as beasts of each kind and cattle of each kind and each kind of crawling thing that crawls on the earth and each kind of bird, each winged thing.
Biblical Hebrew, in sum, has a distinctive music, a lovely precision of lexical choice, a meaningful concreteness, and a suppleness of expressive syntax that by and large have been given short shrift by translators with their eyes on other goals. The present translation, whatever its imperfections, seeks to do fuller justice to all these aspects of biblical style in the hope of making the rich literary experience of the Hebrew more accessible to readers of English.
The God of Israel is referred to through a variety of names in these texts, and it is by no means self-evident how to render the names in English. The most difficult of them is the Tetragrammaton, YHWH. Modern biblical scholarship has agreed to represent this as “Yahweh,” but there are problems with using that form in translation. The original Hebrew texts of the Bible were entirely consonantal, vowel-points having been added well over a millennium after the original composition of the texts. Because by then the Tetragrammaton was deemed ineffable by Jewish tradition, it was revocalized to be pronounced as though it read ʾadonai, LORD. The confidence of biblical scholarship that the original pronunciation was in fact Yahweh may not be entirely warranted. (See the comment on Exodus 3:14.) In any case, “Yahweh” would have given the English version a certain academic-archaeological coloration that I preferred to avoid, and it would also have introduced a certain discomfort at least for some Jewish readers of the translation. I rejected the option of using “YHWH” because it cannot be pronounced whereas the dimension of sound seemed to me vital to the translation. I have therefore followed the precedent of the King James Version in representing YHWH as the LORD, the last three letters in small uppercase to indicate that, like ʾadonai, it is an anomaly, a substitution for another name.
The other most common designation of the deity is ʾelohim, a word that is plural in form (perhaps, though this is far from certain, a plural of “majesty”) but that is generally treated grammatically as a singular. “God” is the natural English equivalent, but in some contexts, where the generic character of the name seems prominent, I have rendered it with a lowercase gas “god,” and when the name is treated as a plural, especially when the narrative context involves polytheism, I have translated it as “gods.” Three other names for the deity, all borrowed from the Canaanite pantheon, occur in these books—El, Elyon, and Shaddai. Especially in poetry and at narrative moments of high solemnity, the writers appear to play on the archaic resonances of these names, and so for the most part I have given them in their Hebrew form, for in the particular contexts in which they typically appear a touch of linguistic archaeology seemed to me entirely appropriate.
Admittedly, any of the choices I have described may be debatable, but in all of them my aim has been to name the deity in English in ways that would be in keeping with the overall concert of literary effects that the translation strives to create.
My original intention when I set out to translate Genesis in the mid-1990s had been simply to provide brief translator’s notes. Puns, wordplay in the sundry naming-speeches, and other untranslatable maneuvers of the Hebrew needed to be glossed. The reader also had to be informed, I felt, of the occasional junctures where I adopted a reading that varied from the Masoretic Text, the received Hebrew text of the Bible. Similarly, it seemed proper to offer some explanation for translation choices that were likely to surprise either the general reader or the scholarly reader, or both. In some instances, such a choice reflects a proposed new solution to a crux in the Hebrew text. More often, it is an effort to represent a more precise understanding of the Hebrew than previous translations have shown (e.g., the tree of knowledge is “lovely to look at,” not “lovely to impart wisdom”; Pharaoh puts a “golden collar” around Joseph’s neck, not a “gold chain”). And most pervasively, the little surprises in the translation are attempts to find English equivalents for the nuances of implication and the significant changes of diction in the Hebrew that have not been much regarded by previous translators. Finally, since this translation is, within the limits of readable English style, quite literal—not out of fundamentalist principle but in an effort to reproduce some of the distinctive literary effects of the original—when the interests of English intelligibility compelled me to diverge from a literal translation, I have alerted readers to the divergence and given the literal sense of the Hebrew words in a note. And beyond all such considerations of word choice and level of style, I thought it necessary to offer succinct explanations of some of the ancient Near Eastern cultural practices and social institutions that are presupposed by the narratives, for without an understanding of them it is sometimes hard to see exactly what is going on in the story.
This last category of explanation is, of course, standard fare in modern Bible commentaries, where it is sometimes dished out in very large portions, and it is admittedly intended here as an aid for the relatively uninitiated. But as I got caught up once again in this endlessly fascinating text, it struck me that there were important features that by and large had been given short shrift in the modern commentaries. In fact, a good many of my observations on stylistic choices already shaded into a discussion of the literary vehicle of the biblical narratives, and this was the point at which the tightly cinched annotation I had originally intended began to loosen its bonds and reach out to commentary. There were whole orders of questions, it seemed to me, that had been neglected or addressed only intermittently and impressionistically by the modern commentators. Where are there detectible shifts of stylistic level in the Hebrew, and why do they occur? What are the reasons for the small poetic insets in the prose narratives? What are the principles on which dialogue is organized, and how are the speakers differentiated? Where and why are there shifts from the narrator’s point of view to that of one of the characters? What are the devices of analogy, recurrent motifs, and key words that invite us to link and contrast one episode with another? How is the poetry formally constructed? And do these books, granted their composite origins, exhibit overarching thematic and structural unities or lines of development?
On all these challenging questions I have surely not said the last word. Rather I have aspired to say some helpful first words in a commentary that I have sought to hold to modest proportions. Clearly, there is no way of separating a literary illumination of the biblical text from a confrontation with philological issues, on the one side, and, perhaps more indirectly, with historical issues, on the other. In any case, the exploration of the Bible as literary expression is the central focus of this commentary, and I would hope it would be of interest to everyone, from reader at large to scholar, who is drawn to the imaginative liveliness, the complexities, the stylistic vigor, and the sheer inventiveness of these splendid ancient stories and poems and legal and moral discourses.
* The symbol ʿ represents the Hebrew consonant ayin, a glottal stop that might sound something like the Cockney pronunciation of the middle consonant of “bottle,” in which the dentalized t is replaced by a gulping sound produced from the larynx.
† Instead of a clear-cut expression of the temporal frame in which actions occur—past, present, future, past perfect, and so forth—aspects indicate chiefly whether the action has been completed or is to be completed.
‡ The modern Hebrew pronunciation is vav, with the vowel sounding like the short a in a French word like bave, with which it would rhyme.
This middle unit of the traditional tripartite division of the Hebrew canon, which is the largest of the three, comprises two very different sets of materials. The first, designated the Former Prophets for somewhat confusing reasons that will be explained below, is in fact a set of narratives, purportedly historical (Joshua, Judges, and the early chapters of Samuel) or substantially historical (much of Samuel and Kings).
The second large set of texts is a collection of prophecies in the proper sense of the term. These Prophetic books, although they incorporate some narrative materials, are by and large hortatory, much of them cast in poetry. The nature of the collection will be outlined in the section on the Prophets in this introduction. Because the two large blocks of texts were thought of as one set of “Prophetic” books, the traditional practice was to run them together with no formal dividing line between the end of Kings and the beginning of Isaiah and all that follows. This practice will be maintained here.
To many readers, the rubric “the Former Prophets” may be puzzling. Some will not recognize it as the designation of a part of the Bible with which they are familiar. Some will wonder which prophets are involved, for the figures we usually think of as prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel are nowhere in evidence, and Isaiah has only a late walk-on appearance toward the end of 2 Kings. Then, the question poses itself: Former to what? Or even, what did they do after they stopped being prophets?
This conventional English title is a literal translation of the Hebrew neviʾim riʾshonim. The founders of Jewish tradition seem to have thought of the first of these two units as Prophetic literature because they imagined it as having been composed by various of the so-called writing prophets. This is not a view in any way embraced by modern scholarship. More plausible grounds for calling this sequence of narratives the Former Prophets is that, from Samuel onward, figures identified as prophets keep popping up, for the most part to frame the narrative with prophecies of doom. (This is not true for Joshua and Judges. The sole exception is Deborah in Judges 4, who is called a “prophet-woman,” ʾishah neviʾah, but she is not shown exercising that vocation.)
Biblical scholars, since the work in Germany by Martin Noth in the middle of the twentieth century, have adopted a more precise though less pronounceable designation for the large narrative from Joshua and Judges to Samuel and Kings: the Deuteronomistic History. In the late seventh century B.C.E., a major revolution in the religion of ancient Israel was effected when, in the course of renovation work on the Temple in the reign of King Josiah, a long scroll was purportedly discovered (see 2 Kings 22–23); it was referred to as “this book of teaching,” sefer hatorah hazeh. Most scholars since the early nineteenth century have concluded that it was a version of Deuteronomy and surmise that it was actually composed around this time by reformers in Josiah’s court. It put forth a new insistence on the exclusivity of the cult in the Jerusalem temple, vehemently polemicized against the use of any image or icon in worship, and proposed a system of historical causation in which the survival of a given king and of the covenanted people was strictly dependent on their loyalty—above all, cultic loyalty—to their God. All this was cast in language that highlighted certain formulaic phrases—“to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your might,” “to keep His statutes, His commands and His dictates”—and in a distinctive rhetoric that, unlike other biblical prose, favored long periodic sentences and the oratorical insistence of anaphora, that is, emphatic repetition.
At the same time that Deuteronomy proper (which would acquire some additional layers when it was edited in the Babylonian exile only a few decades after its initial promulgation in 621 B.C.E.) was exhorting the people to follow what it deemed to be the right path, writers in this same circle sought to make sense of the history of the nation in the revelatory light of the new reforming book. A religious intellectual—it may actually have been a whole group, but for convenience’s sake, scholarship refers to him schematically as the Deuteronomist—who was swept up in Josiah’s reforms set out to assemble a more or less continuous version of the national history from the conquest of the land to his own time, covering roughly five centuries. This first Deuteronomistic historian does not envisage the destruction of the southern kingdom (the northern kingdom of Israel had disappeared a century earlier, in 721 B.C.E., at the hands of the Assyrians) or of the cutting off of the Davidic dynasty, so it is plausible to date him to the late seventh century B.C.E. Then, in the view of most scholars, a second and more or less final edition of the Deuteronomistic History was executed in the Babylonian exile after 586 B.C.E., probably just a few decades later (it contains as yet no vision of a return to Zion), incorporating an account of the devastation of the kingdom of Judah and the humiliation, mutilation, and exile of its last king
An elusive question about this entire chain of books is what exactly was the role played by the Deuteronomist in their composition. Some scholars are inclined to speak of him as the “author” of the history, a writer who utilized older textual and perhaps also oral materials but edited them and reworked them freely according to his own ideological bent. I find this view implausible. The Deuteronomist clearly drew on a wide variety of preexisting texts, some of them probably preserved in royal archives, from annals to folktales and legends to the most artfully articulated historical narratives. He punctuated these disparate materials, especially in the Book of Kings, with formulaic assertions, often reminiscent of the language of Deuteronomy, of his own interpretation as to why particular historic events happened as they did. But there is abundant evidence that the old stories resisted the pressure of his insistent interpretation, showing their own view of things, and that for the most part he did not feel at liberty to tamper with the literary documents he had inherited.
Let me cite one central instance. Nearly a third of the Former Prophets is devoted to the story of Saul and David (1 Samuel 8 through 2 Kings 2). As a literary composition, this story manifestly antedates the Deuteronomist, perhaps even by as much as three centuries. It also happens to be one of the greatest pieces of narrative in all of Western literature. Biblical scholars have a lamentable habit of referring to it as “royal propaganda,” and also of breaking it down into purportedly disparate sources in a fashion that does violence to its powerful continuities of style, image, motif, and character. Although David is clearly represented as divinely elected king in this narrative, he is also seen quite strikingly in all his human weakness, in his relentlessness, and in his moral ambiguity—hardly a figure of royal propaganda. And in regard to the issue of historic causation, events here are the consequence of human actions—in the preponderance of these stories, there is nothing miraculous and no divine intervention. When the aged king is dying, he calls Solomon to his bedside and instructs him to use his “wisdom” to get rid of two men against whom David has a score to pay off, and who also might well threaten Solomon’s throne. This final gesture, worthy of a mafia chieftain, was evidently too much for the Deuteronomist, and so he inserted before David’s hit list a whole swatch of dialogue, in which David, deploying an uninterrupted pastiche of Deuteronomistic phrases, piously enjoins Solomon to walk in God’s ways and keep His commands. What the editor did not feel free to do was to change the inherited text or delete the parts of it he found objectionable.
This combination of tendentious editorial framing with an assemblage of disparate narrative texts from different periods and probably different regions of the country has been a source of debate and perplexity among scholars. General readers, on the other hand, may be grateful for the extravagant heterogeneity of these books. Each has its own distinctive character. The first half of Joshua is an account of conquest and destruction, enlivened by the tale of Rahab and the two spies and the fall of Jericho; the second half is a mapping out of the tribal territories in which the supposedly conquered land now appears far from fully conquered. Judges comprises a series of episodes of martial derring-do in the sundry struggles of the tribes with the surrounding peoples, and it includes the unforgettable cycle of stories about the Herculean folk-hero Samson. After the anarchic period recorded in Judges, Samuel recounts the founding of the monarchy in the long continuous story, which is the artistic pinnacle of these books, of David from brilliant youth to the sad infirmity of old age. It is in Samuel, as the German scholar Gerhard von Rad argued seven decades ago, that the writing becomes properly historical, liberated from the heavy dependence on legend and sheer authorial invention. The Book of Kings, in more miscellaneous fashion, and with more conspicuous interventions of the Deuteronomist, continues the historical narrative, tapping the royal annals of both kingdoms but also liberally introducing folktales and legends, especially visible in the cycle of stories about Elijah and Elisha.
What results from this amalgam is a richly overflowing miscellany. It incorporates folk memories or fantasies about ideal and magically powerful figures; historical accounts of deadly court intrigues; representations of the intricate and dangerous complexities of life in the political realm; and reports of the great powers surrounding the small kingdoms of Israel and Judah and of their military campaigns in the land of Canaan. Over it all hovers the somber awareness of the Deuteronomist that these two nation-states, located at the crossroads of aggressive empires to the east and to the south, lived under constant threat and in the end might not endure. What did endure, embodied in the stories themselves, was the people’s memories, their vision of God and history and national purpose. All these, preserved in their Hebrew texts, they would one day bring back from exile as the potent instrument of an unprecedented national revival.
Prophecy in the sense of soothsaying and the prediction of future events was of course widespread in the ancient Near East, as it is in many early cultures. Figures who practice prophecy of this sort appear in some of the narratives in the Former Prophets. But in the middle decades of the eighth century B.C.E. a new phenomenon emerged—prophets who, while retaining a good deal of the predictive function of their earlier counterparts, assumed the role of the conscience of the people, carrying out missions of moral castigation directed not just at rulers—as, say, in the case of Elijah in the Book of Kings—but at the general populace. They delivered their message in a form of elevated speech that was often, though not always, framed as poetry, a procedure encouraged by the fact that they typically claimed to be quoting God’s very words (“Thus said the LORD” is the recurrent introductory formula for their prophecies). Some of the prophets were poets of the first rank—this is manifestly the case for Isaiah son of Amoz and for the anonymous poet of the Babylonian exile whose prophecies are included in the Book of Isaiah beginning in chapter 40, and there is remarkable poetry in Jeremiah, Amos, Micah, and in others of these figures. Elsewhere in the Bible, with the exception of Ezra–Nehemiah, the authors remain cloaked in anonymity, but the work of the prophets is, one might say, signed. We know who most of these writers were (even if the production of different prophets is often editorially inserted in the books that bear their name), and we are even given a certain amount of biographical information, some of it quite arresting, about a few of them.
This untypical highlighting of authors reflects a shared sense on the part of the prophets themselves that the vocation of mediating the word of God is a challenging and even anguishing undertaking—Jeremiah is the prime example—in which the imperative of a divine mission in an individual life draws simultaneous attention to the content of God’s message and to the particular human bearer of the message. The scathing critique that the prophets focus on their society oscillates between outrage against the perversion of justice, the exploitation of the poor and helpless, debauchery, and misrule, on the one hand, and cultic betrayal, the worship of pagan deities, on the other. Although both emphases appear in most of the Prophets, some favor one (Isaiah is above all a moral critic) and some the other (the slide into paganism is what especially provokes Ezekiel).
Given the immense historical distance that separates us from the prophets, it is hard to evaluate their reiterated claim that they are speaking God’s words. That claim is certainly much more than a pious fraud. There are indications that the prophets, or at least many of them, may have delivered their words in some sort of ecstatic state. It is quite conceivable that they felt they had heard God speaking to them in the precise words of Hebrew poetry—sometimes sublime poetry—or visionary prose that they conveyed to their audiences. But perhaps what they heard from God was the content of the message about Israel’s abominations, the destiny of disaster that awaited the people if it did not change its ways, as well as the luminous hope of national restoration after the disaster had fallen; they then proceeded to fashion this content in language, exercising their own human mastery of poetry and rhetoric. This is a complicated issue that may not be the same from one prophet to the next. It will be explored as we consider the interaction between the personality of the prophet and his message in the introductions later in this volume to the individual prophets.
The first step of this large project, the draft of my translation of Genesis, was scrupulously read by my dear friend Amos Funkenstein in what proved to be, alas, the last year of his life. His acute understanding of Hebrew philology and his rare gift for coming up with unexpected solutions to familiar problems were a model that I have striven to internalize in the subsequent volumes. My amiable friend and colleague Ron Hendel read many of the books in draft, and I have palpably benefited from his good sense and his commanding knowledge of biblical scholarship. Because I write by hand and am dependent on transcribers to convert my scrawl into an electronic text, I am grateful to Janet Livingstone, who did a large part of the whole and then had to withdraw for reasons of health, and to Jenna Scarpelli and Stefan Gutermuth, who in turn took over for the last two phases of the project. I am grateful to my copyeditor, Trent Duffy, who patiently and scrupulously went through these many pages, detecting inconsistencies, spotting typos, correcting inaccurate cross-references, and much more. Over the years, support for this assistance and for other research expenses was provided by funds from the Class of 1937 Chair at the University of California, Berkeley. After my retirement, I benefited from a research grant for emeriti professors from the Mellon Foundation and then from a generous three-year grant provided by Howard and Roberta Ahmanson.
The Book of Joshua, sandwiched in between the grand oratory of Deuteronomy and the vivid accounts of guerilla warfare and civil war in Judges, is a text that many modern readers may find off-putting. Its early chapters do include two memorable episodes—the expedition of the two spies to Jericho and the miraculous destruction of the walls of Jericho that enables its conquest. The prevailing sense, however, of the first half of the book is ruthlessness, and the general effect of the second half is tedium. Nowhere in the Bible is there a more palpable discrepancy between the values and expectations of the ancient Near Eastern era in which the book was written and those of twenty-first-century readers.
Joshua is really two books, symmetrically divided into twelve chapters each. The first of these we may call the Book of Conquests. It appears to be predominantly the work of the school of Deuteronomy, though it is not altogether uniform, and there is evidence that other sources have been drawn on, some of them probably older than Deuteronomy. The second half of Joshua can be given the rubric the Book of Apportionments. Its provenance is largely Priestly, although it ends with an emphatic Deuteronomistic flourish. There is some narrative material in the last three chapters, but the bulk of it is devoted to mapping out the sundry tribal territories in elaborate detail.
This book as a whole is offered as a historical account of the conquest of the land and the division of its territories, but the connection with history of both its large components is tenuous. Archaeologists in the earlier twentieth century were often bent on confirming the biblical record through their discoveries, but that project has not stood the test of time. What the last several decades of archaeological investigation have established is that there was no sweeping conquest of Canaan by invaders from the east in the late thirteenth century B.C.E.—which would have been the time of Joshua—and that many of the towns listed as objects of Israelite conquest were either uninhabited at this time or did not come under Israelite rule until considerably later. Jericho, the gateway town in the Jordan Valley and the one whose conquest has become etched in collective memory, was an important fortified city in the Middle Bronze Age (two or three centuries before the putative time of Joshua), but in the late thirteenth century it was an abandoned site or at most not much more than a large village without walls. Lachish, another important town said to have been taken by Joshua’s forces, fell under Israelite domination only during the period of the monarchy.
The fact that this narrative does not correspond to what we can reconstruct of the actual history of Canaan offers one great consolation: the bloodcurdling report of the massacre of the entire population of Canaanite towns—men, women, children, and in some cases livestock as well—never happened. Some reflection on why these imagined mass murders are included in the book may provide a sense of the aim of the pseudo-historiographical project of the Book of Joshua. The ḥerem, the practice of total destruction that scholars call “the ban” (a usage adopted in the present translation), was not unique to ancient Israel, and there is some evidence that it was occasionally carried out in warfare by other peoples of the region. The question is why the Hebrew writers, largely under the ideological influence of Deuteronomy, felt impelled to invent a narrative of the conquest of the land in which a genocidal onslaught on its indigenous population is repeatedly stressed.
Deuteronomy, which crystallized as a canonical book during and after the sweeping religious reforms of King Josiah—the purported discovery of the book took place in 621 B.C.E.—articulates an agenda of uncompromising monotheism that insists on two principal points: the exclusive centralization of the cult in Jerusalem and the absolute separation of the Israelites from the Canaanite population. There is an underlying connection between these two emphases: the worship of YHWH in sundry local sanctuaries and on rural hillside altars was liable to be more susceptible to the influences of Canaanite paganism, or so the Deuteronomist seems to have feared, than a central cult in Jerusalem overseen by a priestly bureaucracy and under the shadow of the monarchy. One strong expression of the program to separate the population is the injunction to carry out the ban in the conquest of the land, an undertaking that at the fictional time of the writing of Deuteronomy (the thirteenth century B.C.E.) had not yet begun. The Book of Joshua, then, which is offered as a report of the subsequent conquest, presents as a historical account the implementation of that wholesale slaughter of the indigenous population in town after town.
This gruesome story is intended as an explanation of a circumstance observed by audiences of the book in the seventh century and later—that by then a non-Israelite Canaanite population was only vestigially in evidence. Where, one might wonder, did all these peoples—seven in the traditional enumeration repeatedly invoked here—go? Joshua’s answer is that they were wiped out in the conquest, as Deuteronomy had enjoined. But the narrative of the ḥerem is a cover-up as well as an explanation. If the Canaanites seem to have disappeared, it was not because they were extirpated but because they had been assimilated by the Israelites, who had come to exercise political dominion over large portions of the land. There is good reason to assume that the Canaanites intermarried with the Israelites (a taboo for the Deuteronomist), had all kinds of social and economic intercourse with them, and shared with them many of their religious practices as well as many elements of their theology.
This story, then, of the annihilation of the indigenous population of Canaan belongs not to historical memory but rather to cultural memory, a concept that Ronald Handel has aptly applied to biblical literature in his book Remembering Abraham. That is to say, what is reported as the national past is grounded not in the factual historical experience of the nation but in the image of the nation that the guardians of the national literary legacy seek to fix for their audiences and for future generations. Thus, Israel is represented in this narrative as “a people that dwells apart” (Numbers 23:9), though in historical actuality its life was intricately entangled not only with the sundry peoples of Canaan but also with the cultures of Egypt to the south and of Mesopotamia to the east.
The story of the Gibeonites recounted in chapter 9 is in this regard an instructive case in point. The audience of the story, we may safely infer, would have been aware of the Gibeonites as a group of different ethnic stock from the Israelites yet “dwelling in their midst”—that is, having close social and economic relations with them, perhaps of the subservient order indicated in the biblical account. But what were they doing there if the systematic plan of the conquest was to wipe out all traces of the indigenous inhabitants of the land? This difficulty is resolved by the account here of the subterfuge of the Gibeonites: disguising themselves as representatives of a people living in a distant country and hence not subject to the ban, they trick the Israelites into making a binding pact of peaceful coexistence with them, and hence for all future times they must be spared. The ostensible exception to the programmatic rule of total destruction is thus given a narrative explanation or etiology.
