Bibliography
Auld, A. G. ―Textual and Literary Studies in the Book of Joshua.‖ ZAW
90 (1978) 412–17.
Japhet, S. ―Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles.‖ JBL 98 (1979) 205–18. Maisler, B.
Untersuchungen zur alien Geschichte und Ethnographie Syriens und Palästinas. Giessen: A.
Töpelmann, 1930, 59–63. Rudolph, W. Der ―Elohist‖ yon Exodus bis Josua. BZAW 68. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1938, 211–14. Smend, R. ―Das Gesetz und die Völker.‖ Probleme biblischer
Theologie, ed. H. W. Wolff. München: Chr Kaiser Verlag, 1971, 497–500. Wüst, M.
Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Texten des Alten Testaments. Wiesbaden: Dr.
Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1975, 222–27.
Translation
1
Now when Joshua was old, advanced in years, Yahweh said to him,a ―You have become old,b you have advanced in years, but there remains a great amount of land to possess.
2
This is the land which remains: all the regionsa of the Philistines and all of the Geshurites,b 3from the rivera which is opposite Egypt unto the border of Ekron northward (it is reckoned to the Canaanites), the five chiefdomsb of the Philistines—those of Gaza, and Ashdod, Askelon,c Gath and Ekron—along with the Avvim. 4Southwarda all the land of the Canaanites from Arahb which belongs to the Sidonians unto Aphek unto the border of the Amorites; 5also the land of Byblosa and all Lebanon eastward from Baal Gadb under Mount Hermon unto Lebo Hamath. 6All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon unto Misraphoth Mayim, all the Sidonians, I will dispossess them before the sonsa of Israel, only cause it to fall to Israel for an inheritance just as I commanded you. 7Now divide this land into an inheritance of the nine tribes and the half tribe of Manasseh.‖a
Notes
1.a. LXX makes the text more explicit, reading ―Joshua‖ for the MT pronoun ―him.‖ 1.b. LXX omits ―you have become old‖ which may represent a later filling of the text to achieve exact correspondence.
2.a. LXX does not witness ―all,‖ which is likely a later amplification.
, traditionally translated ―regions,‖ still remains a mystery, for the term cannot mean ―regions‖ in Josh 22:10–11. Nor does this seem appropriate for Ezek 47:8. Connection to the Philistines is also made in Joel 4:4 (Eng. =3:4).
2.b. Again ―all‖ may be later amplification, not appearing in LXX.
is read by LXX here and in 1 Sam 27:8 as Teseirei, a reading attested by the Massoretic
Q
ere in the Samuel passage. LXX adds here ―and the Canaanites,‖ a scholarly gloss on the basis of 13:13, 15:63, 16:10, 17:12, Judg 1:19–35.
3.a.
refers to the Nile or one of its branches in Isa 23:3; Jer 2:18. Here and in 1 Chr 13:5 it refers to a traditional boundary point between Israel and Egypt, more often called the
, e. g. Num 34:5; Josh 15:4, 47. (For the more limited meaning in Egyptian sources, see Wüst, Untersuchungen, 33–34). The meaning was already a mystery to early translators, so that LXX used the vague ―uninhabited land.‖ This is complicated by the description
―opposite, in the vicinity of Egypt,‖ (cf. J. Drinkard, ― ‗AL Pene as ‗East of‘ ‘ JBL 98 [1979] 285–86). This appears to locate Shihor outside of Egypt and may show dependence on 1 Sam 15:7 (cf. M. Wüst, Untersuchungen, 37).
3.b.
is a technical term borrowed from the Philistines and applied exclusively in the twenty-one OT occurrences to the five city-state rulers of the Philistines.
3.c. LXX unifies the grammatical structure, adding the conjunction before Ashkelon and Gath.
