2. Tribal Territories (13-21)

Chapters 13-21 list the tribal boundaries and settlements and, frankly, make for boring reading. Nonetheless, they provide a more nuanced picture of the occupation. In addition to tallying the territory taken by the Israelites, there are accounts of Israelite failures to expel the Canaanites.
    Thematically, the narrative makes a point about possession of the land. Joshua apportioned the territories on the basis of lots, the same method used to determine Achan's guilt. Distributing the land by this means reinforced the belief that Canaan belonged ultimately to Yahweh, and God distributed it according to divine wishes.
    Also notable was the establishment of cities of refuge. These were six cities to which a person could flee and find protection in case he accidentally killed another person. The intention of this provision was to call a halt to the clan feuds that would otherwise result when such accidents happened.
    The Levites were given forty-eight cities throughout the land. The Levites did not have an extended tribal territory as such. Instead, they were scattered throughout all the other tribes and lived in these levitical cities. An examination of the cities and their histories of occupation suggests that this list better reflects a network of levitical cities in the eighth century B.C.E. rather than the twelfth century. These sites appear to have been centers for Torah instruction by the Levites. The Levites appear to be responsible for the Deuteronomistic History, so naturally they would be concerned to suggest that their special cities had authorization going back to the earliest period of the settlement, the time of Joshua.

Figure 6.5 Tribal Territories. The ideal Israel had twelve tribes after the twelve sons of Jacob. While the number twelve was always maintained, the actual tribes that made up the twelve were somewhat fluid. In late lists Simeon disappears, Levi is omitted, and Joseph is divided into the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.

As with the account of military occupation, so with the account of territorial allotments: the account ends with a neat summary suggesting finality and completeness.

⁴³ So YHWH gave to Israel all the land which he had sworn to give to their fathers. They took possession of it and settled in it. ⁴⁴ YHWH gave them rest on every front just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of their enemies remained facing them. YHWH gave them power over all their enemies. ⁴⁵ Not one promise of all the good promises that YHWH spoke to the house of Israel remained unfulfilled. Everything came true. (21:43-45)

    In no uncertain terms this summary reinforces the fulfillment dimension of the occupation--everything happened just as God had promised to the ancestors! God was with his people, giving them complete victory and perfect shalom. The phrase "house of Israel" (21:45) is used only here in Joshua. It encapsulates the notion of the unity of Israel and suggests that they are now a family living in a home of their own.
    But how does this ideal picture compare with historical reality? The archaeological evidence from Jericho and Ai at times seems to clash with the biblical narrative. Text scholars and archaeologists have been wrestling with the historical and material evidence to reconstruct how the Israelites came to occupy Canaan. This, in turn, has implications for the question of the ethnic and sociological identity of the nation of Israel.
    The stories of military conquest in Joshua 2-12 account for only a small number of Canaanite cities. Conquering Jericho, Hazor, and a handful of other places does not constitute a sweeping military subjugation of Canaan. Joshua 13 mentions certain territories that remained unconquered during Joshua's lifetime. The incompleteness of the occupation under Joshua becomes even clearer when reading the book of Judges. The first chapters contain inventories of land not taken, indicating that the Israelites were a minority in Canaan, subsisting primarily in the hill country. The cities and the plains were still controlled by Canaanites.
    How, then, did the Israelites eventually come to dominate the area? All of the indications point to a complicated and gradual process of Israelite settlement and control. This issue is the subject of vigorous debate, and the issue will not be resolved for some time to come. On the basis of archaeological and socio-historical data, three basic models of the occupation have been developed.