What should also be observed about the story of the conquest in Joshua is that it is a vision of overwhelming military triumph. It is a triumph that is repeatedly attributed to God’s power, not to Israel’s martial prowess (although a couple of the reported episodes do show cunning tactical moves on the part of the Israelites). That notion is perfectly in keeping with the Deuteronomistic view of historical causation, in which God causes Israel to prevail when it is loyal to the covenant and brings defeat on the people when Israel betrays its commitment to God. The message, however, of an irresistible sweep of the Israelite forces through the land of Canaan addresses a geopolitical situation of the Israelite nation that was quite the opposite. It was the historical fate of Israel to sit at the bloody crossroads between powerful empires to the east and the south with some dire threats from the north as well. This chronic predicament came to seem much graver in the span of years from the destruction by Assyria of the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 B.C.E. to the conquest of the southern kingdom of Judah by Babylonia in 589 B.C.E.—the very period in which the early nucleus of Deuteronomy was formulated and when the book as a whole achieved its first general recension. What must have been in the minds of a good many Judahites after 721 B.C.E. was that national existence itself was a highly contingent affair, that the people which had come to think of itself as chosen by God for a grand destiny, as the Patriarchal narratives in Genesis repeatedly asserted, could easily suffer disastrous defeat, bitter exile, perhaps even extinction. Whatever the rousing promises and consolations of theology, it would have been difficult to dismiss the awareness of imperial powers that could bring to bear overwhelming force on the tiny Israelite nation. The story of the conquest, then, served as a countermove in the work of cultural memory: Israel had entered its land in a stirring triumphal drive as a power before which no man could stand. The theological warrant for this vision, antithetical as it was to the historical facts, was that as long as Israel remained faithful to all that its God had enjoined upon it, the people would be invincible.
Against this general background of theological explanation of historical events, the story of Achan in chapter 7 is meant to play an exemplary role. Achan violates the ban, which is represented as an obligation imposed by God. The direct consequence is military defeat, and Israel cannot continue on its triumphal progress until the transgressor is singled out and punished by death. That punishment grimly extends to his entire family, as if the guilt were a kind of contagion that infected everyone in immediate contact with him and thus had to be ruthlessly expunged. If the transgression of a single person can have such dire widespread effects, how much more so when large numbers of the people backslide. This is the prospect raised by Joshua in his two valedictory addresses (chapters 23 and 24). The emphasis of both these speeches is heavily Deuteronomistic: Joshua fears that the Israelites will intermarry with the surrounding peoples and worship their gods; he expresses doubt as to whether Israel will be up to the challenge of faithfulness to this demanding God—“You will not be able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God, He will not put up with your crimes and your offenses” (24:19). Although his audience responds with a solemn pledge of fealty, the somber prospect has been evoked that Israel will betray its God and therefore suffer cataclysmic defeat and exile. In this fashion, there is a tension between the first twelve chapters of Joshua and the conclusion of the book, a contradiction between the vision of a grand conquest and the threat of national disaster.
Some of that tension is also detectable in the discrepancy between the Book of Conquests and the Book of Apportionments. The function of the elaborate drawing of tribal borders in the second of these two texts is to convey a sense of a systematic and orderly division of the land. Because the determination of the tribal territories is made by lot (goral), which is a divinely inspired oracular device, the clear implication is that God dictates the boundaries within which the sundry tribes are to live. The aim is to provide theological authentication and solidity to the existing tribal territories. In fact, there were likely to have been ad hoc arrangements marked by a good deal of fluidity, with tribes encroaching on one another’s territories, migrating in pursuit of better pastureland and tillable soil, and, at least in the case of Dan, being completely displaced by political circumstances. The mapping of boundaries, however, also incorporates several indications that the conquest of the land was not as comprehensive as the first twelve chapters of Joshua might lead one to conclude. This chronicle concedes that there were instances in which the Israelites were unable “to dispossess”—which is to say, conquer and destroy—the local Canaanites, an uncomfortable circumstance that the writer seeks to mitigate by noting that these unsubdued populations were reduced to the status of forced laborers as they continued to live alongside the Israelites.
The Book of Joshua thus registers a double awareness of Israel’s historical predicament. The people had been promised the land by God, and its success in establishing an autonomous state, which very quickly became two states, over a large portion of Canaan was testimony to the fulfillment of that promise. The fulfillment is inscribed in the first half of the book. The conquest, however, was not total, and its permanency was menaced by a series of foreign powers. The book translates this contradiction into theological terms: Israel in the flush of its military triumph is imagined as staunchly loyal to its God, with the single exception of Achan; Israel, having taken possession of the land and drawn its boundaries, is seen as teetering on the brink of future disloyalties that will entail disastrous consequences. Though the tension between the two halves of the book is arguably an artifact of the redactional process that joined two different sources, the effect is to produce a dialectical perspective on the history of the nation. The Book of Judges follows logically from this because there it is vividly clear that Israel’s tenure in the land before the monarchic period is unstable, that much of the Israelite population is either subject to foreign domination or exposed to the attacks of marauders. Accounting for the incompleteness of the conquest, which is already adumbrated in the latter part of Joshua, will become the task of the book that follows.
1And it happened after the death of Moses servant of the LORD, that the LORD said to Joshua son of Nun, Moses’s attendant, saying: 2“Moses My servant is dead. And now, arise, cross this Jordan, you, and all this people, to the land I am about to give to them, to the Israelites. 3Every place where the sole of your foot treads, to you I have given it, as I spoke to Moses, 4from the wilderness and this Lebanon to the Great River, the River Euphrates, the whole land of the Hittites, and to the Great Sea, where the sun sets, will be your territory. 5No man will stand up against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, I shall be with you. I shall not let go of you and I shall not forsake you. 6Be strong and stalwart, for you will make this people inherit the land that I vowed to their fathers to give to them. 7But you must be very strong and stalwart to keep and do according to all the teaching that Moses My servant charged you. You shall not swerve from it to the right or the left, so that you may prosper wherever you go. 8This book of teaching shall not depart from your mouth, and you shall murmur it day and night, so that you may keep to do according to all that is written in it; then you will make your ways succeed and then you will prosper. 9Have I not charged you, ‘Be strong and stalwart’? Do not be terror-stricken and do not cower, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go.”
10And Joshua charged the people’s overseers, saying: 11“Pass through the midst of the camp and charge the people, saying, ‘Prepare yourselves provisions, for in three days you are to cross this Jordan to come to take hold of the land that the LORD your God is about to give you to take hold of it.’” 12And to the Reubenites and to the Gadites, and to the half-tribe of Manasseh, Joshua said: 13“Recall the word that Moses servant of the LORD charged you, saying, ‘The LORD your God is about to grant you rest and will give you this land. 14Your wives, your little ones, and your herds shall dwell in this land that Moses has given you across the Jordan, but you shall cross over arrayed for combat before your brothers, all the mighty warriors, and you shall help them, 15until the LORD grants rest to your brothers like you and they too take hold of the land that the LORD their God is about to give to them, and you shall return to the land of your holding and take hold of it, which Moses servant of the LORD has given to you across the Jordan where the sun rises.’” 16And they answered Joshua, saying, “All that you charged us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go. 17As in all that we heeded Moses, so we will heed you. Only may the LORD your God be with you as He was with Moses. 18Every man who flouts your command and does not heed your word in all that you charge him shall be put to death. Only be strong and stalwart.”
CHAPTER 1 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. And it happened after the death of Moses. These opening words are an explicit device to create a direct link with the end of Deuteronomy, which reports the death of Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5ff.), and the beginning of this book, in which Joshua takes up Moses’s task.
servant of the LORD. This identifying phrase, reiterated in this initial passage, is a formal epithet for Moses, also used in Deuteronomy. Joshua is called his “attendant,” as he is in Numbers 11:28; the implication is that the attendant of the LORD’s servant will now assume the role of his master.
2. this Jordan … this people. The repeated use of the deictic zeh, “this” (and again in verse 4, “this Lebanon”) is positional. God is addressing Joshua across the Jordan from Canaan. First, He points to “this Jordan,” across which Joshua will have to take the people, then to “this people,” whom Joshua must lead, and then to “this Lebanon,” marking the northern limits of the land.
4. from the wilderness and this Lebanon to the Great River, the River Euphrates. These are utopian—or perhaps one should say fantastic—borders never occupied by Israel and never within its military capacity to occupy.
the whole land of the Hittites. This can scarcely be the region in Asia Minor that was once the center of a Hittite empire. There were Hittite immigrants scattered through Canaan from an early period. Shmuel Ahituv proposes that the phrase reflects a usage in Neo-Assyrian texts where it indicates everything west of the Euphrates, including the Land of Israel.
to the Great Sea. The “Great Sea” is, as elsewhere, the Mediterranean.
6. Be strong and stalwart. This reiterated exhortation clearly reflects the military setting of this initial charge by God to Joshua, who is commander in chief of the army about to invade the land.
8. This book of teaching shall not depart from your mouth. The book in question is almost certainly Deuteronomy, and the phrasing of the entire verse is strongly Deuteronomistic.
10. the people’s overseers. This is the same term used in the Exodus story (5:6ff.). It derives from a verb meaning to document or record, and so it is not necessarily a specialized military term.
11. three days. This is a conventional time span in biblical narrative for an interval of relatively short duration.
13. Recall the word that Moses … charged you. The episode of the two and a half tribes that chose to settle on land east of the Jordan is initially reported in Numbers 32.
grant you rest. The verb here has the obvious technical sense of granting respite from previously hostile neighboring peoples.
14. arrayed for combat. The Hebrew ḥamushim appears to derive from the word for “five,” and it has been plausibly explained as referring to a battle formation, with troops on all four sides and a unit of fighting men inside the rectangle. In modern Hebrew, it means “armed.”
17. As in all that we heeded Moses, so we will heed you. The Israelites in fact were repeatedly rebellious against Moses, but it is best to view this declaration of unswerving loyalty as an idealized representation of the people, not as an intended irony.
18. Every man who flouts your command … shall be put to death. What appears to be reflected in these stern words is the strictness of military justice: Israel is about to enter into battle, and whosoever does not obey the commander’s orders will be summarily executed.
Only be strong and stalwart. The opening section of Joshua comprises four speeches: God to Joshua, Joshua to the people’s overseers, Joshua to the trans-Jordanian tribes, and the response of the trans-Jordanian tribes to Joshua. These interlocked speeches are meant to convey a sense of perfect solidarity on the eve of the conquest of the land. Thus, the concluding words of the tribal spokesman exactly echo God’s twice-asserted exhortation to Joshua, with the addition of the emphatic raq, “only.”
1And Joshua son of Nun sent out in secret two men as spies from Shittim, saying, “Go, see the land, and Jericho.” And they went and they came to the house of a whore-woman whose name was Rahab, and they slept there. 2And it was said to the king of Jericho, saying, “Look, men of the Israelites have come here tonight to search out the land.” 3And the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, “Bring out the men who have come to you, who came to your house, for they have come to search out the whole land.” 4And the woman had taken the two men and hidden them, and she said, “The men indeed came to me and I did not know from where they were. 5And as the gate was about to close at dark, the men went out. I know not where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you can overtake them.” 6And she had taken them up to the roof and had hidden them in the stalks of flax laid out for her on the roof. 7And the men pursued them along the Jordan by the fords, and they closed the gate when the pursuers had gone out after them. 8They had not yet bedded down when she went up to them on the roof. 9And she said to the men, “I know that the LORD has given you the land, and that your terror has fallen upon us and that all the dwellers of the land quail before you. 10For we have heard how the LORD dried up the waters of the Sea of Reeds before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two Amorite kings across the Jordan, to Sihon and to Og, whom you put to the ban. 11And we heard, and our heart failed, and no spirit arose in any man before you, for the LORD your God, He is God in the heavens above and on the earth below: 12And now, pray, vow to me by the LORD, for I have done kindness with you, that you, too, shall do kindness with my father’s house and give me a faithful sign, 13and let my father and mother live, and my brothers and my sisters, and all that is theirs, and save our lives from death.” 14And the men said to her, “Our own lives in your stead to die! So long as you do not tell of this mission of ours. And so, when the LORD gives us this land, we shall do faithful kindness with you.” 15And she lowered them with a rope through the window, for her house was in the outer wall, and in the wall she dwelled. 16And she had said to them, “Go to the high country, lest the pursuers encounter you, and hide there three days until the pursuers come back. Then you may go on your way.” 17And the men had said to her, “We will be clear of this vow that you made us vow. 18Except, when we come into the land, this scarlet cord you must tie in the window through which you lowered us, and your father and your mother and all your father’s house you must gather to you within the house. 19And so, whosoever comes out of the doors of your house to the street, his blood shall be on his head, and we will be clear. But whoever will be with you in the house, his blood is on our head if any hand should touch him. 20And should you tell of this mission of ours, we will be clear of your vow that you made us vow.” 21And she said, “According to your words, so shall it be.” And she sent them off and they went, and she tied the scarlet cord in the window. 22And they went and came to the high country and stayed there three days, until the pursuers went back. And the pursuers searched all along the way and did not find them. 23And the two men went back and came down from the high country and crossed over to Joshua son of Nun and recounted to him all that had befallen them. 24And they said to Joshua, “Yes, the LORD has given all the land into our hands, and what’s more, all the dwellers of the land quail before us.”
CHAPTER 2 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. two men as spies. The two spies evoke the two spies in the story in Numbers 13–14, Joshua and Caleb son of Jephunneh, who did not come back with a fearful report like their ten companions. This story, then, on the eve of the conquest, is framed as a pointed reversal of the failed spy mission in Numbers: there the Israelites quail before the gigantic inhabitants of the land; here a Canaanite woman reports that the inhabitants of the land quail before the Israelites.
Shittim. This place-name means “the Acacias.”
the house of a whore-woman … and they slept there. Sometimes biblical usage adds “woman” in this fashion to the designation of profession. “Whore,” in turn, seems to be used neutrally, not as a term of opprobrium. Though she may merely be providing the two men lodging, the narrative coyly plays with the sexual meaning of the verb shakhav, which also means simply to lie down, to sleep, or spend the night. Similarly, the verb “come to,” used in verses 3 and 4, also has a sexual meaning when the object of the preposition is a woman. In fact, Rahab in answering the king’s inquiry may be saying that the two men were merely her customers, and hence she had no idea that they might be spies.
3. the whole land. The king adds “whole” to the report that has been brought to him: these spies have come on an extensive reconnaissance mission. Jericho is a city-state, the prevalent political form in Canaan in this era, and would have governed surrounding territory.
4. the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. The sense of the verb is evidently pluperfect: she had hidden the spies before the arrival of the king’s emissaries.
as the gate was about to close at dark. The gates of the walled city were locked at nightfall.
5. Pursue them quickly, for you can overtake them. In this shrewd maneuver, Rahab simultaneously makes herself sound like a loyal subject of Jericho and encourages the king’s men to leave her house immediately, heading in what she correctly calculates will be the wrong direction.
6. stalks of flax laid out for her on the roof. The flax would have been laid out on the roof to dry in the sun. Hiding in the flax stalks may be a reminiscence of baby Moses hidden (the same Hebrew verb) in the ark among the bulrushes.
7. along the Jordan by the fords. This, as Rahab has rightly surmised, would be the most plausible route of pursuit because the men from Jericho are aware that the Israelites are encamped east of the Jordan and assume that the spies will try to reach a ford over which they can cross to return to their people.
9. your terror has fallen upon us and … all the dwellers of the land quail before you. Rahab is directly quoting the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:15–16), merely reversing the order of terms in the poem: “all the dwellers of Canaan quailed. / Terror and fear did fall upon them.” Her words are a verbatim confirmation of the assertion in the Song that the great news of the event at the Sea of Reeds reached the Canaanites and dismayed them.
10. what you did to the two Amorite kings. This triumph, reported in Numbers 21, at the other end of the story of Wilderness wanderings from the victory at the Sea of Reeds, is a recent event, perhaps having occurred in the last few months before the present narrative moment.
11. for the LORD your God, He is God in the heavens above and on the earth below. Rahab is cast as a good monotheist, persuaded of the LORD’s supreme sovereignty, as the Israelites are expected to be, by His dramatic intervention in history.
14. Our … lives in your stead to die. This drastic offer expresses their recognition of the awesome solemnity of the vow they are taking.
15. for her house was in the outer wall. Many fortified cities in the region had a double wall, and most interpreters understand the seemingly redundant qir haḥomah (“wall of the wall”) as an indication of the outer wall. In this way, being lowered by a rope from her window enables them to get out of the city even though the gate is locked.
16. And she had said to them. The context requires construing the verbs here and at the beginning of the next verse as pluperfects. Otherwise, one is left with the absurd situation of this dialogue taking place at a distance, both parties shouting, after she has lowered them with the rope.
Go to the high country. This is the mountainous area to the west of the Jordan Valley and in the opposite direction from the one taken by the pursuers. The terrain would also have afforded hiding places.
three days. As in chapter 1, the time span is formulaic, but it is also a plausible interval to wait until the pursuers have given up the chase.
17. We will be clear of this vow. Having stated that they are prepared to die in her stead should they violate the terms of the vow, they now stress that they will have no obligation to carry it out unless she strictly adheres to her own terms that they stipulate.
18. this scarlet cord you must tie in the window. This is a purely practical stipulation: the attackers need a sign to know which house they are to spare. The scarlet cord recalls the scarlet thread attached to the hand of the newborn twin Zerah in Genesis 38:28–30 and probably also the blood smeared on the lintel to ward off the Destroyer in Exodus 12:7–13.
20. And should you tell of this mission of ours, we will be clear of your vow. The concluding statement regarding a release from the vow concerns the vital interest of the two spies rather than the practical provision for the safety of Rahab and her family.
21. she tied the scarlet cord in the window. Though it is possible to understand this as an act she performs later, it may be that, mindful of the grave warning of the two men, she hastens to affix the agreed-on sign as soon as they leave, even though she knows the attack will not come for at least several days.
22. all along the way. This would be the road parallel to the Jordan.
23. crossed over. Now they take a ford across the Jordan back to the Israelite camp.
24. all the dwellers of the land quail before us. They are directly quoting one of those inhabitants, Rahab, who in turn is quoting the Song of the Sea. Thus the line from the poem becomes a kind of refrain that punctuates the middle and the end of this episode.
1And Joshua rose early in the morning, and they journeyed on from Shittim and came to the Jordan, he and all the Israelites, and they spent the night there before they crossed over. 2And it happened at the end of three days that the overseers passed through the midst of the camp. 3And they charged the people, saying, “When you see the Ark of the Covenant of the LORD your God, with the levitical priests carrying it, then you shall journey from your place and go after it. 4But keep a distance between you and it, about two thousand cubits in measure. Do not come close to it. So that you may know the way in which you should go, for you have not passed over this way in time past.” 5And Joshua said, “Consecrate yourselves, for tomorrow the LORD will do wonders in your midst.” 6And Joshua said to the priests, saying, “Carry the Ark of the Covenant, and cross over before the people.” And they carried the Ark of the Covenant and went before the people. 7And the LORD said to Joshua, “This day I shall begin to make you great in the eyes of all Israel, so they may know that as I was with Moses, I shall be with you. 8And you, charge the priests, bearers of the Ark of the Covenant, saying, ‘When you come to the edge of the waters of the Jordan, you shall stand still in the Jordan.’” 9And Joshua said to the Israelites, “Draw near and hear the words of the LORD your God.” 10And Joshua said, “By this you shall know that a living God is in your midst, and He will utterly dispossess before you the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Hivvite and the Perizzite and the Girgashite and the Amorite and the Jebusite. 11Look, the Ark of the Covenant of the Master of all the earth is about to cross over the Jordan before you. 12And now, take for yourselves twelve men from the tribes of Israel, one man from each tribe. 13And so when the footsoles of the priests, bearers of the Ark of the LORD, Master of all the earth, rest in the waters of the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan coming down from above will be cut off and stand up as a single mound.” 14And it happened, when the people journeyed forth from its tents to cross the Jordan, with the priests, bearers of the Ark of the Covenant before the people, 15and when the bearers of the Ark reached the Jordan and the feet of the priests, bearers of the Ark, were immersed in the water’s edge—the Jordan being full to all its banks throughout the harvest days—16the water coming down from above stood still, rose up in a single mound, very far off from the town of Adam which is by Zanethan, and the water going down to the Arabah Sea, the Salt Sea, was completely cut off, and the people crossed over opposite Jericho. 17And the priests, bearers of the Ark of the LORD’s Covenant, stood firm on dry ground in the middle of the Jordan, with all Israel crossing over on dry ground until the whole nation finished crossing the Jordan.
CHAPTER 3 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. crossed over. The verb ʿavar, which means either to cross over or, as in verses 2 and 4, to pass through or over, is repeated eight times in this chapter, thus marking the episode as a portentous liminal moment when the people of Israel cross over from their long Wilderness wanderings into the land they have been promised.
2. at the end of three days. The recurrence of this formulaic interval suggests a certain symmetry with the experience of the spies, who hide out in the high country for three days.
3. the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark contains the stone tablets of the Law. It is imagined as both a sacred and a magical object, and as such is also a numinous vessel carried into battle, as one sees in the early chapters of Samuel.
4. But keep a distance. The Ark, saturated with divine aura, is also a dangerous object. In 2 Samuel 6, when Uzza puts his hand on the Ark to prevent it from slipping from the cart in which it is carried, he is struck dead.
about two thousand cubits. This would be a little over half a mile.
7. as I was with Moses, I shall be with you. The “wonder” that God is about to perform will in fact replicate a miracle done for Moses.
9–10. And Joshua said … And Joshua said. As a rule, when the formula for the introduction of dialogue is repeated without an intervening response from the second party, the repetition indicates some difficulty in response—puzzlement, amazement, embarrassment, and so forth. Here the repetition has a purely dramatic function. Joshua invites the people to draw close; they do so, scarcely having an opening to say anything to him; then, when his audience is gathered around him, Joshua goes on to give detailed instructions.
10. the Canaanite and the Hittite. In all, seven peoples are mentioned, filling out the formulaic number. The list itself is heterogeneous: Canaanite and Amorite are general designations for the inhabitants of this territory; the Hittites are immigrants from Asia Minor who were probably not a distinctive Canaanite people in any political sense; little is known about the Perizzites and the Girgashites, though the latter may have come from Asia Minor. In any case, the enumeration of seven peoples does reflect a historical memory of Canaan divided up among small city-states.
11. Master of all the earth. This is not an epithet that occurs in the Torah, and since designations of the deity are important indicators of sources, its use may point to a literary source distinct from those of the Pentateuch.
12. take for yourselves twelve men from the tribes of Israel. These men play no role in what immediately follows, though in the next chapter they are assigned the task of placing twelve stones in the riverbed. While this verse could be construed as a prolepsis, it is more likely that it was erroneously transposed in copying from the next section of the story, where it is duplicated in 4:2.
13. the waters of the Jordan coming down. This formulation harbors an etymological pun. The Jordan, Yarden, is called that because it “comes down” (verbal stem y-r-d) from mountain heights in the north to the Dead Sea, the lowest point on the face of the earth.
14–16. And it happened. The syntax of these three verses, constituting one long run-on sentence, is quite untypical of biblical prose, and its use here builds a sense of climactic fulfillment as the miracle is enacted.
15. the Jordan being full to all its banks throughout the harvest days. This rather awkward parenthetical clause, still further complicating the syntax, appears to be an effort to explain a difficulty. As we learned in chapter 2, there are numerous fords across the Jordan, and the two spies obviously used one of those to cross back and forth. But the story needs an impassable Jordan to enable the miracle of immobilizing its waters, and so we are reminded that in this moment at the beginning of the spring (in the month of Nissan), the river would have been overflowing after the winter rains. The reference to harvest days is a little puzzling because early April is too soon for a harvest. Perhaps the phrase means to say that this high level of the Jordan continues until the end of the first harvest in late May-early June.
16. rose up in a single mound. These words are the clearest indication that this incident is a repetition of the drying up of the Sea of Reeds because the rare term ned, “mound,” is used, as it is in the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:8). History for the biblical writers moves forward but also repeats itself in significant patterns. This notion prepared the way for later typological conceptions of history.
very far off from the town of Adam which is by Zanethan. This odd and seemingly gratuitous specification of a place at some distance from the reported event is a strategy of “documenting” the miracle by locating it along geographical coordinates.
the Arabah Sea. The Arabah is the geological rift through which the Jordan runs.
17. dry ground. The Hebrew here, ḥaravah, is a different word from yabashah, “dry land,” the term used in Exodus 14–15 and also in Genesis.