4.a. Definition and grammatical construction become quite unclear beginning with v 4.
may be either a geographical location ―Teman‖ preceded by the preposition ―from‖ (LXX, BDB, Ezek 25:13) or a direction ―southward‖ (KB, cf. lsa 43:6). If the latter meaning is adopted, then the phrase is usually connected to the preceding verse (Soggin, Noth, most modem translations and commentators). The text may be read with ―southward‖ referring to the following description of the land of the Canaanites going southward from Sidon to Aphek.
4.b.
has puzzled translators since the LXX which read ―facing Gaza, and the Sidonians …‖ The Heb. term as it stands can be a proper name ―Mearah‖ or refer to a cave. Buhl, followed by Steurnagel and Hertzberg, inserts a prepositional mem to read ―from Me`ara.‖ Noth, Soggin (provisionally) and the Hebrew Text ProJect repoint the text to read ―from Arah.‖ Our geographical uncertainty makes restoration or explanation of the text impossible. The reference is apparently to an unknown Sidonian town.
5.a. LXX reads the opening of v 5: ―and all the land of Galilath of the Philistines,‖ which appears to be a transliteration of the Hebrew expression in v 2. The MT refers to the land of the Giblites, a term used in 1 Kgs 5:32 (= Eng. 5:18), Ps 83:8 and Ezek 27:9 for Byblos, as rightly interpreted by the LXX in Ezekiel. LXX here appears to be based on a defective Hebrew text.
5.b. The Greek tradition has corrupted Baalgad, perhaps reflecting the tendency of the tradition to excise names containing Baal.
6.a. LXX omits ―sons,‖ a common phenomenon in the transmission of the text (cf. Auld,
VTSup 30 [1979] 10-11).
7.a. The transition between v 7 and v 8 in MT is syntactically difficult. LXX adds at the end of v 7: ―from the Jordan unto the Mediterranean Sea toward the setting of the sun, you shall give it. The Mediterranean Sea will serve as boundary.‖ (See v 8 for the continuation). Abel, Soggin, the Hebrew Text Project, and Auld argue correctly that the LXX text is original here. LXX’s verb translates a Heb. nominal construction in 13:27; 15:12; and Num 34:6 (cf. Josh 15:47; 23:4) and a verbal construction in 18:20. LXX’s verbal interpretation is probably correct in all instances.
Form/Structure/Setting
The transitional nature of 13:1 is clear from the nominal beginning and from its relationship to similar transitions in 23:1 and 1:1 (cf. Smend, ―Das Gesetz‖). The imperative of v 7 concludes the section prior to the transition to historical review in v 8. This is shown by the change from first to third person reference to God, thus concluding the divine quotation after v 7. The precise structure of the section offers particular difficulties, as Hollenberg noted in the last century. This has led Noth to speak of a piling up of secondary additions of the first, second, and third order (p 76). Bright separates vv 2–6 as having belonged originally to chaps. 1–12. Wüst (Untersuchungen, 30–40, 221–39) describes an even more detailed literary growth of the section than does Noth (pp 73–75). Confusion results from three points: 1) the relationship of 13:1–7 with 10:40–43 and 11:16–23, 2) the precise description of the land that remains, and 3) the double imperative in vv 6–7 and its connection with chap. 18, on the one hand, and with 13:8–33 on the other.
The structural solution can come only with the realization of the two distinct types of tradition which appear in Josh 1–12 and 13–19. The first half of the book is built on ancient oral traditions which have gained literary form quite early. Our text represents a reinterpretation of those early traditions by a Deuteronomistic editor, who has framed the early tradition with his compositions in chaps. 1 and 12, as well as with brief statements in chaps. 8, 10, 11. In chaps. 13–19 literary activity dominates. Oral narrative form is conspicuous only by its absence. Such literary activity presupposes the entire literary plan of the Deuteronomist in Deut 1 through 2 Kgs 25.