1. Migration Model. Formulated by Noth (1960) and refined by Weippert (1971), this theory denies that there was any significant military action, apart perhaps from a few minor skirmishes. Instead, over a span of centuries, groups of semi-nomadic herdsmen began to settle in those regions of Canaan that were capable of sustaining a sedentary agricultural way of life. The entity called Israel took shape after such groups settled following a period of peaceful infiltration. They derived their unity not from shared ancestry but from a common socio-theological perspective. Each group took with them stories of their past, including their religious traditions. The stories were combined, unified and harmonized to suggest that from the beginning the entire history was the product of the entire group. Thus, the final story, contained in Genesis through Joshua, is a synthesis of many histories.
Amphictyony. Some authorities hypothesize that the twelve tribes were joined together as a religious league around a central sanctuary. This would be analogous to the Greek amphictyony, a religious confederacy best known from the Apollo league at Delphi. Shechem would have been the first shrine city, where Joshua united the twelve tribes into a covenant league (Joshua 24); later Shiloh became the central sanctuary. For a description of the amphictyony hypothesis see Noth (1960: 85-109); for a critique see de Geus (1976).
2. Military Conquest Model. This approach, associated primarily with Albright (1949) and Wright (1962), tends to accept and support the essential historical accuracy of the Joshua account by relating it to modern archaeological findings. It suggests that Joshua led a core group into Transjordan and Canaan and secured their presence in the land. Evidence of a sudden violent destruction in the thirteenth century B.C.E. can be found at several city sites. Some of these cities were subsequently rebuilt, but in a manner suggesting a lower level of skill and resources. This change in technique and level of material culture correlates with the transition from a sophisticated Canaanite occupation to a less-developed Israelite takeover. One of the problems with this theory, however, is that the key sites of Jericho and Ai do not evidence destruction at the expected time.
3. Internal Revolt Model. First articulated by Mendenhall (1962) and now closely associated with Gottwald (1979), this theory holds that there was only a minimal incursion of foreign groups from outside of Canaan. Predominately, the birth of Israel was the result of internal political upheaval and social revolution. In the thirteenth century B.C.E. Canaan was controlled by numerous city-states, and these in turn were controlled by kings and aristocrats who oppressed the rural farmers and herdsmen. The latter became increasingly disaffected with the autocratic control of the urban establishment. These disenfranchised people banded together and wrestled control away from the oppressing upper class. Joshua and a small group of Hebrews were the catalyst for the insurrection.

    Mendenhall finds support for this theory in a known group of marginalized citizens called the habiru, the indigenous inhabitants of inferior social status who pressured the ruling establishment of Canaan. They are attested in Canaanite-related documents called the Amarna letters. The Hebrews may have been this kind of people, living on the fringes of established Canaanite society. Other investigators, however, have discounted any connection between the habiru and the Hebrews, pointing out that the two words cannot be linguistically related in spite of the fact that they have similar sounds. Furthermore, the social and political conditions described in the Amarna letters do not match the Israelite situation as found in the books of Joshua and Judges.
    A verifiably accurate picture of early Israel's occupation of Canaan cannot be drawn at this time. But we can say certain things about the issue. It can be granted that the story as told in the book of Joshua is to a certain extent a theological idealization intended to affirm the fulfillment of God's promise of the land. Perhaps it never intended to provide a complete historical account, choosing only a few incidents of conquest to characterize the powerful work of God.
    On the other hand, history and archaeology, along with hints in the biblical text, combine to fill out our understanding of Israel at this time. Israel was certainly more diverse than authorities earlier had thought. It was a virtual melting pot of people. Certainly a core group traced their ancestry back to the patriarchs and matriarchs, and the nucleus of the occupation force came to Israel via Egypt. However, other indigenous Canaanite social and ethnic groups aligned themselves with this nucleus for religious and political reasons, the Gibeonites among them. While the process of occupation begun under the leadership of Joshua achieved some victories that foreshadowed complete control, the occupation efforts lasted a long time after his death and were accomplished with a combination of military confrontation and peaceful absorption. Probably none of the above models alone explains the complex and lengthy process.

Figure 6.6 First Historical Mention of the Name Israel.

The Merneptah stele (a stone slab bearing an inscription) dating to the time of Pharaoh Merneptah (1224-1211 B.C.E.) contains the earliest historical reference to Israel in any source. This means that by the time of Merneptah, Israel existed as a nation, and the exodus must have happened before this. The generally accepted date of Israel's exodus from Egypt is 1280 B.C.E. with the conquest forty years after.

Egypt Museum, Cairo

ToC | Reading the Old Testament

. . . Chapter 6. Joshua | ToC