1And it happened, when the whole nation had finished crossing over the Jordan, that the LORD said to Joshua, saying, 2“Take for yourselves from the people twelve men, one man from each tribe, 3and charge them, saying, ‘Carry from here, from the Jordan, from the place where the feet of the priests stand firm, twelve stones and bring them across with you and set them down at the encampment where tonight you will spend the night.’” 4And Joshua called to twelve men whom he had readied from the Israelites, one man from each tribe. 5And Joshua said to them, “Cross over before the Ark of the LORD your God into the middle of the Jordan and each of you lift up one stone on his shoulder according to the number of the tribes of Israel, 6so this may be a sign in your midst: Should your children ask you tomorrow, saying, ‘What are these stones to you?,’ 7you shall say, ‘That the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the Ark of the LORD’s Covenant, when it was crossing over the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off, and these stones became a memorial for the Israelites forever.’” 8And thus did the Israelites do, as Joshua had charged them, and they carried twelve stones from the Jordan as the LORD had spoken to Joshua, according to the number of the tribes of Israel, and they brought them across with them to the encampment and set them down there. 9And Joshua set up twelve stones in the middle of the Jordan in the place where the feet of the priests, bearers of the Ark of the Covenant, had stood, and they have been there to this day. 10And the priests, bearers of the Ark of the Covenant, were standing in the Jordan until all the mission that the LORD had charged Joshua to speak to the people was finished, as all that Moses had charged Joshua. And the people hurried and crossed over. 11And it happened, when all the people had finished crossing over, that the Ark of the LORD, and the priests with it, crossed over before the people. 12And the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh crossed over in battle array before the Israelites as Moses had spoken to them, 13about forty thousand, vanguard of the army, crossed over before the LORD for battle to the plains of Jericho. 14On that day the LORD made Joshua great in the eyes of all Israel, and they feared him as they had feared Moses all the days of his life. 15And the LORD said to Joshua, saying, 16“Charge the priests, bearers of the Ark of the Covenant, that they come up from the Jordan.” 17And Joshua charged the priests, saying, “Come up from the Jordan.” 18And it happened when the priests, bearers of the Ark of the LORD’s Covenant, came up from within the Jordan, that the priests’ footsoles pulled up onto dry ground and the waters of the Jordan went back to their place and flowed as in time past over all its banks. 19And the people had come up from the Jordan on the tenth of the first month, and they camped at Gilgal at the eastern edge of Jericho. 20And these twelve stones that they had taken from the Jordan, Joshua set up at Gilgal. 21And he said to the Israelites, saying, “When your children ask their fathers tomorrow, saying, ‘What are these stones?,’ 22you shall inform your children, saying, ‘On dry land Israel crossed over this Jordan. 23For the LORD your God dried up the waters of the Jordan before them until they crossed over, as the LORD your God had done to the Sea of Reeds, which He dried up before us until we crossed over, 24so that all the peoples of the earth might know the hand of the LORD, for it is strong, so that you might fear the LORD your God at all times.’”
CHAPTER 4 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
6. Should your children ask you tomorrow. This is a liturgical or, as some put it, catechistic formula, which has fairly close parallels in Exodus 12:26–27, Exodus 13:14–15, and Deuteronomy 6:20. “Tomorrow” is, of course, a homey idiom for “in future times.” The commemorative stones become a didactic occasion for recounting the ancient miracle to future generations.
9. And Joshua set up twelve stones in the middle of the Jordan. This second set of twelve stones looks redundant. There may have been a competing account of the event in which the conveyers of the traditional material felt that the more appropriate memorial was on the very spot where the feet of the priests had stood, and the redactor decided to include both versions. This would, however, be an underwater memorial scarcely visible except when the Jordan was nearly dry. But see the next comment on the question of the stones’ visibility.
and they have been there to this day. This is an explicitly etiological tag absent in the report about the other set of twelve stones. It leads one to wonder whether there in fact might have been a pattern of stones in the riverbed detectable from the surface around which this story was woven.
10. as all that Moses had charged Joshua. This clause is puzzling because Moses clearly had no role in instructing Joshua about the procedure for crossing the Jordan. The clause does not appear in the Septuagint, and one suspects a scribe inadvertently added it here because it was a set formula, and akin to the concluding clause of verse 12, where the reference to Moses is appropriate.
14. feared him. The context makes clear that the force of the verb is not an experience of fright but reverence or, perhaps more specifically, acceptance of his authority. After the enactment of a miracle that closely corresponds to the great miracle performed for Moses at the Sea of Reeds, Joshua’s position as legitimate leader is fully confirmed.
16. Ark of the Covenant. Here a different term ʿedut (“witnessing”) is used, but it appears to be a synonym for brit, “covenant.”
19. on the tenth of the first month. This is the month of Nissan, approximately corresponding to April. The tenth of Nissan is four days before the Passover festival.
the eastern edge of Jericho. This would mean the edge opposite Jericho’s territory.
20. And these twelve stones … Joshua set up at Gilgal. The name Gilgal means “circle” (although it is given a secondary etymology in the next episode), and so we may assume that the stones were set up in a circle. Gilgal was an important cultic site in the first two centuries of the monarchy and figures significantly in the stories of Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha. As with other sacred places in ancient Israel, it may well have been a locus of pagan worship before it was taken over by the Israelites. There is some likelihood, then, that the stones arrayed in a circle were originally matseivot, cultic steles, and that the story is framed to make them integral to the monotheistic narrative.
22. dry land. Here yabashah is used, the term that occurs in Exodus 14–15.
23. which He dried up before us. The switch from third person (“dried up the waters of the Jordan before them”) to first-person plural reflects the operation of the commemorative ritual: it was the Israelites of Joshua’s generation who experienced the miracle at the Jordan, but all Israel of every generation—beginning with everyone over twenty who was with Moses, the generation that has purportedly died out—participates in the defining moment of the parting of the Sea of Reeds, replicated at the Jordan.
24. so that all the peoples of the earth might know the hand of the LORD. This theme is similar to the one reiterated in the narrative of the Ten Plagues in Exodus. Its validity will then be confirmed in the first verse of chapter 5, which in all likelihood is the actual conclusion of this narrative unit.
so that you might fear the LORD your God at all times. The repetition of “so that,” lemaʿan, inscribes a causal chain: the other nations recognize the power of the God of Israel through this great miracle, and Israel fears, or reveres, its God both through the direct experience of the miracle and through its confirmation in the eyes of the surrounding peoples.
1And it happened, when the Amorite kings who were across the Jordan to the west, and all the Canaanite kings who were by the sea, heard that the LORD had dried up the waters of the Jordan before the Israelites until they crossed over, their heart failed and there was no longer any spirit within them before the Israelites.
2At that time the LORD said to Joshua, “Make you flint knives and again circumcise the Israelites a second time.” 3And Joshua made flint knives and he circumcised the Israelites at the Hill of Foreskins. 4And this is the reason that Joshua circumcised them: all the people who had come out of Egypt, all the males, the men of war, had died out on the way in the wilderness when they came out of Egypt. 5For all the people who came out were circumcised, but all the people who were born in the wilderness on the way when they came out of Egypt were not circumcised. 6For forty years did the Israelites go in the wilderness until the whole generation was finished, the men of war coming out of Egypt, who had not heeded the LORD’s voice, as the LORD had vowed to them not to show them the land that the LORD had vowed to their fathers to give to us, a land flowing with milk and honey. 7And their sons He put up in their stead, them did Joshua circumcise, for they were uncircumcised, as they had not been circumcised on the way. 8And it happened when the whole nation had finished being circumcised, they remained in their place until they revived. 9And the LORD said to Joshua, “I have rolled away from you the shame of Egypt,” and the name of the place has been called Gilgal to this day. 10And the Israelites encamped at Gilgal and performed the Passover rite on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening, on the plains of Jericho. 11And they ate from the yield of the land from the day after the Passover sacrifice, flatbread and parched grain on that very day. 12And the manna ceased on the day after, when they ate from the yield of the land, and the Israelites no longer had manna, and they ate from the produce of the land of Canaan in that year.
13And it happened when Joshua was at Jericho that he raised his eyes and saw, and look, a man was standing before him, his sword unsheathed in his hand. And Joshua went toward him and said to him, “Are you ours or our foes’?” 14And he said, “No. For I am the commander of the LORD’s army. Now have I come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the ground and did obeisance, and he said to him, “What does my master say to his servant?” 15And the commander of the LORD’s army said to Joshua, “Take off your sandal from your foot, for the place on which you stand is holy.” And so Joshua did.
CHAPTER 5 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
2. flint knives. The story takes place in the Late Bronze Age and was composed sometime in the Iron Age, but flint knives are introduced precisely because they are archaic, and hence the appropriate implements for this ritual act. In the enigmatic story of the Bridegroom of Blood, Exodus 4:24–26, Moses’s wife takes a flint knife to circumcise their son, and the phrase “on the way” that is used in this story appears three times here in relation to the lack of circumcision
4. Joshua circumcised them. The object of the verb in this clause, “them,” is merely implied.
the males, the men of war. This is an indication of age, twenty years old being the beginning point for military service. This generation, now died out, is about to be replaced by a new generation of adult males who will carry out the campaign of invasion.
6. the whole generation. The Masoretic Text reads “the whole nation,” which is surely too sweeping, but several Hebrew manuscripts as well as the Targum show “generation” instead of “nation.”
who had not heeded the LORD’s voice. The specific reference is to the pusillanimous report of the ten spies, an episode already invoked in the story of the two spies who go to Jericho. The ten spies in fact use the formula of a land flowing with milk and honey.
7. they had not been circumcised. Literally, “they had not circumcised them.”
8. they remained in their place until they revived. It must be said that, in realistic terms, circumcision of all the fighting men just three days before battle is joined would be a rather imprudent measure. But the writer is focusing on the state of ritual purity necessary for the celebration of Passover and for the conduct of warfare, and so he is prepared to have us assume that all the men are fully recovered and ready for action after three days.
9. I have rolled away from you the shame of Egypt. The verb here, galoti, is an etymological pun on Gilgal, a word that can mean either “circle” or, as in this instance, “wheel.” The “shame of Egypt” may have a double sense, referring to slavery—now, as free men entered into the covenant of Abraham, the Israelites are ready to conquer their own land—and to their uncircumcised condition, which was not the case while they were in Egypt but was entailed by their flight from Egypt and their wanderings, during which it was not feasible to circumcise the male infants.
10. performed the Passover rite. Of all the stipulated festival sacrifices, it was the Passover that confirmed a person’s full participation in the community of Israel. For a male, being circumcised was a necessary condition for taking part in the rite, as is made clear in Exodus 12:44. The celebration of the first Passover took place on the eve of the departure from Egypt, and so this second Passover marks the liminal moment of leaving the wilderness for the land as the first Passover marks the leaving of Egypt for the wilderness.
11. they ate from the yield of the land. Evidently, the Israelite troops have been foraging in the territory adjacent to Jericho. The substitution of the produce of the land for the manna is another marker of the end of the Wilderness experience.
13. at Jericho. The Hebrew particle be, which usually means “in,” here must refer to the vicinity of Jericho, which Joshua may be reconnoitering.
and look, a man was standing before him. This is a crystal-clear instance of the use of the presentative hineh, “look,” as a shifter to the character’s visual perspective. The as yet unidentified figure is thus called “a man” because that is how he appears to Joshua.
Are you ours or our foes’? The translation seeks to emulate the compactness of the Hebrew, halanu ʾatah ʾim-letsareinu. This brisk wording is beautifully appropriate to the military context, as a sentry might urgently challenge an unknown figure, wasting no words.
14. I am the commander of the LORD’s army. This is a bit of fleshed-out mythology not attested to elsewhere. God, who is not infrequently a warrior god, is often referred to as the LORD of Armies, but elsewhere there are no indications that He has an officer staff. This piece of imagining is perfectly apt in a dedication scene for Joshua because the LORD’s emissary can address him as (superior) commander to commander.
Now have I come. This pronouncement, just two words in the Hebrew, is meant to sound portentous: now is the beginning of my great mission of conquest in which you will serve as my human deputy.
15. Take off your sandal from your foot, for the place on which you stand is holy. This is a direct quotation of God’s words to Moses at the burning bush, Exodus 3:5, with the marginal difference that both “sandal” and “foot” are plurals in the Exodus story (here the singular usage implies the plural and might be thought of as a kind of synecdoche). The alignment of the present episode with the one of Moses at Mount Horeb points to differences as well as similarities. Both stories are dedication episodes as a leader is about to embark on his mission. But Moses is addressed by God Himself, as is appropriate for the greatest of prophets and the lawgiver, and at the site is a miraculously burning bush, proleptic of the moment when this very mountain will be enveloped in lightning during the great epiphany. Joshua is the legitimate heir of Moses but a lesser figure and no prophet, so he is addressed by the commander of the LORD’s army, not by God Himself, and there is no pyrotechnic display on this holy ground.
1And Jericho was shut tight before the Israelites—no one came out and no one went in. 2And the LORD said to Joshua, “See, I have given into your hand Jericho and its king and the mighty warriors. 3And you shall go round the town, all the men of war, encircling the town once. Thus you shall do six days. 4And seven priests shall bear seven ram’s horns before the Ark, and on the seventh day you shall go round the town seven times and the priests shall blow the ram’s horns. 5And so, when the horn of the ram sounds a long blast, when you hear the sound of the ram’s horn, all the people shall let out a great shout, and the wall of the town shall fall where it stands, and the people shall go up, every man straight before him.” 6And Joshua son of Nun called to the priests and said to them, “Bear the Ark of the Covenant, and seven priests shall bear seven ram’s horns before the Ark of the Covenant.” 7And he said to the people, “Cross over and go round the town, and the vanguard will cross over before the Ark of the LORD.” 8And it happened as Joshua spoke to the people that the seven priests bearing the seven ram’s horns before the LORD crossed over and blew on the ram’s horns, with the Ark of the LORD’s Covenant going after them. 9And the vanguard was going before the priests who were blowing the ram’s horns, and the rear guard was going behind the Ark as they went and blew the ram’s horns. 10And Joshua had charged the people, saying, “You shall not shout and you shall not let your voice be heard, and no word shall come out of your mouths until the moment I say to you, ‘Shout,’ and then you shall shout.” 11And the Ark of the LORD went round the town encircling it once, and they came to the camp and spent the night in the camp. 12And Joshua rose early in the morning, and the priests bore the Ark of the LORD. 13And the seven priests bearing seven ram’s horns before the Ark of the LORD went along blowing the ram’s horns, with the vanguard going before them and the rear guard going behind the Ark of the LORD, along they went blowing the ram’s horns. 14And they went round the town once on the second day, and they returned to camp—so did they do six days. 15And it happened on the seventh day that they rose early as dawn broke and went round the town in this fashion seven times. Only on that day did they go round the city seven times. 16And it happened when the priests blew the ram’s horns for the seventh time that Joshua said to the people “Shout! For the LORD has given the town to you. 17And the town and all that is within it shall be under the ban to the LORD, except that Rahab the whore shall live and whoever is with her in the house, for she hid the messengers whom we sent. 18Only you, you must keep from the ban, lest you covet and take of the ban and put the camp of Israel under the ban and stir up trouble for it. 19And all the silver and gold and vessels of bronze and iron shall be holy to the LORD, they shall enter into the LORD’s treasury.” 20And the people shouted and blew the ram’s horns, and it happened when the people had heard the sound of the ram’s horn, the people let out a great shout, and the wall fell where it stood, and the people went up into the town, every man straight before him, and they took the town. 21And they put under the ban everything that was in the town, from man to woman, from lad to elder, and to ox and sheep and donkey, by the edge of the sword. 22And to the two men who had spied out the land Joshua had said, “Go into the house of the whore-woman, and bring the woman out from there and all that is hers, as you vowed to her.” 23And the young spies came and brought out Rahab and her father and her mother and her brothers and all that was hers, and all her clan they brought out, and they put them outside the camp of Israel. 24And the town they burned in fire and everything in it. Only the silver and the gold and the vessels of bronze and iron they placed in the treasury of the LORD’s house. 25And Rahab the whore and her father’s house and all that was hers Joshua kept alive, and she has dwelled in the midst of Israel to this day, for she hid the messengers that Joshua had sent to spy out Jericho. 26And Joshua imposed a vow at that time, saying, “Cursed be the man before the LORD who will arise and rebuild this town, Jericho.
With his firstborn shall he found it,
and with his youngest set up its portals.”
27And the LORD was with Joshua, and his fame was throughout the land.
CHAPTER 6 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
2. and the mighty warriors. The Masoretic Text lacks “and,” which has been added in the translation.
3. town. At most, Jericho would have had a scant few thousand inhabitants. So “city” would be an exaggeration.
4. seven priests … seven ram’s horns … on the seventh day … seven times. The rite devised to bring down the walls of the town involves a quadrupling of the sacred number seven. But the destruction of the town is also an anti-Creation story: six days they go round the wall, and on the climactic seventh day, it collapses and the town is reduced to rubble.
ram’s horns. These were primitive trumpets that produced a shrill and piercing sound. They were used to assemble troops in battle and at coronations.
5. the people. Given the military context, ʿam may have its secondary sense of “troops.”
9. blowing. The consonantal text seems to read “they blew,” but the Masoretic marginal correction properly has this as toqʿey, “blowing.”
10. until the moment. The literal sense of the Hebrew is “until the day,” but the word for “day,” yom, is often a fluid indicator of time.
17. the ban. This total prescription of destruction, ḥerem, of the conquered city, which means annihilating its population and its animals and, at least in this instance, dedicating all objects of value to the LORD’s treasury, is the grimmest aspect of this triumphalist story. The enactment of the ḥerem is in keeping with the reiterated injunction in Deuteronomy to exterminate the native population of Canaan. That project is what Moshe Weinfeld has called a “utopian” plan because it is highly unlikely that it was ever acted upon. For the Deuteronomist, it is a brutal way of expressing the absolute separation from the pagan population—a separation that never really occurred—called for in his program of uncompromising monotheism, and the hallmark of the Deuteronomist is often detectable in Joshua. The ḥerem was not an Israelite invention, as there is archaeological evidence that it was sometimes practiced by various Canaanite peoples.
except that Rahab the whore shall live and whoever is with her in the house. There is, of course, a contradiction here with the story of the collapse of the wall. If the wall around the town collapsed, how could Rahab, whose house was in the wall, have been saved, and what good would the scarlet cord, which implied protection against conscious human destroyers, have done? The medieval Hebrew commentator David Kimchi tried to save the consistency of the text by proposing that only one part of the wall fell, through which breach the Israelites entered the town, though all the encircling with ram’s horns certainly leads one to imagine that the entire wall came down. One suspects that the story of the two spies and the story of the ram’s horns reflect two different traditions about the conquest of Jericho. Indeed, if the plan was to bring down the walls miraculously, there would scarcely have been any need to reconnoiter the town and the surrounding terrain, and the tale of the spies appears to assume a scenario in which the Israelite warriors will break into the city using conventional means of warfare.
18. lest you covet. The received text reads, “lest you put under the ban,” pen taḥarimu, which doesn’t make much sense. The translation follows the Septuagint, which appears to have used a Hebrew text that showed pen taḥmedu (a reversal of consonants and a dalet for the similar-looking resh), “lest you covet.”
20. the people let out a great shout, and the wall fell where it stood. Attempts have been made to recover a historical kernel for this fabulous event by proposing that it records the memory of an earthquake that leveled Jericho. (In fact, Jericho was built on a seismic fault and has been subject to earthquakes over the ages.) But nothing in the telling of the tale remotely suggests an earthquake. The ground is not said to move, and the destruction occurs through the deployment of sevens and the ram’s horns’ blasts and the shouting. One can also dismiss the idea of shock waves of sound splitting the walls as a scientific non-starter. The whole point of the story is its miraculous character. Almost everywhere in biblical narrative, Israel triumphs not through any martial powers, which get scant representation, but because God battles for Israel (compare the Song of the Sea, the Song of Deborah, and Moses’ upraised arms in the defeat of the Amalekites). This story, then, is framed to vividly illustrate how the Israelite conquest of the first principal Canaanite town in the Jordan Valley is entirely due to the spectacular intervention of the LORD, Who gives Joshua the detailed instructions for the procedures of circumambulating the town with the Ark and the ram’s horns. It should also be noted that the extensive archaeological exploration of Jericho indicates that its conquest by Joshua could not have taken place. There was a very old town on this site, but it was destroyed by the Middle Bronze Age, and at the putative time of Joshua’s conquest in the Late Bronze Age, toward the end of the thirteenth century B.C.E., there had been no walled town on this site at least for a couple of centuries. The writer no doubt had in mind Jericho’s antiquity—it is one of the oldest cities in the world—and its role as eastern gateway to Canaan, but historically it could not have been an object of Joshua’s conquest.
23. the young spies. Only here are they identified as ne‘arim, “lads” or young men, although it is possible that the term has its secondary sense of “elite soldiers.”
24. the LORD’s house. This phrase is an anachronism—in general, it refers to the Temple—because at the time of the conquest there would have been only a portable sanctuary, not referred to as a “house.”
25. she has dwelled in the midst of Israel to this day. This clause must mean that Rahab’s descendants have dwelled in the midst of Israel to this day. It is thus an etiological note, explaining how a particular Canaanite clan came to be naturalized Israelites.
26. Cursed be the man … who will … rebuild this town. The reason for the implacability toward Jericho is not entirely clear since there is no indication that its inhabitants perpetrated war crimes, as did the Amalekites in Exodus. Perhaps this should be understood in the context of the miraculous destruction of the walls: that event is a token for the laying low of the inhabitants of the land before the invading Israelites (something that never happened historically), and so as a sign and symbol of the whole conquest, the town razed through divine intervention should never be rebuilt.
With his firstborn shall he found it, / and with his youngest set up its portals. The solemnity of the vow is reinforced by casting this dire prediction in a line of poetry. Rashi nicely catches the narrative progression from the first verset to the second: “At the beginning of the foundation when he rebuilds it, his firstborn son will die, whom he will bury and go on until the youngest dies at the completion of the work, which is setting up the portals.” In 1 Kings 16:34, it is recorded that at the time of Ahab, “Hiel the Bethelite built up Jericho. At the cost of Abiram his firstborn he laid its foundation and at the cost of Segib his youngest he put up its gates, according to the word of the LORD that He spoke through Joshua son of Nun.” Joshua’s curse may have been formulated to explain a calamitous event that occurred three and a half centuries later.
1And the Israelites violated the ban, and Achan son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah from the tribe of Judah took from the ban, and the LORD’s wrath flared against the Israelites.