Chapter 13 is a major dividing point in this plan. Here the major shift in Israel‘s identity is made. She moves from a people fighting for the land to a people living in the land. This shift is accomplished literarily in total awareness of the promises of Josh 1, the conquest of Josh 2–12, and the later conquests in Judg 1 and in the reign of David (e.g. 1 Sam 30; 2 Sam 5; 8; 10). The literary form chosen at this point is complex and significant. It is based on the tradition witnessed by Gen 27; 49; and Deut 33, that of the elder spokesman giving his final blessing to his family/nation, a blessing which is determinative for the future of the audience. With a narrative statement (1a) and divine address (1bA), the way is prepared for Joshua‘s final address. Ten chapters intervene before that address appears (chap. 23). Why? The common answer is literary redaction, a claim which can be neither proved nor disproved. A more important fact is theological. Joshua‘s task is no longer to point forward to future blessing. Joshua‘s task is to teach proper life style for those who possess the blessing (chap. 23). Before that can be done, the land itself must be not only conquered, but also settled. Joshua‘s final act is thus divided into two parts. He not only gives his farewell advice; he also gives out the land (chaps. 14–21). The speaking and the action are joined
into one complex event by the parallel introductory formulas (13:1; 23:1b). The action is placed first because it is the presupposition on which the speaking is based.
The action itself is based on a complex of traditions, each of which must be incorporated into the final formulation. The traditions include:
1. The settlement of the territory east of the Jordan by the tribes of Gad, Reuben, and half of Manasseh (cf. Num 32; Deut 3:12–22).
2. The promised borders of the land (Num 34; Josh 1; cf. 1 Kgs 8:65). 3. The land that remained for later conquest (Judg 1).
The divine speech thus contains four major parts: a. A description of the present situation (v 1). b. A description of the land that remains (vv 2–5). c. A promise to complete the conquest eventually (6a).
d. A description of Joshua‘s present task and a command to begin immediately (6b–7).
Comment
1
This verse introduces the theological tension central to the book of Judges and to the remainder of the Deuteronomistic history, namely life in the Land of Promise shared with the inhabitants of the land. At this point no reason is given for the inhabitants remaining. It is simply stated as a fact. The emphasis here is on the role of Joshua, as was so often the case in chaps. 1–12. Joshua cannot complete the task of conquering the land. He is too old. He has fought a long time (11:18); he has been entirely faithful (11:15). All that remains is to detail the achievement already summarized in 11:23 (cf. 12:7), the partitioning of the land. Such a detailed description is first interrupted by a description of the work that remains after Joshua, a work already hinted at in 11:13.
2
The land that remains has three sections:
1. The land of the Philistines and their southern ―allies,‖ vv 2–3. 2. The Phoenician coast, v 4.
3. The northern mountain country of Lebanon, v 5.
Such a division reflects the task facing David and the kingdom attributed to Solomon. The Philistines are understood to have been conquered by David (1 Sam 27; 2 Sam 8:1; 21:15–22; 23:8–17), while the only reference to control of Phoenicia comes in 1 Sam 24:6–7. Solomon apparently exercised domination of Lebanon (1 Kgs 9:19; 8:65), based on the Syrian wars of David (2 Sam 8:3–12; 10:1–19).
The territory of the Philistines heads the list of land that remains. This is appropriate in view of the role ascribed to the Philistines in the period of the judges and the early monarchy (Judg 3:31; 10:6–7; 13–16; 1 Sam 4–7; 13–14; 17–19; 23:1–6, 27–28; 27–29; 31; 2 Sam 5:17–25). A hint that the Philistines were not conquered has already appeared in 11:22.
The Philistines appear to have entered Palestine with a group usually called Sea Peoples coming down from eastern Asia Minor and Crete. They established their settlements in their five major cities (v 3) during the twelfth century. Philistine existence continued in Palestine until their deportation by Nebuchadrezzar II in 604 B.C. (K. A, Kitchen, in
Peoples of OT Times, ed. D. J. Wiseman [1973] 53–78; contrast A. Nibbi, The Sea Peoples and Egypt [New Jersey: Noyes Press, 1975]).