2And Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is by Beth-Aven to the east of Bethel, and he said to them, saying, “Go up and spy out the land,” and the men went up and spied out Ai. 3And they came back to Joshua and said to him, “Let not the whole people go up. Let about two thousand men or three thousand men go up and strike Ai. Do not weary the whole people there, for they are few.” 4And about three thousand men from the people went up there, and they fled before the men of Ai. 5And the men of Ai struck down about thirty-six of them and pursued them from before the gate as far as Shebarim and struck them down on the slope. And the people’s heart failed and turned to water. 6And Joshua tore his robes and flung himself on his face to the ground before the Ark of the LORD till evening—he and the elders of Israel—and they put dust on their heads. 7And Joshua said, “Alas, O Master LORD, why did You insist on bringing this people across the Jordan to give us into the hand of the Amorite and to destroy us? Would that we had been content to dwell across the Jordan. 8I beseech you, my Master, what should I say after Israel has turned tail before its enemies? 9And the Canaanites and all the dwellers in the land will hear and draw round us and cut off our name from the earth. And what will You do for Your great name?” 10And the LORD said to Joshua, “Rise up. Why have you fallen on your face? 11Israel has offended and also has broken My covenant that I charged them and also has taken from the ban and also stolen and also denied it and also put it in their bags. 12And the Israelites have not been able to stand up against their enemies. They have turned tail before their enemies, for they themselves have come under the ban. I will not continue to be with you if you do not destroy the banned things from your midst. 13Rise, consecrate the people, and say ‘Consecrate yourselves for the morrow, for thus the LORD God of Israel has said, There are banned things in your midst, O Israel! You will not be able to stand up against your enemies until you remove the banned things from your midst. 14And you shall draw near in the morning according to your tribes. And it shall be, that the tribe on which the LORD lets the lot fall shall draw near according to its clans, and the clan on which the LORD lets the lot fall shall draw near according to its households, and the household on which the LORD lets the lot fall shall draw near according to its men. 15And it shall be, that he on whom the lot falls for taking the banned things shall be burned in fire, he and all that is his, because he broke the LORD’s covenant and because he has done a scurrilous thing in Israel.’” 16And Joshua rose early in the morning and brought Israel near according to its tribes, and the lot fell on the tribe of Judah. 17And he brought near the clans of Judah, and the lot fell on the clan of Zerah, and he brought near the clan of Zerah, and the lot fell on Zabdi. 18And he brought near his household according to the men, and the lot fell on Achan son of Carmi son of Zerah of the tribe of Judah. 19And Joshua said to Achan, “My son, show honor, pray, to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession to Him, and tell me, pray, what you have done. Do not conceal it from me.” 20And Achan answered Joshua and said, “Indeed, it is I who offended against the LORD God of Israel, and thus and so I have done. 21I saw in the booty a fine fur mantle and two hundred shekels of silver and an ingot of gold fifty shekels in weight, and I coveted them and took them, and there they are, buried in the ground within my tent, and the silver is underneath them.” 22And Joshua sent messengers and they ran to the tent, and there it was buried in his tent, with the silver underneath it. 23And they took these from within the tent and brought them to Joshua and to all the Israelites, and he presented them before the LORD. 24And Joshua took Achan son of Zerah and the silver and the mantle and the ingot of gold and his sons and his daughters and his ox and his donkey and his flock and his tent and all that was his, and all Israel was with him, and he brought them up to the Valley of Achor. 25And Joshua said, “Even as you have stirred up trouble for us, the LORD shall stir up trouble for you on this day.” And all Israel pelted them with stones and burned them in fire and pelted them with stones. 26And they piled up over him a great heap of stones to this day, and the LORD turned back from His blazing wrath. Therefore is the name of that place called the Valley of Achor to this day.
CHAPTER 7 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. the Israelites violated the ban … Achan … took from the ban. This conjunction of subjects intimates why, in the harsh retribution of this episode, Achan must be extirpated: his violation of the ban imparts guilt, as though by contagion, to the whole people, as the defeat at Ai will immediately demonstrate.
3. about two thousand men or three thousand men. Boling’s contention that ʾelef here is not a number but means a “contingent,” perhaps no more than twenty or thirty men, may be supported by the fact that thirty-six deaths in the defeat are regarded as a catastrophic loss. This is not, however, conclusive evidence because the Israelites are supposed to carry out the conquest virtually unscathed, as at Jericho. Boling’s claim that the particle ke before the number means “precisely” and not, as it usually does, “about,” is dubious because the alternative of “two or three,” whether thousand or contingents, suggests approximation, not exactitude.
5. pursued them from before the gate. The evident strategy is a sudden sortie from the gate of the town, taking the besiegers, who are too few in number, by surprise.
7. why did You insist on bringing this people across the Jordan to give us into the hand of the Amorite and to destroy us? Joshua’s complaint is distinctly reminiscent of the complaints of the Israelites in the wilderness to Moses, asking him why he brought them into the wilderness to perish instead of leaving them in peace in Egypt. The echo may suggest that Joshua is not quite as fit a leader as Moses.
9. the Canaanites. There is a loose interchange of reference between “Amorites” and “Canaanites.”
And what will You do for Your great name? God’s reputation as all-powerful deity is contingent on the success of His chosen people. Moses uses the same argument when God in His anger threatens to wipe out Israel.
11. also … also … also … also. These repetitions of gam—which equally has the sense of “even” or “actually”—vividly express God’s wrathful indignation.
12. they themselves have come under the ban. Through the contamination of having taken objects devoted to destruction, they have become subject to destruction. The word “themselves” has been added in the translation for the sake of clarity.
14. draw near. This is a technical term for approaching the Ark of the Covenant.
lets the lot fall. The verb repeatedly used in this section also means “to catch” or “to trap.” What is involved in this process is an oracular device—most likely the Urim and Thummim—that yields a binary yes/no answer, thus serving to select one from many.
17. the clans of Judah. The received text has “the clan of Judah,” but a tribe is not a clan. Several Hebrew manuscripts show the more plausible plural form.
19. My son, show honor, pray, to the LORD God of Israel, and make confession to Him. Joshua’s language in addressing Achan is cunningly gentle, suggesting he intends to draw in his interlocutor and then lead him to divulge his crime. He begins by calling Achan “my son,” elsewhere an affectionate form of address in the Bible; he uses the polite particle of entreaty, na’, “pray,” and at first does not mention guilt but rather honoring God. The idiom for “make confession,” ten todah, more frequently means “to give thanks,” so it sounds almost as though Joshua were about to say something quite positive to the man who will be made to confess his guilt and then undergo horrendous punishment.
20. Indeed, it is I who offended. Achan’s immediate and full confession is probably best explained by his awareness that the oracle has singled him out, the lot falling on him alone of all the multitude of Israel, and so he feels he has no choice but to admit his guilt. Joshua’s ostensibly fatherly approach to him may also make him sense that he is a member of this community now gravely endangered by his act, and hence he must make restitution, whatever the price.
thus and so I have done. Although this is an idiom that can be used in place of a detailed account, here it is proleptic: the precise content of “thus and so” is laid out in the next verse.
21. a fine fur mantle. The Masoretic Text reads “a fine Shinar mantle,” neatly rendered in the King James Version as “a goodly Babylonish garment” because Shinar is another name for Babylon. There is no evidence that Shinar specialized in exporting fine apparel, and this translation reads instead of shinʿar, deleting the middle consonant, seiʿar, “hair” or “fur.”
24. And Joshua took Achan … and the silver and the mantle … and his sons and his daughters. The lining up in a single syntactic string of human beings, material treasure, and animal possessions is disturbing. The evident assumption about the family members is that they have been contaminated by Achan’s violation of the ban, and hence they must perish with him. One notes that Achan has considerable possessions (the donkey and ox may well be collective nouns), which makes his crime all the more heinous. The collective punishment is nevertheless troubling.
the Valley of Achor. This means the Valley of Trouble, making the end of this story an etiological tale about the origin of the place-name. It may have been originally called the Valley of Trouble for entirely different reasons—for example, because its terrain was treacherous or bleak and barren.
25. burned them in fire and pelted them with stones. The burning may refer only to the material objects because it was not customary to burn bodies after stoning. The repeated clause about pelting with stones seems redundant.
26. Therefore is the name of that place called. This is an explicit etiological formula.
1And God said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid and do not cower. Take with you all the combat troops and rise, go up to Ai. See, I have given in your hand the king of Ai and his people and his town and his land. 2And you shall do to Ai as you did to Jericho and to its king. Only its booty and its cattle you may plunder. Set up for yourself an ambush against the town behind it.” 3And Joshua arose, and all the combat troops with him, to go up to Ai. And Joshua chose thirty thousand men, sturdy warriors, and sent them out at night. 4And Joshua charged them, saying, “See, you are to lie in ambush against the town behind the town. Do not keep very far away from the town, and all of you must be on the ready. 5And I and the troops that are with me, we shall draw near the town, and so, when they come out toward us as before, we shall flee from them, 6and they will come out after us till we draw them away from the town, for they will think, ‘They are fleeing from us as before,’ and we shall flee from them. 7And you will rise from the ambush and take hold of the town, and the LORD your God will give it into your hand. 8And so, when you seize the town, you will set fire to the town, according to the word of the LORD you will do. See, I have charged you.” 9And Joshua sent them off, and they went to the ambush, and they stayed between Bethel and Ai to the west of Ai. And Joshua spent that night among the troops. 10And Joshua rose early in the morning and marshaled the troops, he and the elders of Israel, before the troops, to Ai. 11And all the combat troops who were with him went up and approached and came opposite the town, and they camped to the north, with the ravine between them and Ai. 12And he took about five thousand men and set them as an ambush between Bethel and Ai to the west of the town. 13And they put the troops, the whole camp, to the north of the town, and its covert contingent, to the west of the town. And Joshua spent that night in the valley. 14And it happened, when the king of Ai saw it, that the men of the town hurried in the early morning and came out toward Israel to do battle, he and all his troops, at the set place opposite the Arabah. He did not know there was an ambush against him behind the town. 15And Joshua and all Israel were routed before them and fled on the road to the wilderness. 16And all the troops who were in the town were mustered to pursue Joshua, and were drawn away from the town. 17And not a man remained in the town, in Ai, who did not go out after Israel, and they left the town open and pursued Israel. 18And the LORD said to Joshua, “Reach out with the javelin that is in your hand toward Ai, for into your hand I shall give it,” and Joshua reached out with the javelin that was in his hand toward the town. 19And the ambushers rose quickly from their place and ran as his hand reached out, and they entered the town and took it, and they hurried and set the town on fire. 20And the men of Ai turned behind them and saw and, look, smoke was rising from the town toward the heavens, and they had no place in any direction to flee, while the troops who had fled to the wilderness became the pursuers. 21And Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambushers had taken the town and that the smoke from the town was rising, and they struck down the men of Ai. 22And these had come out of the town toward them so that they were in the midst of Israel, who were on both sides, and they struck them down till they left among them no remnant or survivor. 23And the king of Ai they caught alive and brought him forth to Joshua. 24And it happened, when Israel had finished killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness where they had pursued them, all of them by the edge of the sword to the last of them, all Israel turned back to Ai and struck it with the edge of the sword. 25And all who fell on that day, men and women, came to twelve thousand, all the people of Ai. 26And Joshua did not pull back his hand that he had reached out with the javelin until he had put all the inhabitants of Ai under the ban. 27Only the cattle and the booty of that town did the Israelites plunder, according to the word of the LORD that He charged to Joshua. 28And Joshua burned Ai and turned it into an everlasting heap, a devastation to this day. 29And the king of Ai he impaled on a pole till eventide, and when the sun was setting, Joshua gave orders, and they took his corpse down from the pole and flung it by the entrance of the town gate and put over it a pile of stones to this day. 30Then did Joshua build an altar to the LORD God of Israel on Mount Ebal, 31as Moses the servant of the LORD had charged the Israelites, as it is written in the book of the teaching of Moses, “an altar of whole stones, over which no iron has been brandished,” and they offered up on it burnt offerings to the LORD, and they sacrificed well-being sacrifices. 32And he wrote there on the stones the repetition of the teaching of Moses, which he had written in the presence of the Israelites. 33And all Israel and its elders and its overseers and its judges were standing on both sides of the Ark opposite the levitical priests, bearers of the Ark of the Covenant of the LORD, sojourner and native alike, over against Mount Gerizim, and its other half over against Mount Ebal, as Moses, servant of the LORD, had formerly charged to bless Israel. 34And afterward he read out all the words of the teaching, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the teaching. 35There was no word of all that Moses had charged that Joshua did not read out before the whole assembly of Israel and the women and the little ones and the sojourners who went in their midst.
CHAPTER 8 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
2. Only its booty and its cattle you may plunder. Ai, like Jericho, is to be put to the ban, its structures burned and all its inhabitants massacred, but an exception is made for booty, which the conquering Israelites are allowed to take.
3. the combat troops. Throughout this episode, ‘am, elsewhere “people,” clearly has this military sense.
thirty thousand men. The very large number here for men in an ambush is cited by proponents of the idea that ’elef must refer to a small contingent and does not mean a thousand. But highly exaggerated numbers are often used in ancient narrative, and the sense of “contingent” in the count of the deaths of the town’s inhabitants in verse 25 is problematic.
4–8. Although God had said he would deliver Ai to Joshua, it is Joshua’s shrewdness as a strategist that brings about the fall of the town. The elaboration of the details of military strategy is untypical of biblical narrative. Scholars have pointed out a similarity not only in strategy but also in wording between this story and the account of the siege of Gibeah in the civil war reported in Judges 20, and it is generally thought that this story draws on the one in Judges. Joshua shrewdly capitalizes on the previous defeat of the Israelites at Ai by seeming to repeat the same tactical error, positioning his troops in front of the town gate and then retreating. This time, however, he hides an attack unit behind the town that will move forward against it once the armed men of the town have been drawn out in pursuit of the main body of Israelites.
4. behind the town. This would be west of the town. The main gates of the town are evidently on the eastern side, and the main Israelite camp is northeast of the city.
10. before the troops. This phrase looks odd and may reflect a scribal error.
12. And he took about five thousand men. This verse seems to replicate verses 3–4 using a different (somewhat more plausible) number—5,000 instead of 30,000. It also puts the sending out of the ambush troops after the general encampment, not before it. Two different versions may have been awkwardly spliced together.
13. And they put the troops, the whole camp. Like the translation, the wording of the Hebrew is a bit clumsy and the syntax ambiguous.
its covert contingent. The Hebrew ʿaqev usually means “heel.” There is no evidence that it means “rear guard,” as some claim, and an ambush is not a rear guard. It is equally questionable that it could mean “far edge,” again an inappropriate term for ambush. The translation follows the Targum of Jonathan, Rashi, and Kimchi, in relating ʿaqev to ʿoqbah, a term that suggests deviousness and that might apply to an ambush.
Joshua spent that night. The Masoretic Text reads wayelekh, “walked,” but a few manuscripts show wayalen, “spent the night,” which seems more plausible.
14. the Arabah. This is the north-south rift of the Jordan Valley and is equivalent to the wilderness several times mentioned in this episode.
15. were routed. The obvious implication in context is: pretended to be routed. The verb used wayinagʿu (literally, “were smitten/plagued”) comes instead of the expected wayinagfu, and may be influenced by the parallel passage in Judges 20, where the same verbal stem is employed in a different sense.
18. Reach out with the javelin that is in your hand. The exact nature of the weapon, kidon, is in dispute. (Modern Hebrew has adopted it as the term for bayonet.) Some scholars think it is a kind of scimitar. In any case, the outstretched kidon is both a signal for the men in the ambush to move against the town and a magical act pointedly reminiscent of Moses’s upraised staff in the battle against Amalek reported in Exodus 17.
21. the ambushers. The Hebrew term haʾorev can refer either to the ambush or, as a collective noun, to the combatants carrying out the ambush.
22. And these had come out of the town toward them. These are the ambushers, who, having put the town to the torch, now attack its troops outside, who are caught in a pincer movement between the main Israelite force and the ambushers (whether 5,000 or 30,000). The reference to no place to flee in verse 20 may be out of chronological order because it makes good sense here, when the men of Ai are attacked from both sides.
24. turned back to Ai and struck it with the edge of the sword. The gruesome reality of this report is as follows: the ambushing force, after setting fire to the town and then coming out to join in the attack on the troops of Ai, now comes back with the main Israelite camp to the town to slaughter the women and elders and children left there.
29. impaled on a pole. This is the form of execution that many modern scholars think likely. But the traditional rendering of “hanged on a tree” remains a distinct possibility.
they took his corpse down from the pole and flung it by the entrance of the town gate. The use of the verb “flung” is a clear indication that this is not an honorable burial, though the biblical prohibition against leaving a body hanging overnight is preserved. The place of burial may point toward the area in front of the gates of the town where the Israelites were killed in their earlier attack.
30. Then did Joshua build an altar. This textual unit invokes the two mountains of blessing and curse mentioned in Deuteronomy 11:26–32, and is a direct implementation of the command in Deuteronomy 27:2–3, “on the day that you cross the Jordan into the land that the LORD your God is about to give you, you shall set up for yourself great stones and coat them with plaster. And you shall write on them the words of this teaching… .” But the placement of the episode has puzzled both ancient and modern commentators. Temporally, it does not happen right after the crossing of the Jordan as it should, and geographically, the Israelites at Ai are not opposite Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim.
31. an altar of whole stones, over which no iron has been brandished. This is an approximate quotation of Exodus 20:25.
32. the repetition of the teaching of Moses. The Hebrew mishneh torat mosheh refers to Deuteronomy (that Greek name itself being a rendering of the Hebrew mishneh torah). The Deuteronomist behind this story is clearly promoting the interests of his own privileged text.
1And it happened when all the kings heard who were beyond the Jordan, in the high country and in the lowland and along the whole shore of the Great Sea opposite Lebanon, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite and the Jebusite, 2that they gathered together to do battle with Joshua and with Israel in united resolve. 3And the inhabitants of Gibeon had heard what Joshua did to Jericho and to Ai. 4And they on their part acted with cunning and provisioned themselves and took worn-out sacks for their donkeys and worn-out and cracked and trussed-up wineskins, 5and worn-out and patched sandals on their feet and worn-out cloaks upon them, and all the bread of their provision was dry and moldy. 6And they went to Joshua at the Gilgal camp and said to him and to the men of Israel, “We have come from a faraway land, and now seal a pact with us.” 7And the men of Israel said to the Hivvites, “Perhaps you dwell in our midst, so how can we seal a pact with you?” 8And they said to Joshua, “We are your servants.” And Joshua said to them, “From where are you and from where do you come?” 9And they said to them, “From a very faraway land, your servants have come through the fame of the LORD your God, for we have heard the report of Him and all that He did in Egypt, 10and all that He did to the two Amorite kings who were across the Jordan, to Sihon king of Heshbon and to Og king of Bashan which is in Ashtaroth. 11And our elders and all the inhabitants of our land said to us, saying, ‘Take in your hand provisions for the way and go to them and say to them, We are your servants, and now seal a pact with us.’ 12This bread of ours we took still warm as provisions from our homes on the day we went out toward you, and now, look, it is dry and has turned moldy. 13And these wineskins that we filled were new, and now they are cracked, and these cloaks of ours and our sandals have worn out from the very long way.” 14And the men took from their provisions, and they did not inquire of the LORD. 15And Joshua made peace with them, and sealed a pact with them to preserve their lives, and the chieftains of the community made a vow to them. 16And it happened at the end of three days after they had sealed the pact with them, that they heard that they were neighbors and were dwelling in their midst. 17And the Israelites journeyed forth and came to their towns on the third day, and their towns were Gibeon and Chephirah and Beeroth and Kiriath-Jearim. 18But the Israelites did not strike them down, for the chieftains of the community had made a vow to them in the name of the LORD God of Israel, and all the community complained against the chieftains. 19And all the chieftains said to the whole community, “We have made a vow to them in the name of the LORD God of Israel, and now we cannot touch them. 20This let us do to them, letting them live, that there be no fury against us for the vow we made to them.” 21And the chieftains said of them, “Let them live, and they will be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the whole community, as the chieftains have said of them.” 22And Joshua called to them and spoke to them, saying, “Why did you deceive us, saying, ‘We are very far away from you,’ when you dwell in our midst? 23And now, you are cursed, and no slave or hewer of wood or drawer of water for the house of my God will cease to be among you.” 24And they answered Joshua and said, “For it was indeed told to your servants that the LORD your God had charged Moses to give all the land to you and to destroy the inhabitants of the land before you. And we were very afraid for our lives because of you, and so we did this thing. 25And now, here we are in your hand. What is good and what is right in your eyes to do to us, do.” 26And he did thus to them and saved them from the hand of the Israelites, and they did not kill them. 27And on that day Joshua made them hewers of wood and drawers of water for the community and for the LORD’s altar to this day, at the place He was to choose.
CHAPTER 9 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. beyond the Jordan. Since all the peoples enumerated here are Canaanites living on the western side of the Jordan, this phrase would have to mean beyond the Jordan from the viewpoint of the Israelites coming from the eastern side, even though elsewhere it almost always refers to trans-Jordanian territory.
2. in united resolve. The literal sense of the Hebrew is “with one mouth.” It is historically quite unlikely that the divided city-kingdoms of Canaan could have constituted themselves as a single united force.
4. they on their part acted with cunning. In context, the “on their part” (or “too”) must refer to the immediately preceding story of the conquest of Ai. There the Israelites used the cunning of the ambush strategy to destroy the town; here, by contrast, cunning is used by the Gibeonites to save themselves.
provisioned themselves. The Masoretic Text reads wayitstayru, which might mean “they painted themselves”—that is (perhaps), “they disguised themselves.” An emendation yields wayitsdaydu (the letters resh and dalet look quite similar), which seems more plausible, especially given the prominence of the cognate noun tsayid, “provisions,” in this episode.
trussed-up. The wineskins are held together with cords or strips of leather because they are falling apart.
6. We have come from a faraway land. With the evidence of the just consummated destruction of Jericho and Ai, the Gibeonites seem aware that the Israelites are embarked on a campaign to annihilate the indigenous population of Canaan, and so they adopt the subterfuge of pretending to be from a land far from Canaan. This entire story is in fact an elaborate etiological tale that betrays the shaky historical basis of this canonical account of the conquest. Deuteronomy, with its call for a radical separation from the pagan peoples of the land, enunciated a program of genocide. Such a program was never actually carried out, and the situation of Israel among the Canaanites was by and large the opposite: the two populations frequently mingled, and the Israelites were often open to cultural and religious influences from the Canaanite peoples. The author of this episode was trying to resolve a contradiction: a particular group of Canaanites—the Gibeonites—not only were living cheek by jowl with the Israelites but were performing subservient duties at an Israelite sanctuary at Gibeon. The story comes to explain how the Gibeonites were not wiped out, as the program of total destruction dictated, and how they came to play a role in an Israelite cultic place.
9. a very faraway land. Pushed by Joshua, they add “very” to their previous words.
14. And the men took from their provisions. It may seem puzzling that Israelites should want to eat the dry and moldy bread of the Gibeonites, but Kimchi is probably right in surmising that breaking bread—even virtually inedible bread—with the strangers was a way of ritually confirming a treaty of peace with them.
they did not inquire of the LORD. This is the technical idiom for inquiring of an oracle. Without such guidance, Joshua and the Israelites are taken in by the deception.
17. on the third day. Though this is the formulaic number for relatively short journeys, it is also an implication that the Gibeonite towns are well within the borders of Canaan.
19. We have made a vow to them … and now we cannot touch them. Vows made in the name of the deity—compare the story of Jephthah’s daughter in Judges 11—are irrevocable and cannot be renegotiated.
20. fury. The Hebrew qetsef means divine rage, characteristically manifested in a plague.
21. hewers of wood and drawers of water. These are menial workers at the lowest point in the social hierarchy, as is clear in Deuteronomy 29:9–10: “You are stationed here today all of you before the LORD your God, your heads, your tribes, your elders, and your overseers, every man of Israel. Your little ones, your wives, and your sojourner who is in the midst of your camps, from the hewer of your wood to the drawer of your water.”
23. for the house of my God. In verse 21, it was “for the whole community.” In historical fact, the Gibeonites could conceivably have performed these functions in both the sacred and the profane realm.
will cease to be among you. Literally, “will not be cut off from you.”
24. For it was indeed told to your servants. In this fiction, the Gibeonites somehow have been given a full report of the promise of the land and the program of genocide articulated in Deuteronomy.
26. saved them from the hand of the Israelites. This formulation may suggest that, despite the solemn vow, there was some popular sentiment among the Israelites, outraged by this deception, to destroy the Gibeonites. The quick maneuver of the chieftains implemented by Joshua to make them menial servants would be devised to fend off such an assault.
27. to this day. This is the formal marker of the etiological tale: if you wonder why the Gibeonites are hewers of wood and drawers of water for the Israelites, this story explains it.
at the place He was to choose. This phrase in Deuteronomistic texts invariably refers to Jerusalem, but it is a misplaced editorial tic here because the sanctuary in question is located at Gibeon.
1And it happened when Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem heard that Joshua had taken Ai and put it under the ban, as he had done to Jericho and its king, so had he done to Ai and its king, and that the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel and were in their midst, 2that he was very afraid, for Gibeon was a big town, like one of the royal towns, and it was bigger than Ai, and all its men were warriors. 3And Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem sent to Hoham king of Hebron and to Piram king of Jarmuth, Japhia king of Lachish, and Debir king of Eglon, saying, 4“Come up to me and help me, and let us strike Gibeon, for it has made peace with Joshua and with the Israelites.” 5And the five Amorite kings, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, the king of Eglon, gathered together, they and all their camps, and they encamped against Gibeon and did battle against it. 6And the men of Gibeon sent messengers to Joshua at the Gilgal camp, saying, “Do not let go of your servants. Come up quickly to us and rescue us and help us, for all the Amorite kings who live in the high country have gathered against us.” 7And Joshua came up from Gilgal, he and all the combat troops with him, and all the valiant warriors. 8And the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not fear them, for I have given them into your hand. No man of them will stand up before you.” 9And Joshua came against them suddenly—all night long he had come up from Gilgal. 10And the LORD panicked them before Israel, and they struck them a great blow at Gilgal, and they pursued them on the road of the ascent to Beth-Horon, and they struck them down as far as Azekah and as far as Makkedah. 11And it happened when they fled before Israel, that they were on the descent from Beth-Horon when the LORD flung down on them great stones from the heavens as far as Azekah, and those who died from the hailstones were many more than the Israelites killed by the sword. 12Then did Joshua speak to the LORD on the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, and he said in the sight of Israel:
and the moon in Ajalon Valley.”
13And the sun halted
and the moon stood still
till the nation wreaked vengeance on its foes.
Is it not written in the Book of Jashar?—“And the sun stood still in the middle of the heavens and did not hasten to set for a whole day. 14And there was nothing like that day before it or after it, in the LORD’s heeding the voice of a man, for the LORD did battle for Israel.” 15And Joshua went back, and all Israel with him, to the Gilgal camp. 16And those five kings fled and hid in a cave at Makkedah. 17And it was told to Joshua, saying, “The five kings have been found hiding in the cave at Makkedah. 18And Joshua said, “Roll great stones over the mouth of the cave, and set men over it to guard them. 19As for you, do not stand still. Pursue your enemies and cut them down from behind. Do not let them enter their towns, for the LORD your God has given them into your hand.” 20And it happened when Joshua and the Israelites had finished striking them a very great blow, to the last of them, that a remnant of them survived and entered the fortified towns. 21And the troops came back safely to the camp to Joshua, no man so much as snarled at the Israelites. 22And Joshua said, “Open the mouth of the cave, and bring these five kings out to me from the cave.” 23And so they did, and they brought those five kings out to him from the cave—the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, the king of Eglon. 24And it happened when they brought out those kings to Joshua, that Joshua called out to all the men of Israel and said to the captains of the men of war who had gone with him: “Put your feet on the necks of these kings.” And they drew near and put their feet on their necks. 25And Joshua said to them, “Do not fear and do not cower. Be strong and stalwart, for thus shall the LORD do to all your enemies with whom you do battle.” 26And afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he impaled them on five poles, and they remained impaled on the poles till evening. 27And it happened as the sun was setting that Joshua gave the command and they took them down from the poles and flung them into the cave in which they had hidden, and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave, to this very day. 28And Joshua took Makkedah on that day and struck it and its king with the edge of the sword and every living thing within it. He left no survivor, and he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho. 29And Joshua moved on, and all Israel with him, from Makkedah to Libnah, and he did battle with Libnah. 30And the LORD gave it as well into the hand of Israel with its king, and he struck it with the edge of the sword and every living thing within it. He left no survivor, and he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. 31And Joshua moved on, and all Israel with him, from Libnah to Lachish, and he camped against it and did battle against it. 32And the LORD gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he took it on the second day and struck it by the edge of the sword and every living thing within it, as all that he had done to Libnah. 33Then did Horam king of Gezer come up to help Lachish, and Joshua struck him down, and all his troops with him, till he left no survivor of him. 34And Joshua moved on, and all Israel with him, from Lachish to Eglon, and they camped against it and did battle against it. 35And they took it on that day and struck it with the edge of the sword and every living thing within it. On that day he passed it under the ban as all he had done to Lachish. 36And Joshua went up, and all Israel with him, from Eglon to Hebron, and they did battle against it. 37And they took it and struck it with the edge of the sword, and its king and all its towns and every living thing within it. He left no survivor, as all he had done to Eglon, and he put it under the ban and every living thing within it. 38And Joshua, and all Israel with him, turned back to Debir and did battle against it. 39And he took it, and its king and all its towns, and he struck them with the edge of the sword, and he put under the ban every living thing within it. He left no survivor. As he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir and its king and as he had done to Libnah and to its king. 40And Joshua struck the whole land, the high country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. And he left no survivor of it. And every breathing thing he put under the ban as the LORD God of Israel had charged. 41And Joshua struck them from Kadesh-Barnea to Gaza, and the whole land of Goshen to Gibeon. 42And all these kings and their land Joshua took in one fell swoop, for the LORD God of Israel did battle for Israel. 43And Joshua, and all Israel with him, turned back to the Gilgal camp.
CHAPTER 10 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. Adoni-Zedek. The name means “master of justice” or “master of victory,” and as several medieval Hebrew commentators note, it is probably a hereditary title rather than a proper name. Melchizedek king of Salem (probably a variant of “Jerusalem”), mentioned in Genesis 14:18, has a similar titular name, which means “king of justice” or “king of victory.”
2. like one of the royal towns. Even though there is no monarchy in Gibeon, its size and importance make it the equivalent of a royal town.
6. Do not let go of your servants. That is, hang on to us; do not leave us in the lurch.
help us. The simple verb “to help” also has technical sense, exhibited in many psalms and in narrative contexts such as this, which is to render military support.
7. the combat troops … all the valiant warriors. These terms probably indicate that Joshua led elite troops, the ancient Near Eastern equivalent of commandos, on this mission.
9. Joshua came against them suddenly. By marching all night long the considerable distance from Gilgal to Gibeon, he is able to carry out a surprise attack, perhaps just at daybreak.
10. and the LORD panicked them. This is a vivid illustration of the system of dual causation sometimes adopted by the biblical writers. The soldiers of the alliance of five kings are of course in the first instance panicked by Joshua’s surprise attack, a shrewd tactical maneuver, but now the panic is explained as God’s direct intervention.
11. the descent from Beth-Horon. This is the same steep road that is called “ascent” in the previous verse, now imagined from Beth-Horon looking down rather than the other way around.
great stones from the heavens. This wording gives the initial impression of an entirely supernatural event, but then it is explained naturalistically as a reference to hailstones. Even so, the hailstones would have had to be improbably big in order to be lethal.
12. O sun in Gibeon halt. The reason for the prayer is explained in the next verse: the sun is to halt its movement across the sky and the moon not to appear in its place in order to give Joshua a long extension of daylight in which to hunt down and destroy his enemies.
13. the Book of Jashar. This lost text is also mentioned in 2 Samuel 1:18 as the literary source in which David’s elegy for Saul and Jonathon appears. It is safe to assume that it is a very old book, largely poetic or even epic, in which martial themes are prominent. The name jashar would appear to mean “the upright,” though Shmuel Ahituv, mindful of the practice of calling books by their opening words, interestingly proposes that it could mean “he sang” (revocalizing jashar as jashir).
And the sun stood still. This translation construes the remainder of this verse as a continuation of the quotation from the Book of Jashar. It does not scan as poetry, but the language is elevated, with epic flourishes.
did not hasten to set. Psalm 19 imagines the sun racing across the sky like a warrior running on his path, and that mythological imagery is probably behind the verb “hasten” here.
19. cut them down from behind. The verb zanev, derived from zanav, “tail,” means etymologically “to cut off the tail.” It is used in Deuteronomy 25:18.
20. to the last of them. More literally, “until they came to an end.” But as the next clause makes clear, this actually means that they were almost entirely wiped out but some escaped.
21. no man. The Hebrew says “to no man,” but the prefix le is probably a dittography triggered by le yisraʾel, “at [or to] Israel.”
24. Put your feet on the necks of these kings. As both Egyptian and Assyrian art abundantly demonstrate, this was a symbolic gesture by the victors for subjugating the defeated enemies.
26. he impaled them on five poles. Since it would be somewhat odd to hang a dead body by the neck, this particular verse offers credibility to the view that the Hebrew verb in question when applied to an execution means to impale, not to hang. Impaling the body for public display would be an act of shaming.
27. to this very day. This is again the etiological tag—the story explains why one finds great stones piled over the mouth of the cave at Makkedah.
28. and Joshua took Makkedah on that day and struck it and its king. Here begins a catalogue of Joshua’s conquests, conveyed in more or less identical formulas, and probably from a different literary source.
32. And the LORD gave Lachish into the hand of Israel. This notation is still another indication of the tenuous relation to history of this account of the conquest because extrabiblical evidence shows that in the thirteenth century B.C.E. (the time of Joshua) and well beyond it, Lachish was not in Israelite hands. Altogether, this report of a lightning campaign in which a large swath of the land was conquered does not accord with the archaeological record for the history of this period. One might also observe an internal contradiction between the catalogue of conquests and the episode that precedes it. One of the five kings put to death at the Makkedah cave is the king of Jerusalem, the very man who organized the anti-Israelite alliance. One would expect that the conquest of Jerusalem should then logically figure in this account, but it was of course general knowledge that Jerusalem remained in Jebusite hands until over two centuries later, when it was taken by David. One suspects that the source from which the catalogue of conquests was drawn knew nothing of an Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem who played a central role in these battles, and that the redactor did not reconcile the two accounts.
40. the Negeb and the lowland. In David’s time, much of the Negeb was dominated by the Amalekites, and the lowland was Philistine territory.
41. from Kadesh-Barnea. This would be extravagantly far to the south, in the northern part of the Sinai peninsula.
42. in one fell swoop. Literally, “one time” or “at once.” This hyperbolic flourish again raises the problem of historicity.
1And it happened when Jabin king of Hazor heard, that he sent to Jobab king of Madon and to the king of Shimron and the king of Achshaph, 2and to the kings who were in the north, in the high country and in the Arabah, south of Chinneroth, and in the lowland and in Naphoth-Dor on the west, 3the Canaanite from the east, and to the west, and the Amorite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Jebusite in the high country, and the Hivvite below Hermon in Mizpah land. 4And they sallied forth, they and all their camps with them, troops more numerous than the sand that is on the shore of the sea in number, and very many horses and chariots. 5And all these kings joined forces and came and camped together by the waters of Merom to do battle with Israel. 6And the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not fear them, for tomorrow at this time I shall cause all of them to be slain before Israel. Their horses you will hamstring and their chariots you will burn in fire.” 7And Joshua, and all the combat troops with him, came against them suddenly at the waters of Merom, and fell upon them. 8And the LORD gave them into the hand of Israel, and they struck them down and pursued them to Greater Sidon and to Misrephoth-Mayim and to Mizpeh Valley to the east, and they struck them down until no survivor was left of them. 9And Joshua did to them as the LORD had said to him, their horses he hamstrung and their chariots he burned in fire. 0And Joshua came back at that time and took Hazor, and its king he struck down with the sword. For Hazor in those days was chief of these kingdoms. 11And he struck down every living person who was in it with the edge of the sword, putting it under the ban. No breathing person was left, and he burned Hazor in fire. 12And all the towns of these kings and all their kings Joshua took and struck them down with the edge of the sword, he put them under ban as Moses servant of the LORD had charged. 13Only all the towns standing on their mounds Israel did not burn, except for Hazor alone that Joshua burned. 14And all the booty of these towns and the cattle the Israelites plundered. Only the human beings they struck down with the edge of the sword until they had destroyed them—they left no breathing person. 15As the LORD had charged Moses His servant, so Moses charged Joshua, who neglected nothing of all that the LORD had charged Moses. 16And Joshua took all this land, the high country and all the Negeb and all the land of Goshen and the lowland and the Arabah and the high country of Israel and its lowland, 17from Mount Halak going up to Seir as far as Baal-Gad in the Lebanon valley beneath Mount Hermon. And their kings he captured and struck them down and put them to death. 18Many days Joshua did battle with these kings. 19There was no town that made peace with the Israelites except the Hivvites dwelling in Gibeon. Everything they took in battle. 20For it was from the LORD to harden their heart for battle against Israel, so that they would be put under the ban with no mercy shown them in order that they be destroyed, as the LORD had charged Moses. 21And Joshua came at that time and cut down the Anakites from the high country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from the high country of Judah and from all the high country of Israel, with their towns, Joshua put them under the ban. 22No Anakites were left in the land of the Israelites. Only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod did they remain. 23And Joshua took the whole land according to all that the LORD had spoken to Moses. And Joshua gave it in estate to Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land was at rest from war.
CHAPTER 11 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. when Jabin king of Hazor heard. Though no grammatical object for the verb appears, the obvious sense is that he heard of Joshua’s initial conquests. The pointed parallel with 10:1 makes this clear. Altogether, this whole chapter appears to have been composed to create a symmetrical complement to the account of the defeat of the southern alliance in the previous chapter. Here, the alliance is one of northern kings. The reach of this new conquest, going all the way to Sidon in Lebanon and, to the south on the Mediterranean coast, to Misrephoth-Mayim, is scarcely historical, and it seems devised to convey the idea of the completeness of the conquest of the land.
Hazor. This was an important city in northeastern Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age, a memory perhaps reflected in making its king the leader of the alliance, but by Joshua’s time it had become a relatively small town.
2. Chinneroth. This is the same place as Kinneret, the Sea of Galilee.
3. Hermon. This is a mountain to the northeast, on the border between present-day Israel and Syria.
5. the waters of Merom. The location is in the high country of north-central Canaan.
6. Their horses you will hamstring and their chariots you will burn in fire. The chariot, a formidable instrument of warfare, was not generally adopted by the Israelites, who were essentially guerilla fighters from the high country, for another two centuries. These Canaanite chariots in all likelihood were made out of wood, hence the burning. As to hamstringing of the horses, Boling and others think this was a cunning strategy to disable the horses at the onset of the battle, although it is not entirely clear how easy it would have been for the Israelite warriors to get close enough to the chariots in order to maim the horses. Alternately, they might have hamstrung the horses after the victory in order to make sure they would not be used again to draw chariots, a possibility encouraged by the previous verse in which the enemy troops appear to be defeated before the hamstringing.
7. came against them suddenly at the waters of Merom. This is the same strategy of surprise attack used against the southern alliance, with the enemy caught unawares at its own encampment.
11. living person … breathing person. The two Hebrew terms, nefesh and neshamah, are phonetically and semantically related. Nefesh is the life-breath and, by extension, the living person; neshamah explicitly means breath or anything that breathes.
13. the towns standing on their mounds. The “mound,” tell, is the heaped-up layers of earlier habitation on which old cities stand. (It has become a technical archaeological term.) What the expression may mean in context is towns of notable antiquity, though that is not entirely certain.
15. As the LORD had charged Moses. The genocidal imperative is spelled out several times in Deuteronomy.
16. the high country of Israel. This rather odd phrase, matched in verse 21 with “the high country of Judah,” probably reflects an awareness of the division into a southern and northern kingdom after the death of Solomon.
17. Mount Halak. Boling wittily and accurately observes that this could be translated as Bald Mountain.
18. Many days. The Hebrew yamim is an elastic indicator of time, and so it could mean here months or even years.
20. For it was from the LORD to harden their heart for battle against Israel. This is one of two verbs used in the Exodus story for the hardening or toughening of the heart of Pharaoh. There, the divinely instigated obduracy was in order to enable the display of God’s overwhelming power. Here it is to provide grounds for wiping out the indigenous population.
21. the Anakites. Although in the present context this looks like a gentilic designation, in other biblical texts the word refers to giants.
22. Only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod did they remain. These are three of the five Philistine towns on the southern part of the Mediterranean coast. Goliath the Philistine was, of course, a giant, though the Hebrew ʿanaq is not attached to him in the story in 1 Samuel 17. It is conceivable that the association of huge physical proportions with the Anakites derives from a perception that the Philistines, of original Aegean stock, were bigger than the indigenous population of Canaan though archaeological evidence suggests the Canaanites were also big. The Philistines invaded the coastal areas around 1200 B.C.E., but later writers (as in Genesis) imagined them as longtime residents of the coastal strip.
1And these are the kings of the land whom the Israelites struck down and whose land they took hold of, across the Jordan where the sun rises, from Wadi Arnon to Mount Hermon and all the Arabah to the east: 2Sihon king of the Amorites who dwelled in Heshbon, who ruled from Aroer on the banks of Wadi Arnon and within the wadi, and half of Gilead as far as Wadi Jabbok, border of the Ammonites, 3and the Arabah as far as Lake Chinneroth to the east and as far as the Arabah Sea, the Salt Sea, to the east, by way of Beth-Jeshimoth, and to the south below the slopes of Pisgah. 4And the region of Og king of Bashan, from the remnant of the Rephaim, who dwelt in Ashtaroth and in Edrei, 5and ruled over Mount Hermon and Salkah and all of the Bashan as far as the border of the Geshurite and the Maacathite and half of Gilead, the border of Sihon king of the Amorites. 6Moses servant of the LORD and the Israelites struck them down, and Moses servant of the LORD gave it as an inheritance to the Reubenites and to the Gadites and to the half-tribe of Manasseh. 7And these are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the Israelites struck down on the other side of the Jordan to the west, from Baal-Gad in the Lebanon valley as far as Mount Halak, which goes up toward Seir. And Joshua gave it to the tribes of Israel as an inheritance according to their divisions. 8In the high country and in the lowland and in the Arabah and on the slopes and in the wilderness and in the Negeb of the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite:
9the king of Jericho—one,
the king of Ai which is alongside Bethel—one,
10the king of Jerusalem—one,
the king of Hebron—one,
11the king of Jarmuth—one,
the king of Lachish—one,
12the king of Eglon—one,
the king of Gezer—one,
13the king of Debir—one,
the king of Geder—one,
14the king of Hormah—one,
the king of Arad—one,
15the king of Libnah—one,
the king of Adullam—one,
16the king of Makkedah—one,
the king of Bethel—one,
17the king of Tapuah—one,
the king of Hepher—one,
18the king of Aphek—one,
the king of Sharon—one,
19the king of Madon—one,
the king of Hazor—one,
20the king of Shimron-Merom—one,
the king of Achshaph—one,
21the king of Taanach—one,
the king of Megiddo—one,
22the king of Kedesh—one,
the king of Jokneam in Carmel—one,
23the king of Dor in Naphoth-Dor—one,
the king of Goiim in Gilgal—one,
24the king of Tirzah—one,
all the kings were thirty-one.
CHAPTER 12 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. And these are the kings of the land whom the Israelites struck down … across the Jordan where the sun rises. The second half of the Book of Joshua, which begins in the next chapter, essentially abandons narrative to offer, after this catalogue of conquests, a tabulation of the apportioning of the land according to tribal divisions. Only in the three concluding chapters do we return to narrative. The first six verses of this chapter report the victories of Moses over the sundry trans-Jordanian kings that are narrated in Numbers. The remainder of the chapter gives us a list of Joshua’s victories west of the Jordan.
3. Lake Chinneroth. As before, this is a variant form of Lake Kinneret, or the Sea of Galilee.
4. the remnant of the Rephaim. Some scholars think this term originally referred to elite warriors. In biblical usage it can mean either “shades,” which is scarcely a relevant sense here, or “giants.” In Deuteronomy 3:11, Og is reported to have possessed gigantic proportions.
6. Moses servant of the LORD gave it as an inheritance. By the time this material was edited, late in the seventh century B.C.E. or in the sixth century, the Israelites no longer had possession of this trans-Jordanian region. The list thus serves as a kind of ideal map of sovereignty in times past.
9. the king of Jericho—one. This system of tallying is unusual. The evident aim is to arrive at a complete sum of all the conquests. Though, as we have seen, the historical reality of much of this account is in doubt, the numbering of thirty-one kings does accurately reflect a historical situation in which Canaan was splintered into a large number of city-kingdoms controlling quite small territories. Even if these rulers actually bore the title of king, they probably were closer to what today would be thought of as tribal warlords. This list obviously picks up names from the preceding narrative report, although it also includes several kings not mentioned earlier.
1And Joshua was old, advanced in years. And the LORD said to him, “You are old, advanced in years, and very much of the land remains to take hold of. 2This is the land remaining: all the provinces of the Philistines and all of the Geshurites, 3from the Shihor, which faces Egypt, to the region of Ekron to the north, it is reckoned Canaanite. The five Philistine overlords, the Gazite, and the Ashdodite, the Ascolonite, the Gittite, and the Ekronite. And the Avvites 4on the south, all the Canaanite land from Arah of the Sidonians to Aphek, which is on the Amorite border, 5and the land of the Giblite, and all of Lebanon to the east, from Baal-Gad below Mount Hermon to the approach to Hamath. 6All the inhabitants of the high country from Lebanon to Misrephoth-Mayim, all the Sidonians, I Myself will dispossess them before the Israelites, only to make it fall in estate to Israel as I have charged you. 7And now, divide this land in estate among the nine tribes and the half-tribe of Manasseh, 8with whom the Reubenites and the Gadites took their estate that Moses gave them across the Jordan to the east, as Moses servant of the LORD gave them, 9from Aroer, which is on the banks of Wadi Arnon, and the town that is in the wadi, and the plain from Medeba to Dibon, 10and all the towns of Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, to the border of the Ammonites, 11and Gilead and the territory of the Geshurites and the Maacathites, and all of Mount Hermon and all Bashan to Saleah, 12and all the kingdoms of Og in Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei—he remained from the remnant of the Rephaim, and Moses struck them down and dispossessed them. 13But the Israelites did not dispossess the Geshurites and the Maacathites, and Geshur and Maacath have dwelled in the midst of Israel to this day. 14Only to the tribe of Levi he gave no estate. The fire offerings of the LORD God of Israel, they are its estate, as He had spoken to it. 15And Moses gave to the tribe of the Reubenites according to its clans, 16and it became their territory from Aroer, which is on the banks of Wadi Arnon, and the town that is in the wadi and the whole plain to Medeba. 17Heshbon and all its towns that are on the plain, Dibon and Bamoth-Baal and Beth-Baal-Meon, 18and Jaza and Kedemoth and Mephaath, 19and Kiriathaim and Sibma and Zereth-Shahar on the Mountain of the Valley, 20and Beth-Peor and the slopes of Pisgah and Beth-Jeshimoth, 21and all the towns of the plain and all the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, whom Moses struck down—and the princes of Midian, Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba, princes of Sihon who dwelled in the land. 22And Balaam son of Beor, the soothsayer, the Israelites killed by the sword with the rest of their slain. 23And the border of the Reubenites was the Jordan. This was the estate of the Reubenites by their clans, the towns and their hamlets. 24And Moses had given it to the tribe of Gad and to the Gadites by their clans, 25and it became their territory: Jazer and all the towns of Gilead and half of the land of the Ammonites as far as Aroer, which is just before Rabbah, 26and from Heshbon as far as Ramoth-Mizpeh, and Betonim, and from Mahanaim to the border of Lidber, 27and in the Valley, Beth-Haran and Beth-Nimrah and Succoth and Zaphon, the rest of the kingdoms of Sihon king of Heshbon, from the Jordan and its border to the edge of the Sea of Chinnereth across the Jordan to the east. 28This is the estate of the Gadites according to their clans, the towns and their hamlets. 29And Moses gave it to the half-tribe of Manasseh and it went to the half-tribe of the Manassites according to their clans, 30and their territory was from Mahanaim, all of Bashan, all the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, and all of Havvoth-Jair, which is in Bashan, sixty towns, 31and half of Gilead and Ashtaroth and Edrei, the royal towns of Og in Bashan, to the sons of Machir son of Manasseh, to half of the sons of Machir according to their clans. 32These were what Moses apportioned in estate in the plains of Moab across the Jordan to the east of Jericho. 33But to the tribe of Levi Moses gave no estate—the LORD God of Israel, He is their estate, as He had spoken to them.”
CHAPTER 13 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. very much of the land remains to take hold of. There is a tension between the section that begins here and the previous account of Joshua’s conquest. In the preceding chapters, one gets the impression of a grand sweep of victories in which the Israelite forces led by Joshua took town after town, virtually the whole land. But the audience of this narrative was well aware that there were substantial regions of the land that for long periods were not controlled by the Israelites, and this awareness is registered here.
2. all the provinces of the Philistines. In fact, the Philistines did not establish their pentapolis along the Mediterranean shore, having arrived perhaps from the Aegean, until a generation or more after the putative time of Joshua.
3. overlords. The Hebrew seren is in all likelihood a loanword from the Philistine language. Some scholars think it is cognate with the Greek tyrranos.
the Avvites. These are an indigenous Canaanite people bordering on Philistine territory who remained unconquered by the Philistines.
4. from Arah. The received text reads “and from Arah.” Arah is not a known place-name, and some emend it to Acco, which was a Sidonian town. Strenuous scholarly efforts have been made, and will not be recapitulated here, to identify all the towns and regions. Some names in the list nevertheless defy identification, and there are elements in the geographical indications that seem scrambled.
7. the nine tribes and the half-tribe of Manasseh. These are the tribes that settled west of the Jordan, the other two and a half tribes remaining on the east side of the Jordan.
8. with whom the Reubenites and the Gadites took their estate. That is, these two tribes plus the other half of the tribe of Manasseh. The more likely historical scenario is not that Israelites settled east of the Jordan in the original conquest but that they migrated there by stages later in search of land.
10. border. The Hebrew gevul sometimes means “border” and sometimes “territory” or “region,” the meaning shifting in this chapter.
12. he remained from the remnant of the Rephaim. See the comment on 12:4.
13. Maacath. This is either a variant, archaic form of Maachah or a scribal error.
dwelled in the midst of Israel. As elsewhere, this phrase does not mean that they were geographically integrated with Israel but that they had peaceful relations with the Israelites.
14. the fire offerings of the LORD God of Israel, they are its estate. A substantial part of these sacrifices was not burned and thus was available to the Levites as food. This verse, reiterated at the end of the chapter, probably reflects a Deuteronomistic background in which the cult has been centralized in Jerusalem.
22. Balaam son of Beor. The killing off of Balaam, who in Numbers 22–24 delivered, against his own intention, a grand prophecy of blessing about Israel, may reflect a nationalist nervousness over the prominence of this Aramean soothsayer. Lest one think he lived happily ever after once he had returned to his native land, here he is included among the victims of the conquest.
1And these are what the Israelites took in estate in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the priest and Joshua son of Nun and the patriarchal heads of the Israelite tribes gave them in estate, 2in the portion of their estate, as the LORD had charged through Moses for the nine and a half tribes. 3For Moses had given an estate to the two and a half tribes across the Jordan, but to the Levites he gave no estate in their midst. 4For the sons of Joseph were two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh. And they gave no share in the land to the Levites except for towns to dwell in and their pastures for their livestock and their possessions. 5As the LORD had charged Moses, so did the Israelites do, and they divided up the land. 6And the Judahites came forward to Joshua in Gilgal, and Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, “You yourself know the word that the LORD spoke to Moses man of God about me and about you in Kadesh-Barnea. 7I was forty years old when Moses servant of the LORD sent me from Kadesh-Barnea to spy out the land, and I brought him back word just as I thought. 8But my brothers who came up with me made the people’s heart faint, yet I followed after the LORD my God. 9And Moses vowed on that day, saying, ‘The land on which your foot trod shall surely be yours in estate, and your sons’, for all time, for you have followed after the LORD my God.’ 10And now, look, the LORD has kept me alive, as He had spoken, forty-five years since the LORDspoke this word to Moses while Israel went in the wilderness. And now, look, I am eighty-five years old. 11I am still today as strong as the day Moses sent me. As my vigor then is my vigor now, for battle and for command. 12And now, give me this mountain, as the LORD spoke on that day, for you yourself heard on that day that there were giants there and great fortified towns. Perhaps the LORD will be with me and I shall dispossess them as the LORD has spoken.” 13And Joshua blessed him and gave Hebron to Caleb son of Jephunneh in estate. 14Therefore has Hebron been in estate to Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite to this day because he followed after the LORD God of Israel. 15And the name of Hebron formerly was Kiriath-Arba—he was the biggest person among the giants. And the land was at rest from war.
CHAPTER 14 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. in the land of Canaan. As the next two verses make clear, this phrase indicates the land west of the Jordan.
4. except for towns to dwell in. These towns were a practical concession to the Levites from the other tribes and not inalienable territory.
6. And the Judahites came forward. Although what is in question is the inheritance of Caleb, head of one of the clans of Judah, it is also regarded as a tribal issue because he is part of the tribe.
You yourself know. Caleb uses the emphatic form in which the personal pronoun is added before the conjugated verb, because Joshua was there with him, joining him in the positive minority report against the fearful assessment of the other ten spies.
7. brought him back word. This phrase is used in the spy narrative in Numbers 13:26.
just as I thought. That is, honestly. The literal sense is “as it was with my heart.”
8. made the people’s heart faint. The literal sense of the Hebrew is “made the people’s heart melt,” but in English that phrase unfortunately suggests gushing sentiment. The same idiom is used in the recapitulation of the story of the spies in Deuteronomy 1:28.
I followed after the LORD my God. The literal sense of the idiom is “I filled after.” The clear meaning is to carry out implicitly the will or command of someone. The same expression is used in the original story of the spies in Numbers 14:24.
10. I am eighty-five years old. The Talmudic sages, calculating that the incident of the spies took place two years into the forty years of Wilderness wandering, conclude from this that the conquest of the land took seven years.
11. As my vigor then is my vigor now, for battle and for command. The region around Hebron still requires conquering, as Caleb’s words in verse 12 show. The idiom rendered as “command” is literally “to go out and to come back,” and it means to lead troops in battle.
12. you yourself heard on that day that there were giants there. The narrative context makes clear that the Hebrew ʿanaqim is not in this instance a gentilic (“Anakites”) but means “giants,” the adversaries of daunting proportions before whom the ten fearful spies felt themselves to be like grasshoppers.
14. Therefore. As often elsewhere the Hebrew ʿal-ken introduces an etiological explanation.
15. Kiriath-Arba. The Hebrew name means “city of four”—perhaps, as many scholars have inferred, because it was divided into four neighborhoods. But here “Arba” is construed as a man’s name—the largest of the indigenous giants.
1And the portion for the Judahites according to their clans was southward to the border of Edom, the Wilderness of Zin on the far south. 2And their southern boundary was from the edge of the Salt Sea, from the tongue that turns southward. 3And it extended to the south, to the ascent of Akrabbim, and passed on to Zin and went up from the south to Kadesh-Barnea, and passed on to Hezron and went up to Addar and swung round to Karka. 4And it passed on to Azmon and extended to the Wadi of Egypt, and the far reaches of the border came to the sea. This shall be for you the southern boundary. 5And the boundary to the east is the Salt Sea south of the Jordan, and the boundary on the northern side from the tongue of the Sea to the mouth of the Jordan. 6And the boundary went up to Beth-Hoglah and passed on north of Beth-Arabah, and the boundary went up to the Stone of Bohan son of Reuben. 7And the boundary went up to Debir from the Valley of Achor and turned north to Gilgal, which is opposite the Ascent of Adummim, which is south of the wadi, and the boundary passed on to the waters of Ein-Shemesh, and its far reaches were to Ein-Rogel. 8And the boundary went up to the Vale of Ben-Hinnom to the flank of the Jebusite on the south, which is Jerusalem, and it went up to the mountaintop which overlooks the Vale of Ben-Hinnom to the west, which is at the end of the Valley of Rephaim to the north. 9And the border swung round from the mountaintop to the spring of the waters of Nephtoah and extended to the towns of the high country of Ephron, and the boundary swung round to Baalah, which is Kiriath-Jearim. 10And the boundary turned from Baalah westward to Mount Seir and passed on northward to the flank of Mount Jearim, which is Kesalon, and went down to Beth-Shemesh and passed on to Timnah. 11And the boundary extended to the flank of Ekron to the north, and the boundary swung round to Shikkron and passed on to Mount Baalah and extended to Jabneel, and the far reaches of the boundary were to the sea. 12And the western boundary—the Great Sea. And this boundary is the boundary of the Judahites all around, according to their clans. 13And Caleb the son of Jephunneh was given a share in the midst of the Judahites at the behest of the LORD through Joshua—Kiriath-Arba, father of the giant, which is Hebron. 14And Caleb dispossessed from there the three sons of the giant, Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai, offspring of the giant. 15And he went up from there to the inhabitants of Debir, and the name of Debir formerly was Kiriath-Sepher. 16And Caleb said, “Whoever strikes Kiriath-Sepher and takes it, to him I shall give Achsah my daughter as wife.” 17And Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb’s brother, took it, and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife. 18And it happened when she came, that she enticed him to ask a field of her father, and she alighted from the donkey, and Caleb said to her, “What troubles you?” 19And she said, “Give me a present, for you have given me desert-land, and you should give me springs of water.” And he gave her the upper springs and the lower springs. 20This is the estate of the tribe of the Judahites according to their clans. 21And the towns at the edge of the Judahites by the boundary of Edom to the south were Kabzeel and Eder and Yagur. 22And Kinah and Dimonah and Adadah. 23And Kedesh and Hazor and Ithnan. 24Ziph and Telem and Bealoth. 25And Hazor-Hadattah and Kerioth-Hezron, which is Hazor. 26Amam and Shema and Moladah. 27And Hazar-Gaddah and Heshmon and Beth-Pelet. 28And Hazar-Shual and Beersheba and Beziothiah. 29Baalah and Iim and Ezem. 30And Eltolad and Kesil and Hormah. 31And Ziklag and Madmenah and Sansanah. 32And Lebaoth and Shilhin and Ain and Rimmon. All the towns with their pasturelands came to twenty-nine. 33In the lowland: Eshtaol and Zorah and Ashnah. 34And Zanoah and Ein-Gannim, Tapuah and Einan. 35Jarmuth and Adullam, Socoh and Azekah. 36And Shaaraim and Aditaim and Gederah and Gederothaim—fourteen towns with their pastureland. 37Zenan and Hadashah and Migdal-Gad. 38And Dilan and Mizpeh and Joktheel. 39Lachish and Bozkath and Eglon. 40And Cabbon and Lahmas and Kithlish. 41And Gederoth, Beth-Dagon, and Naamah and Makkedah—sixteen towns with their pasturelands. 42Libnah and Ether and Ashan. 43And Iphtah and Ashmah and Nezib. 44And Keilah and Achzib and Mareshah—nine towns with their pasturelands. 45Ekron with its hamlets and its pasturelands. 46From Ekron westward, all that is by Ashdod, with their pasturelands. 47Ashdod, its hamlets and its pasturelands, Gaza, its hamlets and its pasturelands, to the Wadi of Egypt, and the Great Sea is the boundary. 48And in the high country, Shamir and Jattir and Socoh. 49And Dannah and Kiriath-Sannah, which is Debir. 50And Anab and Eshtamoa and Anim. 51And Goshen and Holon and Giloh—eleven towns with their pasturelands. 52Arab and Dumah and Eshan. 53And Janim and Beth-Tapuah and Aphekah. 54And Humtah and Kiriath-Arba, which is Hebron, and Zior—nine towns with their pasturelands. 55Maon, Carmel, Ziph, and Juttah. 56And Jezreel and Jokneam and Zanoah. 57Kain, Gibeah, and Timnah—ten towns with their pasturelands. 58Halhul, Beth-Zur and Gedor. 59And Maaroth and Beth-Anot and Eltekon—six towns with their pasturelands. 60Kiriath-Baal, which is Kiriath-Jearim, and Rabbah—two towns with their pasturelands. 61In the wilderness, Beth-Arabah, Middin, and Secacah. 62And Nishban and Salt Town and Ein-Gedi—six towns with their pasturelands. 63But the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Judahites were not able to dispossess, and the Jebusites have dwelled alongside the Judahites to this day.
CHAPTER 15 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. the portion. The Hebrew goral means “lot”—evidently, an aleatory device used to portion out the various territories—and through metonymy, it also means what is indicated by the lot, the portion or share.
southward to the border of Edom. What begins here and runs through the chapter is an elaborate geographical tracing of Judah’s tribal territory. The general reader can scarcely be expected to follow all these details, and any reader would need a complicated map to do it. What is noteworthy is the inordinate amount of space devoted to Judah’s possessions, which appear to cover most of central and southern Israel from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. As many scholars have inferred, this account probably reflects a later period—seventh century?—when a centralized monarchy coming from the tribe of Judah governed the entire southern kingdom, with Jerusalem as its capital. The towns in this list are so numerous that many of them were probably not much bigger than substantial villages. Some of the names are well-known, can be confidently located, and are sites of important biblical events. Others remain elusive.
9. Baalah, which is Kiriath-Jearim. This, like at least one other item on the list, cites first an old pagan name and then its replacement (which means “Forest City”).
13. Caleb. He was the other one of the twelve spies, besides Joshua, who brought back an encouraging report about the land, and Hebron with the surrounding territory was to be his reward.
17. Othniel. He is to become the first of the Judges.
18. she enticed him to ask a field of her father. The Septuagint reads “he enticed her,” which makes the sequence of events easier to follow, but perhaps one should hew to the philological principle of adopting the more difficult reading. In that case, Achsah enticed her husband but then did the asking herself, perhaps because Othniel’s request was rebuffed.
19. present. More literally, “blessing.”
desert-land. In the Hebrew “Negeb-land,” the Negeb serving as the model for arid country. The term is associated by etymology with dryness.
46. Ekron … Ashdod. These towns, like Gaza in the next verse, are Philistine cities. They could scarcely have been allotted to Judah in the thirteenth century, though by the time this list was compiled the Philistines had long been vanquished.
63. But the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Judahites were not able to dispossess. The writer is obliged to make this notation because it was well-known that Jerusalem remained in Jebusite hands until David conquered it, more than two centuries after the time of Joshua.
and the Jebusites have dwelled alongside the Judahites to this day. This second clause is somewhat misleading after the first clause. It could not mean, as it may appear, that the Jebusites were never conquered but rather that after having been conquered by David, many of them remained as landholding residents of the city. See the account of David’s purchase of the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite for use as a cultic site in 2 Samuel 24:18–25)—he buys it and does not take it by right of conquest.
1And the portion for the sons of Joseph came out—from the Jordan at Jericho to the waters of Jericho to the east of the wilderness that goes up from Jericho through the high country of Beth-el. 2And it went out to Beth-el, Luz, and passed on to the boundary of the Ataroth Archite. 3And it went down westward to the boundary of the Japhletite as far as the boundary of lower Beth-Horon and as far as Gezer, and its far reaches were to the Sea. 4And the sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their estates. 5And the boundary of the Ephraimites according to their clans—the boundary of their estate on the east was Ataroth Addar as far as Upper Beth-Horon. 6And the boundary went out to the Sea, to Michmethath on the north, and the boundary swung round to the east of Taanath-Shiloh, and passed through it to the east of Janoah. 7And it went down from Janoah to Ataroth and to Naarath and touched on Jericho and came out at the Jordan. 8From Tapuah the boundary goes westward to Wadi Kanah, and its far reaches are to the Sea. This is the estate of the Ephraimite tribe according to its clans. 9And the towns set apart for the Ephraimites within the estate of the Manassite—all the towns and their pasturelands. 10And they did not dispossess the Canaanites dwelling in Gezer, and the Canaanites have dwelled in the midst of Ephraim to this day, and they became forced laborers.
CHAPTER 16 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. And the portion for the sons of Joseph came out. As above, the Hebrew goral, “portion,” refers both to the aleatory device used to indicate the portion of territory and to the result of using the device—that is, the portion itself. In this instance, the verb “came out” refers to the toss of the oracular stone rather than to the boundary.
2. Beth-el, Luz. The received text brackets these two names together, but in Genesis 28:19 we are informed that Luz was the older name that was replaced by Beth-el.
9. the towns set apart for the Ephraimites within the estate of the Manassite. This indication suggests that not all the tribal boundaries were hard and fast, and that there were sometimes enclaves of one tribe within the territory of another tribe.
10. they became forced laborers. In keeping with the historiographical agenda of the writers, whatever Canaanite population that is not destroyed or driven out becomes subjugated to the Israelites. It is questionable whether this corresponds to historical reality.
1And the portion for the tribe of Manasseh, for he was Joseph’s firstborn, to Machir Manasseh’s firstborn, father of Gilead, for he was a man of war—Gilead and Bashan were his. 2And to the remaining sons of Manasseh according to their clans, to the sons of Abiezer and to the sons of Helek and to the sons of Asriel and to the sons of Shechem and to the sons of Hepher and to the sons of Shemida—these are the male offspring of Manasseh son of Joseph according to their clans. 3And Zelophehad son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manesseh did not have sons but daughters, and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah and Noa, Hoglah, Milkah, and Tirzah. 4And they approached Eleazar the priest and Joshua son of Nun and the chieftains, saying, “The LORD charged Moses to give us an estate in the midst of our kinsmen.” And he gave them at the LORD’s behest an estate in the midst of their father’s kinsmen. 5And the shares of Manasseh fell out as ten, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan that is across the Jordan. 6For the daughters of Manasseh took an estate in the midst of his sons, and the land of Gilead went to the remaining sons of Manasseh. 7And the boundary of Manasseh was from Asher to Michmethath, which is by Shechem, and the boundary went southward to the inhabitants of Ein-Tapuah. 8The land of Tapuah was Manasseh’s, but Tapuah to the boundary of Manasseh was the Ephraimites’. 9And the boundary went down to Wadi Kanah south of the wadi. These towns were Ephraim’s in the midst of the towns of Manasseh, and the boundary of Manasseh was north of the wadi, and its far reaches were to the Sea, 10south of Ephraim and north of Manasseh, and the Sea was its boundary, and they touched Asher from the north and Issachar from the east. 11And within Issachar and Asher, Manasseh had Beth-Sheʾan and its hamlets and Ibleam and its hamlets and the inhabitants of Dor and its hamlets and the inhabitants of Taanach and its hamlets and the inhabitants of Megiddo and its hamlets—the three regions. 12And the Manassites were unable to take hold of these towns, and the Canaanites went on dwelling in this land. 13And it happened when the Israelites grew strong, that they subjected the Canaanites to forced labor, but they did not absolutely dispossess them. 14And the sons of Joseph spoke to Joshua, saying, “Why did you give me in estate one portion and one share when I am a numerous people, and until now the LORD has blessed me?” 15And Joshua said to them, “If you are a numerous people, go up to the forest and clear it for yourself there in the land of the Perizzite and the Rephaim, for the high country of Ephraim is too cramped for you.” 16And the sons of Joseph said, “The high country is not enough for us, and there are iron chariots among all the Canaanites who dwell in the valley land, those in Beth-Sheʾan and its hamlets and those in the Valley of Jezreel.” 17And Joshua said to the house of Joseph, to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, “You are a numerous people and you have great power. You shall not have just one portion. 18But the high country shall be yours, for it is forest and you shall clear it, and its far reaches will be yours, for you shall dispossess the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots and though they are strong.”
CHAPTER 17 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. for he was Joseph’s firstborn. Hence the clan of Machir is alotted the choice region of Gilead and Bashan. But the further notation about Machir as “a man of war” suggests that it was the military prowess of the clan that enabled it to take hold of this territory.
3. And Zelophehad … did not have sons but daughters. This report of the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad picks up the story that appears in Numbers 27:1–11, echoing some of its language.
4. kinsmen. The Hebrew aḥim here has to have its extended sense and cannot mean “brothers” because these five women have no brothers.
5. the shares … fell out. The verb here reflects the use of a lottery or some kind of aleatory device, but the term for “shares,” ḥavalim, also means “ropes” and has the sense of share or portion of land because ropes were used to measure out the land.
10. south of Ephraim. This phrase is confusing because the text is describing the boundaries of Ephraim.
12. take hold of these towns. The Hebrew verb means “dispossess.” Either a logical object such as “inhabitants” has dropped out of the text, or the verb is used here in the sense it has in a different conjugation (yarash instead of horish), “to take hold of.”
14. Why did you give me. It is fairly common in biblical dialogue assigned to collective speakers to use the first-person singular.
and until now. The Hebrew wording is obscure and the text may be corrupt.
15. go up to the forest and clear it. There is archaeological evidence that a good deal of deforestation took place in this period in the high country, with the trees replaced by terraced agriculture.
the land of the Perizzite and the Rephaim. This geographical designation is obscure and may reflect a scribal error.
16. there are iron chariots among all the Canaanites. These armored vehicles, readily deployed in the valleys but not in mountainous regions, give a military advantage to the Canaanites over the Israelites, who, by and large, conducted warfare in guerilla style. (The characterization of “iron,” however, may be an exaggeration because the archaeological evidence indicates that Canaanite chariots were primarily built of wood.) Thus the members of the Joseph tribes fear that they will not be able to overcome the Canaanites in the flatlands.
17. You are a numerous people and you have great power. Joshua seizes on the very phrase the Josephites have used to claim more territory and employs it in a double sense: as a numerous people, you deserve more than a single portion, and as a numerous people, you have the power to conquer the Canaanites.
1And the whole community of Israelites assembled at Shiloh and they set up the Tent of Meeting there, and the land was conquered before them. 2And there remained seven tribes among the Israelites that had not taken the share of their estate. 3And Joshua said to the Israelites, “How long will you be idle about coming to take hold of the land that the LORD God of your fathers has given to you? 4Set out for yourselves three men to a tribe, that I may send them and they may rise up and go about the land and write it out according to their estate, and come to me. 5And they shall share it out in seven parts. Judah will stay by its territory in the south, and the house of Joseph will stay by its territory in the north. 6As for you, you shall write out the land in seven parts and bring them back to me here, and I shall cast a lot for you here before the LORD our God. 7But the Levites have no share in your midst, for the LORD’s priesthood is their estate.” And Gad and Reuben and the half-tribes of Manasseh had taken their estate across the Jordan to the east, which Moses servant of the LORD had given them. 8And the men rose up and went off, and Joshua charged those who went to write out the land, saying, “Up, go about in the land and write it out and come back to me, and here I shall cast the lot for you before the LORD in Shiloh. 9And the men went off and passed through the land and wrote it out by towns into seven parts in a scroll, and they came back to Joshua, to the camp at Shiloh. 10And Joshua cast the lot for them in Shiloh before the LORD, and Joshua shared out the land to the Israelites according to their portions. 11And the lot of the tribe of the Benjaminites fell out, and the territory by their lot came out between the Judahites and the Josephites. 12And they had the boundary on the northern edge from the Jordan, and the boundary went up to the flank of Jericho on the north and went up to the high country westward, and its far reaches were the Wilderness of Beth-Aven. 13And the boundary passed on from there to the flank of Luz, which is Bethel, to the south, and the boundary went down to Atroth Addar in the high country that is south of Lower Beth-Horon. 14And the boundary swung round south toward the sea of the high country which is opposite Beth-Horon to the south, and its far reaches were at Kiriath-Baal, which is Kiriath-Jearim, town of the Judahites. This was the western edge. 15And the southern edge was from the border of Kiriath-Jearim, and the boundary went out westward, and went out to the spring of the waters of Naphtoah. 16And the boundary went down to the edge of the high country which is opposite the Vale of Ben-Hinnom, which is in the Valley of Rephaim to the north, and it went down the Vale of Hinnom to the flank of the Jebusites on the south and down to Ein-Rogel. 17And it swung round from the north and went out to Ein-Shemesh and went out to Geliloth, which is over against the Ascent of Adummim, and it went down to the Stone of Bohan son of Reuben. 18And it passed on northward to the flank opposite the Arabah and went down to the Arabah. 19And the boundary passed on northward to the flank of Beth-Hoglah to the edge of the Jordan, and the far reaches of the boundary northward were at the tongue of the Salt Sea at the southern end of the Jordan. This was the southern boundary. 20And the Jordan marked its boundary at the eastern edge. This was the estate of the Benjaminites by its boundaries all around, according to their clans. 21And the towns that were the Benjaminite tribe’s were Jericho and Beth-Hoglah and Emek-Keziz, 22and Beth-Arabah and Zemaraim and Bethel, 23and Avvim and Parah and Ophrah, 24and Chephar-Ammonah and Ophni and Geba—twelve towns and their pasturelands. 25Gibeon and Ramah and Beeroth, 26and Mizpeh and Chephirah and Mozah, 27and Rekem and Irpeel and Taralah, 28and Zela-Eleph, and the Jebusite, which is Jerusalem, Gibeath, Kiriath-Jearim. Fourteen towns and their pasturelands—this was the estate of the Benjaminites according to their clans.
CHAPTER 18 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. And the whole community of Israelites assembled at Shiloh. This marks a shift from the role of the encampment at Gilgal as the national assembly place. Shiloh, as its representation in the early chapters of 1 Samuel indicates, was a central sanctuary, until its destruction by the Philistines sometime in the eleventh century B.C.E. Placing the Tent of Meeting there would have confirmed its centrality. In subsequent narratives, the Tent of Meeting is not mentioned but rather the Ark of the Covenant, which would have been within the Tent of Meeting.
2. And there remained seven tribes. If one subtracts Judah, Reuben, Ephraim, Manasseh, and Levi, all of which have already been accounted for, seven tribes are left to be given their tribal territories.
6. write out the land. Still more literally, this would be “write the land.” The obvious sense is to draw up a set of notations of the boundaries of the tribal territories.
I shall cast a lot for you here before the LORD. The drawing up of tribal boundaries by the representatives of the seven tribes is then to be confirmed by divine lot. As Shmuel Ahituv has shown, the use of such a lottery for the division of land was widespread in the ancient Near East.
10. cast the lot. The Hebrew text here uses a different verb from the one in verse 6, but both mean to cast or fling, suggesting that the mechanism for the lot involved dicelike objects.
11. fell out. Literally, “went up.”
16. Vale of Ben-Hinnom … the Valley of Rephaim. The Hebrew uses two different words for “valley,” geiʾ and ʿemeq. It is possible that the former designates a smaller topographical entity. Both valleys are within the perimeters of modern-day Jerusalem, though they would have been outside the city to the west in ancient times.
28. Jerusalem. It is a little surprising that Jerusalem, conquered from the Jebusites by David, who was a Judahite, is here assigned to the tribe of Benjamin. It has been suggested that this apportionment reflects a later period, when the unity of Benjamin and Judah, the two southern tribes, was firmly established and the old rivalry between the two, registered in the Book of Samuel, had long since vanished.
Kiriath-Jearim. The Masoretic Text reads qiryat ʿarim, “Kiriath towns” (or “city of towns”). This translation adopts a proposal, in part based on the Septuagint, that a haplography occurred, with the original text reading qiryat yeʿarim ʿarim, “Kiriath-Jearim, [fourteen] towns.”
1And the second lot fell out for Simeon, for the tribe of the Simeonites according to their clans, and their estate was within the estate of the Judahites. 2And they had in their estate Beersheba and Sheba and Moladah, 3and Hazar-Shual and Belah and Ezem, 4and Eltolad and Bethul and Hormah, 5and Ziklag and Beth-Marcaboth and Hazar-Susah, 6and Beth-Lebaoth and Sharuhen—thirteen towns and their pasturelands. 7Ayin, Rimmon, Ether and Ashan—four towns and their pasturelands, 8and all the pasturelands that are around these towns as far as Baalath-Beer, Ramath-Negeb—this is the estate of the tribe of the Simeonites according to their clans. 9The estate of the Simeonites was from the territory of the Judahites, for the share of the Judahites was too large for them, and the Simeonites took an estate within their estate. 10And the third lot fell out for the Zebulunites according to their clans, and the boundary of their estate was as far as Sarid. 11And their boundary went up westward to Maralah and touched Dabbesheth and touched the wadi which is opposite Jokneam. 12And it turned back from Sarid eastward where the sun rises to the boundary of Cisloth-Tabor, and it went out to Dabereth and went up to Japhia. 13And from there it passed on eastward, toward the sunrise, to Gath-Hepher, Ittah, Kazin, and it went out and swung round to Neah. 14And the boundary on the north turned round to Hannathon, and its far reaches were the Vale of Iphtah-El, 15and Kattath and Nahalal and Shimron and Idalah and Bethlehem—twelve towns and their pasturelands. 16This is the estate of the Zebulunites according to their clans, these towns and their pasturelands. 17The fourth lot fell out for Issachar, for the Issacharites according to their clans. 18And their boundary was to Jezreel and Chesulloth and Shunem, 19and Hapharaim and Shion and Anaharath, 20and Rabbith and Kishon and Ebez, 21and Remeth and Ein-Gannim and Ein-Haddah and Beth-Pazzez. 22And the boundary touched Tabor and Shahazimah and Beth-Shemesh, and the far reaches of their boundary were at the Jordan—sixteen towns and their pasturelands. 23This is the estate of the Issacharites according to their clans, and the towns and their enclosures. 24And the fifth lot fell out to the tribe of the Asherites according to their clans. 25And their boundary was Helkath and Hali and Beten and Akshaph, 26and Alammelech and Amad and Mishal. And it touched Carmel on the west and Shihor-Libnath. 27And it turned back to Beth-Dagon where the sun rises and touched Zebulun and the Vale of Iphtah-El on the north, Beth-Emek and Neiel, and the boundary came out to Cabul on the north, 28and Ebron and Rehob and Hammon and Kanah, as far as Greater Sidon. 29And the boundary turned back to Ramah and as far as the fortress city of Tyre, and its far reaches, and the boundary turned back to Hosah, and its far reaches were the Sea, Mehebel, to Achzib, 30and Ummah and Aphek and Rehob—twenty-two towns and their pasturelands. 31This is the estate of the tribe of Asherites according to their clans—these towns and their pasturelands. 32For the Naphtalites the sixth lot came out, for the Naphtalites according to their clans. 33And their boundary was from Heleph, from Elon-in-Zaananim and Adami-Nekeb and Jabneel as far as Kum, and its far reaches were at the Jordan. 34And the boundary turned back westward to Aznoth-Tabor and went from there to Hukok and touched Zebulun from the south and touched Asher from the west and Judah at the Jordan where the sun rises. 35And the fortress towns were Ziddim, Zer, Hamath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth, 36and Adamah and Ramah and Hazor, 37and Kedesh and Edrei and Ein-Hazor, 38and Iron and Migdal-El, Horam, Beth-Anath and Beth-Shemesh—nineteen towns and their pasturelands. 39This is the estate of the tribe of the Naphtalites according to their clans, the towns and their pasturelands. 40For the tribe of the Danites according to their clans the seventh lot came out. 41And the territory of their estate was Zorah and Eshtaol and Ir-Shemesh, 42and Shaalbim and Ajalon and Ithlah, 43and Elon and Timnathah and Ekron, 44and Eltekeh and Gibthon and Baalath, 45and Jehud and Benei Brak and Gath-Rimmon, 46and the Jarkon Waters and Rakkon by the boundary over against Joppa. 47And the territory of the Danites fell from their hands. And the Danites went up and did battle with Leshem and took it. And they struck it with the edge of the sword and took hold of it and dwelled in it. And they called Leshem Dan, like the name of Dan their forefather. 48This is the estate of the tribe of the Danites according to their clans—these towns and their pasturelands.
49And they finished taking possession of the land according to its boundaries, and the Israelites gave Joshua son of Nun an estate in their midst. 50At the behest of the LORD they gave him the town that he had asked for, Timnath-Serah in the high country of Ephraim, and he rebuilt the town and dwelled in it. 51These are the estates that Eleazar the priest and Joshua son of Nun and the heads of the Israelite tribes conferred by lot in Shiloh before the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. And they finished sharing out the land.
CHAPTER 19 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. their estate was within the estate of the Judahites. Unlike the other tribes, Simeon did not have a territory with clear-cut boundaries but rather enclaves within the territory of Judah. This situation is reflected in the curse Jacob pronounces on Simeon and Levi: “I will divide them in Jacob, / disperse them in Israel” (Genesis 49:7). (Levi’s dispersal was manifested in its having no tribal territory, only levitical towns.) The anomaly of the portion assigned to Simeon is explained in verse 9.
27. the Vale of Iphtah-El. The Masoretic Text here reads “the sons of Iphtah-El,” a noun that doesn’t make sense as the object of the verb “touched.” This translation reflects the reading of the Septuagint.
28. as far as Greater Sidon. The territory of Asher could not have included Sidon, a Phoenician city, but perhaps the qualifier “greater” is meant to suggest something like the far southern reach of the region controlled by Sidon.
47. And the territory of the Danites fell from their hands. More literally: “went out from them.” Their original territory was in the southwestern region bordering on Philistine country—a location reflected in the stories about Samson, who was a Danite. At some relatively early point, perhaps as early as the twelfth century B.C.E., the Danites were forced out of their original tribal territory and migrated to the far north of the country, where they conquered a new area for settlement. This northern location is reflected in the story of Micah’s idol in Judges 18. The reading of this verse in the Septuagint shows a report that might be the original version or might be an explanatory gloss: “The Danites did not dispossess the Amorites, who forced them into the high country. The Amorites did not let them come down into the plain, and their territory was too confining for them.”
Leshem. Elsewhere, this town is called Layish.
49. the Israelites gave Joshua son of Nun an estate in their midst. One infers that Joshua waited until all the tribes had been allocated their territories before he took his own estate. As Shmuel Ahituv notes, his portion was a special assignment of territory to the commander in chief.
50. rebuilt. The Hebrew verb ordinarily means “to build,” but in contexts where the object is in ruins, as may be the case here because of conquest, it can mean “rebuild.”
1And the LORD spoke to Joshua, saying: 2“Speak to the Israelites, saying, Set aside for yourselves the towns of asylum about which I spoke to you through Moses 3where a murderer, one who strikes down a person in errance, without intending, may flee, and they will be an asylum for you from the blood avenger. 4And he may flee to one of these towns and stand at the gateway to the town and speak his words in the hearing of the elders of that town, and they will take him to them into that town and give him a place and he will dwell with them. 5And should the blood avenger pursue him, they will not hand the murderer over to him, for he struck down his fellow man without intending, and he had not been his enemy in times past. 6And he shall dwell in that town until he stands before the community in judgment, until the death of the high priest who will be in those days. Then the murderer shall return and come to his town and to his home and to the town from which he had fled.” 7And they dedicated Kedesh in the Galilee in the high country of Naphtali and Shechem in the high country of Ephraim and Kiriath-Arba, which is Hebron, in the high country of Judah, 8and across the Jordan from Jericho, to the east, Bezer in the wilderness on the plain, from the tribe of Reuben and Ramoth in Gilead from the tribe of Gad and Golan in Bashan from the tribe of Manasseh. 9These were the towns marked out for all the Israelites and for the sojourners sojourning in their midst to flee there, anyone striking down a person in errance, that he not die by the hand of the blood avenger, until he stand before the community.
CHAPTER 20 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. the towns of asylum about which I spoke to you through Moses. The laws for the town of asylum are laid out in Numbers 35 and restated, in somewhat different terms, in Deuteronomy 19. Although the literary formulation of the laws here was probably done two or three centuries after the founding of the monarchy, the laws themselves reflect the tribal period when there was no centralized judicial authority, and vendetta justice prevailed in cases of murder or manslaughter.
3. a murderer. The Hebrew rotseaḥ, which generally means “murderer,” also encompasses “manslayer,” as in the present context. Perhaps it is used to stress the gravity of destroying a life, even unintentionally.
in errance, without intending. This duplication of language brings together the term used in Numbers with the one used in Deuteronomy.
blood avenger. The literal sense of this designation is “blood redeemer.” That idiom reflects an archaic notion that when the blood of one’s kin is shed, it has been lost to—or perhaps drained away from—the family, and it must be “redeemed” by shedding the blood of the killer.
6. until he stands before the community in judgment, until the death of the high priest. These look suspiciously like contradictory terms. The fugitive has already received what amounts to a verdict of innocent when the elders accept his plea in the gateway of the town (the place of judgment). If a general amnesty obtains after the death of the high priest, why does the fugitive have to stand trial a second time? It is possible that the writer responsible for this passage was uneasy with the idea of a blanket exculpation at the time of the death of the high priest and wanted to emphasize that the fugitive’s innocence had to be determined by judicial proceedings.
and to the town from which he had fled. This phrase seems redundant after “to his town.” Perhaps one should drop the “and” and read it as an explanatory apposition, “to his town… . to the town from which he has fled.”
9. to flee there, anyone striking down a person in errance, that he not die by the hand of the blood avenger. This phraseology repeats the language of the beginning of this section in an envelope structure.
until he stand before the community. He stands before the community to be judged, as verse 6 makes explicit. Here at the end, no mention is made of the death of the high priest, perhaps because the writer wanted to emphasize judicial proceedings, not amnesty.
1And the heads of the patriarchal houses of the Levites approached Eleazar the priest and Joshua son of Nun and the heads of the patriarchal houses of the Israelite tribes, 2and they spoke to them in Shiloh in the land of Canaan, saying, “The LORD charged through Moses to give us towns in which to dwell and their fields for our cattle.” 3And the Israelites gave these towns and fields to the Levites from their estate at the behest of the LORD. 4And the lot came out for the Kohathite clans, and by lot the sons of Aaron the priest from the Levites had thirteen towns from the tribe of Judah and from the tribe of Simeon and from the tribe of Benjamin. 5And the remaining Kohathites had by lot ten towns from the tribe of Ephraim and from the tribe of Dan and from the half-tribe of Manasseh. 6And the sons of Gershon according to their clans had by lot thirteen towns from the tribe of Issachar and from the tribe of Asher and from the tribe of Naphtali and from the half-tribe of Manasseh in Bashan. 7The sons of Merari according to their clans had twelve towns from the tribe of Reuben and from the tribe of Gad and from the tribe of Zebulun. 8And the Israelites gave to the Levites by lot these towns and their fields as the LORD had charged through Moses. 9And they gave from the tribe of the Judahites and from the tribe of the Simeonites these towns which will here be called by name. 10And it came to the sons of Aaron for the Kohathite clans from the sons of Levi, for theirs was the first lot, 11and they gave them Kiriath-Arba father of Anak, which is Hebron, in the high country of Judah, and its fields around it. 12And the town’s open land and its pastureland they gave to Caleb son of Jephunneh in his holding. 13And to the sons of Aaron the priest they gave the town of asylum for the murderer, Hebron and its fields, and Libnah and its fields, 14and Jattir and its fields and Eshtamoa and its fields, 15and Holon and its fields and Debir and its fields, 16and Ain and its fields and Juttah and its fields, and Beth-Shemesh and its fields—nine towns from these tribes. 17And from the tribe of Benjamin, Gibeon and its fields and Geba and its fields, 18Anathoth and its fields and Almon and its fields—four towns. 19All the towns of the sons of Aaron, the priest, were thirteen towns and their fields. 20And for the clans of the Kohathites, the remaining Levites of the Kohathites, the towns of their lot were from the tribe of Ephraim. 21And they gave the towns of asylum for the murderer, Shechem and its fields in the high country of Ephraim and Gezer and its fields, 22and Kibzaim and its fields and Beth-Horon and its fields—four towns. 23And from the tribe of Dan, Elteta and its fields, Gibthon and its fields, 24Ajalon and its fields, Gath-Rimmon and its fields—four towns. 25And from the half-tribe of Manasseh, Taanach and its fields and Gath-Rimmon and its fields—two towns. 26All the towns and their fields were ten for the remaining Kohathites. 27And to the Gershonites from the clans of the Levites, from the half-tribe of Manasseh the asylum town for the murderer, Golan in Bashan and its fields and Beeshterah and its fields—two towns. 28And from the tribe of Issachar, Keshion and its fields, Dobrath and its fields, 29Jarmuth and its fields, Ein-Gannim and its fields—four towns. 30And from the tribe of Asher, Mishal and its fields, Abdon and its fields. 31Helkath and its fields and Rehob and its fields—four towns. 32And from the tribe of Naphtali, the town of asylum for the murderer, Kedesh in the Galilee and its fields and Hamath-Dor and its fields and Kartan and its fields—three towns. 33All the towns of the Gershonites according to their clans were thirteen towns and their fields. 34And for the clans of the remaining Merarites, from the tribe of Zebulun, Jokneam and its fields, Kartah and its fields, 35Dimnah and its fields, Nahalal and its fields—four towns. 36And from the tribe of Gad, the town of asylum for the murderer, Ramoth in Gilead and its fields, and Mahanaim and its fields, 37Heshbon and its fields and Jazer and its fields—all the towns were four. 38All the towns for the remaining Merarites according to their clans that were their lot came to twelve towns. 39All the towns of the Levites within the holdings of the Israelites were forty-eight towns and their fields. 40These towns, each town and its fields all around, thus these towns were. 41And the LORD gave to Israel the whole land that He had vowed to give to their fathers, and they took hold of it and dwelled in it. 42And the LORD granted them rest round about, as all that He had vowed to their fathers, and no man of all their enemies could stand against them—the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. 43Nothing failed of all the good things that the LORD had spoken to the House of Israel—everything came about.
CHAPTER 21 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
2. The LORD charged … to give us towns. It is difficult to assess to what extent the list of levitical towns reflects historical reality. It is improbable that the Levites actually had forty-eight of their own settlements, or that the other tribes would have ceded that much real estate to them. Ahituv plausibly suggests that what they were given was quarters within the towns, which continued to be part of the domain of the host tribe.
4. the sons of Aaron the priest. Through verse 19, we have the apportionment of towns to the priests (kohanim). What follows is the apportionment to the Levites, who make up the rest of the tribe of Levi.
8. these towns and their fields. In an agricultural economy, the houses within the town would have been places of residence but not sites from which income could be generated. Hence the need to have a share in the fields outside the town where crops could be grown or flocks pastured. For these areas outside the town, three terms are used: migrash, “field,” as here; ḥatseir, “pastureland,” evidently an enclosed field; and (verse 12) sadeh, “open land,” probably extending beyond the migrashim.
21. towns of asylum. As this list makes clear, all the towns of asylum are levitical towns, but many others assigned to the Levites are not towns of asylum.
36. And from the tribe of Gad. In between the end of the preceding verse and these words, some Hebrew manuscripts insert the following: “and from the tribe of Reuben Bezer and its fields and Johzah and its fields, Kedemoth and its fields, and Mephath and its fields—four towns.”
40. These towns, each town and its fields all around, thus these towns were. The syntax of the Hebrew is rather crabbed, but this seems to be the sense of the verse.
43. Nothing failed. The literal sense of the Hebrew is “nothing fell.”
the good things. The Hebrew uses a singular noun and it could also be understood to mean “the good word.”
1Then did Joshua call to the Reubenites and the Gadites and to the half-tribe of Manesseh, 2and he said to them, “You have kept all that Moses, servant of the LORD, charged you, and you have heeded my voice in all that I have charged you. 3You have not forsaken your brothers for many days until this day, and you have kept the watch of the LORD your God. 4And now the LORD your God has granted rest to your brothers, as He had spoken to them, so now turn and go off to your tents, to the land of your holding that Moses, servant of the LORD, gave to you across the Jordan. 5Only watch carefully to do the command and the teaching that Moses, servant of the LORD, charged you, to love the LORD your God and to walk in all His ways, to keep His commands and to cling to Him and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your being.” 6And Joshua blessed them and sent them off, and they went to their tents. 7And to the half-tribe of Manasseh Moses had given land in Bashan, and to the other half Joshua gave land with their brothers west of the Jordan. And what’s more, when Joshua sent them off to their tents and blessed them, 8he said to them, saying, “With many possessions return to your tents and with very abundant livestock, with silver and with gold and with bronze and with iron and with a great many cloaks. Share the booty of your enemies with your brothers.” 9And the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh turned back and went from Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan, to go to the land of Gilead, to the land of their holding in which they had taken hold at the behest of the LORD through Moses. 10And they came to the Jordan districts that are in the land of Canaan, and the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh built there a great altar to be seen by all. 11And the Israelites heard, saying, “Look, the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh have built an altar over against the land of Canaan in the Jordan districts across from the Israelites.” 12And the Israelites heard, and all the community of the Israelites assembled at Shiloh to go up against them as an army. 13And the Israelites sent Phineas son of Eleazar the priest to the Reubenites and to the Gadites and to the half-tribe of Manasseh, 14and ten chieftains were with him, one chieftain for a patriarchal house for each of the tribes of Israel, each the head of a patriarchal house for the clan-groups of Israel. 15And they came to the Reubenites and to the Gadites and to the half-tribe of Manasseh and spoke with them, saying: 16“Thus said the whole community of the LORD: ‘What is this violation that you have committed against the God of Israel, to turn back today from the LORD by building for yourselves an altar to rebel today against the LORD? 17Is the crime of Peor, from which we have not been cleansed to this day, too little for us, as the scourge came upon the community of the LORD? 18As for you, you turn back today from the LORD, and it will happen that should you rebel today against the LORD, tomorrow His fury will be against the whole community of Israel. 19And if indeed the land of your holding is unclean, cross over to the land of the LORD’s holding where the LORD’s sanctuary dwells and take a holding within it, but do not rebel against the LORD, and against us do not rebel, in your building yourselves an altar other than the altar of the LORD our God. 20Did not Achan son of Zerah violate the ban, and the fury was against the whole community of Israel while he, a single man, did not perish through his crime?’” 21And the Reubenites and the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh answered and spoke to the heads of the clan-groups of Israel: 22“God of gods is the LORD. God of gods is the LORD! He knows, and Israel shall know. If in rebellion and in violation against the LORD, 23to build us an altar to turn back from the LORD, do not rescue us this day. And if to offer up on it burnt offering and grain offering, and if to prepare on it well-being offerings—let the LORD seek it out. 24Or if not from concern for one thing we have done this, saying, ‘Tomorrow your sons will say to our sons, saying, What do you have to do with the LORD God of Israel, 25when the LORD has fixed a boundary, the Jordan, between you and us, O Reubenites and Gadites? You have no share in the LORD.’ And your children will prevent our children from fearing the LORD. 26And so we thought, ‘Let us act, pray, to build an altar not for burnt offerings and not for sacrifices, 27but let it be a witness between you and us and for our generations after us to do the service of the LORD before Him with our burnt offerings and our sacrifices and our well-being offerings, that your children say not tomorrow to our children, You have no share in the LORD.’ 28And we thought, when it happens that our generations tomorrow say to us, we shall say, ‘See the image of the LORD’s altar that your forefathers made, not for burnt offerings and not for sacrifices but as a witness between you and us. 29Far be it from us to rebel against the LORD and to turn back today from the LORD to build an altar for burnt offerings and for grain offerings and for sacrifice other than the altar of the LORD our God which is before His sanctuary.’” 30And Phineas the priest, and the chieftains of the community and the heads of the clan-groups of Israel with him, heard what the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manassites had spoken, and it was good in their eyes. 31And Phineas son of Eleazar the priest said to the Reubenites and to the Gadites and to the Manassites, “Today we know that the LORD is in our midst, for you have not committed this violation against the LORD, and so you have saved the Israelites from the LORD’s hand.” 32And Phineas son of Eleazar the priest, and the chieftains with him, turned back from the Reubenites and from the Gadites, from the land of Gilead to the land of Canaan, to the Israelites, and they brought back word to them. 33And the thing was good in the eyes of the Israelites, and the Israelites blessed God, and they did not think to go up as an army to lay ruin to the land in which the Reubenites and the Gadites were dwelling. 34And the Reubenites and the Gadites called the altar Witness, “for it is a witness among us that the LORD is God.”
CHAPTER 22 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. Then did Joshua call. Boling aptly describes the Hebrew phrasing ʾaz yiqraʾ yehoshuʿa as “an expansive opening to a climactic unit.” The small stylistic flourish in the translation seeks to mirror this effect.
the Reubenites and the Gadites and to the half-tribe of Manasseh. The book began with the necessity for the trans-Jordanian tribes to join their brothers in the conquest of the land west of the Jordan. Now that the conquest is complete, we come back to these tribes, in an envelope structure, as they are sent back to their own territory.
3. for many days. These are the days, or period, of the conquest.
4. granted rest. As elsewhere, this idiom indicates subduing all enemies.
5. to do the command and the teaching … to keep His commands and to cling to Him and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your being. This string of phrases is a hallmark of Deuteronomistic prose.
8. Share the booty of your enemies. The source of the great abundance of possessions just listed is here spelled out.
10. the Jordan districts. These lie evidently alongside the Jordan, though one cannot determine a precise location.
to be seen by all. The words “by all” have been added in the translation because of the requirements of English usage. The literal sense is “a great altar for sight.”
16. Thus said. This is the so-called messenger-formula, regularly used to introduce the text of a message, whether oral or written.
to turn back today from the LORD by building for yourselves an altar. The idiom “to turn back” is repeated five times in this single episode, always in the sense of “to fall away from,” “to abandon.” The objection to building an altar east of the Jordan is a little odd because regional altars were permissible in this period, and the trans-Jordanian territory, allotted by God through Moses to the two and a half tribes, could not plausibly be defined as “unclean” land. There was, however, an officially authorized altar in front of the sanctuary at Shiloh, and this new altar was thought to set up illegitimate competition to the cis-Jordanian one. Many scholars have detected a Priestly agenda in this story.
17. the crime of Peor, from which we have not been cleansed to this day. This episode, which involves an orgiastic sexual rite in which Israelite men are lured by Midianite women, is recounted in Numbers 25. The punishment for the transgression is a plague that sweeps through the ranks of Israel. The Israelites’ claim here that they still have not been cleansed of the crime of Peor may reflect some present-day epidemic, which is construed theologically as continuing punishment for that initial crime. Perhaps, then, the Israelites understand the erection of an altar east of the Jordan, where the hinterland is pagan, as the top of a slippery slope leading to corruption by pagan practices.
19. an altar other than the altar of the LORD our God. Although the first part of this verse introduces the notion of trans-Jordan as an “unclean” land, the emphasis here is on the idea that there should be no alternative to the nationally recognized shrine at Shiloh.
20. Achan. Achan’s transgression in violating the ban (chapter 7) is comparable to the putative transgression of the tribes east of the Jordan only in regard to its consequences—it is not the transgressor but the whole people that suffers because of the violation.
22. God of gods is the LORD. This solemn, repeated pronouncement marks the beginning of a sacred vow in which the two and a half tribes declare the innocence of their intentions before God and Israel.
He knows, and Israel shall know. The difference in tense is significant: God knows that we did not intend to betray Him in building this grand altar, and when we have finished making our declaration, Israel will know as well.
23. do not rescue us this day. If in fact the building of the altar was meant as an act of rebellion against God, let your assembled army destroy us.
25. your children will prevent our children from fearing the LORD. The phrase “fearing the LORD” does not indicate an inner state of piety but rather participation in the national cult: the cis-Jordanian tribes, seeing that the two and a half tribes live beyond the Jordan in territory that the Israelite majority may not regard as an intrinsic part of the land, will exclude them from nation and cult.
28. See the image of the LORD’s altar. The altar we have built is a symbolic altar, the image or simulacrum (tavnit) of the LORD’s altar that we, like you, recognize as the authorized site of public worship.
31. and so you have saved the Israelites from the LORD’s hand. That is, you have saved us from attacking you without warrant, an act that would then have brought down retribution on us.
33. the Israelites blessed God, and they did not think to go up as an army to lay ruin to the land. This concluding narrative episode of the Book of Joshua is a story of civil war averted and national reconciliation, whereas the Book of Judges concludes with the story of a bloody civil war.
34. called the altar Witness. The received text says only “called the altar,” but some Hebrew manuscripts as well as the Targum Yonatan show the more coherent text with the additional word as it is translated here. Rashi arrives at the same conclusion by inferring an ellipsis: “This is one of the abbreviated biblical texts, and it is necessary to add to it one word: ‘and the Reubenites and the Gadites and the Manassites called the altar Witness.’”
1And it happened many years after the LORD had granted rest to Israel from all their enemies round about that Joshua grew old, advanced in years. 2And Joshua called to all Israel, to its elders and to its chieftains and to its judges and to its overseers. And he said to them, “I have grown old, advanced in years. 3As for you, you have seen all that the LORD your God has done to all these nations before you, for the LORD your God, it is He who did battle for you. 4See, I have made all these remaining nations fall to you in estate according to your tribes, and all the nations that I cut off, from the Jordan to the Great Sea where the sun goes down. 5And the LORD your God, it is He Who will drive them back before you and dispossess them before you, and you will take hold of their land as the LORD your God has spoken to you. 6And you must be very strong to keep and to do all that is written in the book of Moses’s teaching, not to swerve from it to the right or to the left, 7not to come among these nations that remain alongside you, nor to invoke the name of their gods nor swear by them nor worship them and bow to them. 8But to the LORD your God you shall cling as you have done till this day. 9And the LORD has dispossessed before you great and mighty nations, and you—no man has stood before you till this day. 10One man of you pursues a thousand, for the LORD your God, it is He Who does battle for you as He spoke to you. 11And you must be very careful for your own sake to love the LORD your God. 12For should you indeed turn back and cling to the rest of these remaining nations alongside you and intermarry with them and come among them, and they among you, 13you must surely know that the LORD your God will no longer dispossess these nations before you, and they will become a trap and a snare for you and a whip against your side and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from this good country that the LORD your God has given you. 14And, look, I am about to go today on the way of all the earth, and you know with all your heart and with all your being that not a single thing has failed of all the good things that the LORD your God has spoken about you. Everything has befallen you, not a single thing of it has failed. 15And it shall be, just as every good thing that the LORD your God has spoken of you has befallen you, so shall the LORD bring upon you every evil thing until He destroys you from this good country that the LORD your God has given you. 16When you overturn the pact of the LORD your God that He charged you and you go and worship other gods and bow to them, the wrath of the LORD will flare against you, and you will perish swiftly from the good land that He has given you.
CHAPTER 23 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. after the LORD had granted rest to Israel from all their enemies. This ringing declaration is subverted by the threat of exile that hovers over the end of the chapter. This is a tension that runs through both Joshua and Judges: God has enabled Israel to conquer all its enemies, yet the land is not completely conquered, and enemies threaten both within it and from surrounding nations. Even in this passage, the conquest of the Canaanite peoples alternates between being a completed process, as here, or a future activity, as in verse 5.
2. I have grown old, advanced in years. As several commentators have noted, Joshua’s valedictory address stands in a line with those of Moses, Samuel, and David.
4. all the nations that I cut off. The Hebrew of this verse seems a little scrambled, with this clause appearing after “from the Jordan.” In addition, “the Great Sea” lacks “to” in the Hebrew, and the preposition has been supplied in the translation.
6. you must be very strong to keep and to do all that is written in the book of Moses’s teaching. Here, as in much of the speech, the phraseology is strongly reminiscent of Deuteronomy. In the book as a whole, the presence of the Deuteronomist is palpable but intermittent. As editor, he appears to have wanted to put his strong imprint on the conclusion.
13. a whip against your side. The Masoretic Text reads leshotet, which would mean, implausibly, “to roam.” The assumption of this translation is that the second tet is a dittography and hence the Hebrew originally read leshot, “as a whip.”
14. I am about to go … on the way of all the earth. David on his deathbed, 1 Kings 2:2, uses the same language.
not a single thing. This could also be construed as “not a single word.”
15. until He destroys you from this good country. The term for “country,” ʾadamah, often means “soil,” and its use here might reflect a desire to introduce a connotation of the land’s fruitfulness. The notion that Israel will be driven from its land if it betrays its pact with God is preeminently Deuteronomistic. The years after 621 B.C.E., with the Assyrian and then the Babylonian threat uppermost in the minds of the Judahites as well as the memory of the uprooting of the northern kingdom of Israel a century earlier, were a time when, with good reason, national existence in the Land of Israel had come to seem painfully precarious.
1And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel at Shechem, and he called to the elders of Israel and to its chieftains and to its judges and to its overseers, and they stood forth before God. 2And Joshua said to all the people: “Thus said the LORD God of Israel: ‘Your forefathers dwelled across the Euphrates long ago—Terah father of Abraham and father of Nahor, and they served other gods. 3And I took your father Abraham from across the Euphrates and led him to the land of Canaan, and I multiplied his seed and gave him Isaac. 4And I gave to Isaac Jacob and Esau, and I gave to Esau the high country of Seir to take hold of, but Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt. 5And I sent Moses and Aaron, and I struck Egypt with plagues that I wrought in its midst, and afterward I brought you out. 6And I brought your forefathers out of Egypt, and you came to the sea, and the Egyptians pursued your forefathers with chariots and horsemen in the Sea of Reeds. 7And they cried out to the LORD, and He put a veil of darkness between you and the Egyptians and brought the sea against them, and it covered them, and your own eyes saw that which I wrought against Egypt, and you dwelled in the wilderness many years. 8And I brought you to the land of the Amorites dwelling across the Jordan, and they did battle against you, and I gave them into your hand, and you took hold of their land, and I destroyed them before you. 9And Balak son of Zippor king of Moab rose up and did battle against Israel, and he sent out and called Balaam son of Beor to curse you. 10And I was unwilling to listen to Balaam, and in fact he blessed you, and I saved you from his hand. 11And you crossed the Jordan and came to Jericho, and the lords of Jericho did battle against you—the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Girgashite, the Hivvite and the Jebusite. And I gave them into your hand. 12And I sent the hornet before you, and it drove them from before you—the two Amorite kings—not by your sword and not by your bow. 13And I gave you a land in which you had not toiled and towns that you had not built, and you dwelled in them; from vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant you are eating the fruit.’ 14And now, fear the LORD and serve Him in wholeness and truth, and put away the gods that your forefathers served across the Euphrates and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15And if it be evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose today whom you would serve, whether the gods that your forefathers served across the Euphrates or whether the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell, but I and my household will serve the LORD.” 16And the people answered and said, “Far be it from us to forsake the LORD to serve other gods. 17For the LORD our God, it is He Who brings our forefathers and us up from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves, and Who has wrought before our eyes these great signs and guarded us on all the way that we have gone and among all the peoples through whose midst we have passed. 18And the LORD drove out before us all the peoples, the Amorites, inhabitants of the land. We, too, will serve the LORD, for He is our God.” 19And Joshua said to the people, “You will not be able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God, He will not put up with your crimes and your offenses. 20For should you forsake the LORD and serve alien gods, He shall turn back and do harm to you and put an end to you after having been good to you.” 21And the people said to Joshua, “No! For we will serve the LORD.” 22And Joshua said to the people, “You are witnesses for yourselves that you have chosen the LORD to serve Him.” And they said, “We are witnesses.” 23“And now, put away the alien gods that are in your midst, and bend your hearts to the LORD God of Israel.” 24And the people said to Joshua, “The LORD we will serve and His voice we will heed.” 25And Joshua sealed a pact for the people on that day and set it for them as statute and law at Shechem. 26And Joshua wrote these things in the book of God’s teaching, and he took a great stone and set it under the terebinth that is in God’s sanctuary. 27And Joshua said to all the people, “Look, this stone shall be witness for us because it has heard all the LORD’s sayings that He spoke to us, and it shall be witness to you lest you deny your God.” 28And Joshua sent the people each man to his estate.
29And it happened after these things that Joshua son of Nun servant of the LORD died, a hundred ten years old. 30And they buried him in the territory of his estate in Timnath-Serah, which is in the high country of Ephraim north of Mount Gaash. 31And Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua and who had known all the acts of the LORD that He wrought for Israel. 32And the bones of Joseph, which the Israelites had brought up from Egypt, they buried in Shechem in the plot of land that Jacob had bought from the sons of Hamor for a hundred kesitahs, so that it became an estate for the sons of Joseph. 33And Eleazar the son of Aaron died, and they buried him on the hill of Phineas his son, which had been given to him in the high country of Ephraim.
CHAPTER 24 NOTES
Click here to advance to the next section of the text.
1. And Joshua gathered all the tribes. The book appropriately ends with a renewal of the covenant between Israel and its God, followed by the obituary notices for Joshua and Eleazar.
2. Your forefathers dwelled across the Euphrates … and they served other gods. Joshua’s recapitulation of national history begins all the way back with Abraham’s ancestral family in Mesopotamia. (“Euphrates” in the Hebrew, as elsewhere in biblical usage, is “the River”). But he immediately reminds his audience that before Abraham these people were idolators, for the danger of backsliding into idolatry is uppermost in his mind throughout the speech.
4. Jacob and Esau. It is noteworthy that Esau, together with his territorial inheritance, is mentioned with Jacob. There may be a gesture of restitution here for Jacob’s stealing the paternal blessing.
5. I struck Egypt with plagues that I wrought in its midst. The Hebrew text shows what looks like a small glitch: “I struck Egypt with plagues as [or when, kaʾasher] I wrought in its midst.” The Septuagint has a smoother reading: “I struck Egypt with plagues as I wrought signs in its midst.”
7. a veil of darkness. The Hebrew maʾafel, cognate to the more common ʾapheilah, “darkness,” is unique to this verse. The clear reference is to the pillar of cloud in Exodus.
8. the land of the Amorites dwelling across the Jordan. These are the trans-Jordanian kings vanquished by Israel under Moses, as reported in Numbers and in Deuteronomy.
9. Balak … did battle against Israel. Because no actual battle is reported in Numbers 22:36–41, some commentators have claimed that a variant tradition is reflected here, but this is an unnecessary inference. Balak clearly saw Israel as his enemy and sought to destroy it using the curses of a professional hexer as his weapon of choice.
11. the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Girgashite, the Hivvite and the Jebusite. It is odd that all the seven peoples of Canaan are introduced here as though they had fought at Jericho, whereas no mention of a Canaanite alliance appears in the Jericho story. Perhaps Jericho, as the gateway town of Canaan and the first conquered, triggered the invocation of all these peoples, in a kind of synecdoche.
12. the hornet. This is the traditional understanding of tsirʿah, leading some scholars to claim that noxious insects were actually used as weapons. But, on etymological grounds, as I proposed in comments on Exodus 23:28 and Deuteronomy 7:20, the term could mean “the Smasher,” a mythological rather than a zoological entity.
13. you are eating the fruit. “Fruit” is implied by ellipsis. Pointedly, the verb for enjoying the fruit of vineyard and olive grove switches from past to a present participle, emphasizing to the audience that they themselves are benefiting from the conquest.
14. in wholeness and truth. Many construe these two Hebrew nouns as a hendiadys, having the sense of “in absolute truth.”
15. whether the gods that your forefathers served … or … the gods of the Amorites. There is surely a note of sarcasm here: if you really want to serve foreign gods, just take your pick between Mesopotamian and Canaanite deities.
18. all the peoples, the Amorites. “Amorites” is sometimes a particular people and sometimes a general rubric for the sundry peoples of Canaan.
19. You will not be able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God. In the face of the people’s solemn declaration to remain faithful to the God of Israel, Joshua expresses grave doubt: YHWH is a holy God, making severe demands of exclusive loyalty, and I don’t believe you will be able to meet these demands. This view sets the stage for the series of idolatrous backslidings in Judges.
25. set it for them as statute and law. The same phrase is used in Exodus 15:25.
26. the book of God’s teaching. This is a new designation, on the model of “the book of Moses’s teaching” and so can refer either to Deuteronomy or to the Five Books of Moses, unless what Joshua writes is an appendix to them.
27. this stone shall be witness. Commemorative stone markers confirming treaties appear a number of times in the Hebrew Bible and were common in much of the ancient Near East.
29. servant of the LORD. Here at the end Joshua is given the same epithet as Moses.
a hundred ten years old. The narrative pointedly allots Joshua ten years fewer than Moses, using instead the Egyptian number for a very full life span.
33. The received text of Joshua ends on a relatively harmonious note of renewal of the covenant and the death in ripe old age of the military leader Joshua and the priestly leader Eleazar. But the ancient Greek translator used a Hebrew text that concludes more discordantly with the following verse, which confirms Joshua’s doubts and looks forward to Judges: “And the Israelites went each man to his place and to the town, and the Israelites served Ashtoreth and the Ashtaroth and the gods of the peoples round about them, and the LORD gave them into the hand of Eglon king of Moab, and he ruled over them eighteen years.” Though a variant manuscript might have added this report in order to create a bridge with the beginning of Judges, it seems more likely that a scribe or an editor deleted it out of motives of national piety, so as not to conclude the book with an image of Israel’s shame.
Like so many biblical books, Judges reflects an editorial splicing together of disparate narrative materials. Some of these materials, at least in their oral origins, could conceivably go back to the last century of the second millennium B.C.E., incorporating memories, or rather legendary elaborations, of actual historical figures. In any case, the redaction and final literary formulation of these stories are much later—perhaps, as some scholars have inferred, toward the end of the eighth century B.C.E., some years after the destruction of the northern kingdom in 721 B.C.E. and before the reforms of King Josiah a century later.
The word shofet, traditionally translated as “judge,” has two different meanings—“judge” in the judicial sense and “leader” or “chieftain.” The latter sense is obviously the relevant one for this book, though the sole female judge, Deborah, in fact also acts as a judicial authority, sitting under the palm tree named after her. The narrative contexts make perfectly clear that these judges are ad hoc military leaders—in several instances, guerilla commanders—but it would have been a gratuitous confusion to readers to call this text the Book of Chieftains or even to designate these figures in the text proper as chieftains or leaders rather than judges.
The first two chapters are both a prologue to what follows and a bridge from the end of the Book of Joshua. They incorporate a report of Joshua’s death and an account of the incompletion of the conquest of the land, for which at least two rather different explanations are offered. The unconsummated conquest sets the stage for the sequence of stories in which Israel is sorely oppressed by enemies on all sides—the Philistines based on the coastal plain, the Midianites and the Moabites to the east, and the Canaanites in the heartland of the country. From the latter part of chapter 3 to the end of chapter 12, there is a formulaic rhythm of events: Israel’s disloyalty to its God, its oppression by enemies as punishment for the dereliction, the crying out to God by the Israelites, God’s raising up a judge to rescue them. This process of “raising up” leaders is what led Max Weber to borrow a term from the Greek and call a political system of this sort charismatic leadership. That is, the authority of the leader derives neither from a hereditary line nor from election by peers but comes about suddenly when the spirit of the LORD descends upon him: through this investiture, he is filled with a sense of power and urgency that is recognized by those around him, who thus become his followers.
The pattern remains the same, but for some of the Judges we have no more than a bare notice of their name and their rescuing Israel (see, for example, the very first judge, Othniel son of Kenaz, 3:9–10) whereas for others we are given a detailed report of an act of military prowess (Ehud) or a whole series of narrative episodes (Gideon, Jephthah). The story of the fratricidal Abimelech breaks the sequence of Judge narratives but provides foreshadowing of the bloody civil war at the end of the book.
The last in the series of Judges is Samson, who is in several ways quite unlike those who precede him. Only Samson is a figure announced by prenatal prophecy, with the full panoply of an annunciation type-scene. Only in the case of Samson is the first advent of the spirit of the LORD indicated not by a verb of descent (tsalaḥ) or investment (labash) but of violent pounding (paʿam). Unlike the other judges, Samson acts entirely alone, and his motive for devastating the Philistines is personal vengeance, not an effort of national liberation. Most strikingly, only Samson among all the Judges exercises supernatural power. It seems likely, as many scholars have concluded, that the sequence of episodes about Samson reflects folkloric traditions concerning a Herculean, quasimythological hero, though the narrative as it has been formulated shows evidence of subtle literary craft. In any case, the Samson stories, editorially placed as the last in the series of Judge narratives, exemplify the breakdown of the whole system of charismatic leadership. Samson, battling alone with unconventional weapons or with his bare hands, more drawn to the sexual arena than to national struggle, hostilely confronted by fellow Israelites, sowing destruction all around him to the very end, like the fire with which he is associated from before his conception, is a figure of anarchic impulse: the man in whom the spirit of the LORD pounds down enemies but offers no leadership at all for his people, which may be a final verdict on the whole system of governance by charismatic warriors represented in the preceding episodes of the book.
The Samson narrative suggests that the shape given to Judges by its editors may be more purposeful than is often assumed. What follows the Samson cycle is the bizarre story of Micah’s idol (chapters 17–18) and then the grisly tale of the concubine at Gibeah who is gang-raped to death by the local Benjaminites, leading to a costly civil war between Benjamin and the other tribes (chapters 19–21). These two blocks of material are often described as an appendix to the Book of Judges, and although it is true that they differ strikingly in subject matter and to some extent in style from the stories about the Judges, they also show significant connections as well both with the immediately preceding Samson narrative and with the book as a whole. Divisiveness in the Israelite community, adumbrated in Samson’s confrontation with the men of Judah, is vividly manifested both in the story of Micah and that of the concubine. Micah’s narrative begins with his stealing eleven hundred shekels (the exact amount that the Philistines offer to Delilah) from his mother. Part of this purloined fortune, returned to his mother, is used to create a molten image of dubious monotheistic provenance, which will then become an object of contention. The displaced Danites, arriving on the scene as a military contingent, have no compunction about confiscating a whole set of cultic objects and buying off the young Levite whom Micah has hired to minister in his private sanctuary. The Danites then go on to conquer a new northern town in which to settle their southern tribe, but this is hardly a story that ends with the land quiet for forty years: tensions, verging on a clash of arms, between Micah and the Danites; dishonesty and deception; venality and the ruthless pursuit of personal and tribal self-interest—such far-from-edifying behavior dominates the story from beginning to end.
The morality exhibited in the book’s concluding narrative is even worse. Another Levite, considerably more egregious than the one engaged by Micah, ends up reenacting the story of Sodom with a bitter reversal. In this tale devoid of divine intervention, there are no supernatural beings to blind the brutal sexual assailants; the Levite pushes his concubine out the door to be raped all night long; and when he finds her prostrate on the threshold in the morning, he brusquely orders her to get up so that they can continue their journey, not realizing at first that she has expired. His remedy for this atrocity is as bad as the violation itself: he butchers her body into twelve parts that he sends out to the sundry tribes to rouse their indignation against Benjamin, and the ensuing civil war, in which the other tribes suffer extensive casualties, comes close to wiping out the tribe of Benjamin. Unbridled lust, implacable hostility, and mutual mayhem provide ample warrant for the implicitly monarchist refrain of these chapters: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Every man did what was right in his own eyes.”
Anarchy and lust link these stories directly with the Samson narrative. But the theme of violence, threatened in Micah’s story, shockingly realized in the narrative that follows, ties in the concluding chapters of Judges with everything that precedes them in the book. Judges represents, one might say, the Wild West era of the biblical story. Men are a law unto themselves—“Every man did what was right in his eyes.” There are warriors who can toss a stone from a slingshot at a hair and not miss; a bold left-handed assassin who deftly pulls out a short sword strapped to his right thigh to stab the Moabite king in the soft underbelly; another warrior-chieftain who panics the enemy camp in the middle of the night with the shock and awe of piercing ram’s horn blasts and smashed pitchers.
All this is certainly exciting in a way that is analogous to the gunslinger justice of the Wild West, but there is an implicit sense, which becomes explicit at the end of the book, that survival through violence, without a coherent and stable political framework, cannot be sustained and runs the danger of turning into sheer destruction. In the first chapter of the book, before any of the Judges are introduced, we are presented with the image of the conquered Canaanite king, Adoni-Bezek, whose thumbs and big toes are chopped off by his Judahite captors. This barbaric act of dismemberment, presumably intended to disable the king from any capacity for combat, presages a whole series of episodes in which body parts are hacked, mutilated, crushed. King Eglon’s death by Ehud’s hidden short sword is particularly grisly: his killer thrusts the weapon into his belly all the way up to the top of the hilt, and his death spasm grotesquely triggers the malodorous release of the anal sphincter. Women are also adept at this bloody work: there is a vividly concrete report of how Jael drives the tent peg through the temple of Sisera the Canaanite general and into the ground; another woman, this one anonymous, smashes the head of the nefarious Abimelech with a millstone she drops on him from her perch in a besieged tower. Samson’s slaughter of a thousand Philistines with a donkey’s jawbone is surely a messy business of smashing and mashing—no neat spear’s thrust here—though descriptive details are not offered. The grand finale of Samson’s story, in which thousands of Philistine men and women, together with the Israelite hero, are crushed by the toppling temple, is an even more extensive crushing and mangling of bodies.
Against this background, one can see a line of imagistic and thematic continuity from the maiming of Adoni-Bezek at the very beginning of the book to the dismembering of the concubine at the end. That act of chopping a body into pieces, of course, is intended as a means to unite the tribes against Benjamin and its murderous rapists, but there is a paradoxical tension between the project of unity—unity, however, for a violent purpose—and the butchering of the body, the violation of its integrity, which in the biblical world as in ours was supposed to be respected through burial. The famous lines that Yeats wrote at a moment of violent upheaval in European and Irish history precisely capture the thematic thrust of Judges:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed… .
After this dark impasse to which the Book of Judges comes, it will be the task of the next great narrative sequence, which is the Book of Samuel, concluding in the second chapter of 1 Kings, to imagine a political means to create a center and leash the anarchy. That goal is in part realized, but the undertaking itself is an arduous one; and because these stories turn increasingly from legend and lore to a tough engagement in history, even as a center begins to hold, the blood-dimmed tide is never stemmed.