The Geshurites are normally located in Syria north of the territory conquered by the Trans-Jordan tribes (Deut 3:14; Josh 12:5; 13:11–13). David eventually gained influence there through a marriage alliance (2 Sam 3:3=1 Chr 3:2), but this produced the rebel Absalom, who retreated to his maternal home (2 Sam 13:37–38). Interestingly, the area was not explicitly listed in David‘s fights with the Syrians (2 Sam 8, 10).
In the present context, northern Geshurites cannot be intended. A more fitting group is mentioned in 1 Sam 27:8, where David apparently attacks a group south of the Philistine cities. Textual problems in both texts, along with the lack of further information, makes identification difficult.
3
The territory of the Philistines and Geshurites is described in geographical detail. It reaches from Shihor to Ekron, the northernmost Philistine city. This appears to attribute to the Geshurites the wilderness between Gaza, the southernmost Philistine city, and the Egyptian border.
The mention of Shihor indicates that the editor is using a tradition distinct from others within the Deuteronomistic history and related only to that of 1 Chr 13:5. Shihor is usually located inside Egypt (cf. Note e), whereas the writer understands it as a border point of Egypt. Either he extends the Israelite cliam well within the normal boundaries of Egypt (cf. Japhet, 209), or he uses the grammatical construction of 1 Sam 15:7 to distinguish the Shihor as The eastern boundary of Egypt (cf. M. Wüst, Untersuchungen, 37–38). In either case, he points to the time of its conquest under Saul and David (cf. 1 Sam 27:9). For the location of the borders of Canaan and Egypt, see now N. Na<aman, ―The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt‖ Tel Aviv 6 [1979] 68–90).
The reference to the Canaanites is not clear in the context. It may refer to a special tradition in which the coastland belonged to the Canaanites as opposed to the other members of the lists of the inhabitants of the land (Num 13:29; Deut 1:7; Josh 5:1; 11:3; cf. B. Maisler, Untersuchungen, 54–74). Otherwise, in the relatively few references in Deuteronomy-Joshua, the term applies to the entire land west of the Jordan (cf. Josh 22:9–11, 32). Here this would include the Philistine and Geshurite territories under the more comprehensive term used in Deut 11:30; 32:49; and Josh 5:12; 14:1; (cf. Gen 10:19) and would separate the land into two categories, that belonging to Israel and that belonging to the Canaanites, preparing for the future conflicts between the religion of Israel and that of Canaan.
The Philistines centered in five city-state complexes. Gaza, the southernmost of the five, was apparently the home of the temple of Dagon destroyed by Samson (Judg 16:23–30). The city had been a major Egyptian center in the Amarna period (ANET, 235, 258, 489). The summary statement of Josh 10:41 includes Gaza in the area defeated by Joshua, but 11:22 shows that Anakim remained there as opposed to the conditions in the land of Israel. Judg 1:18 (note negative added by LXX) assigns its conquest to Judah, to which it was allotted in Josh 15:47. Finally, 1 Kgs 5:4 (Eng. =4:24) gives Gaza as the western border of Solomon‘s empire, but the mention is missing in LXX
and stands in some tension with 5:1 (cf. J. Gray, I & II Kings [2nd ed; OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970] 140–41). Traditionally, Gaza formed the southern border of Canaan (cf. Na‘aman, Tel Aviv 6 [1979] 75–76).
half kilometers) northeast of ancient Ashkelon and three and a half miles (six kilometers) southeast of modern Ashdod. Ugaritic texts refer to the textile industry at Ashdod. Its temple of Dagon was later disturbed by the Ark (1 Sam 5:1–9). Archaeology has uncovered defense walls dating to the last half of the seventeenth century B.C. Late Bronze Age finds
indicate settlement from 1450–1230 with a large, but not total, destruction layer marking the end. M. Dothan, the excavator, attributes this to a first wave of Sea Peoples, preceding the settlement by the Philistines in the twelfth century (EAEHL 1, 108). The earliest Philistine stratum revealed an image of an enthroned mother goddess. The early Philistine city was one of the largest cities of its time in Palestine, covering almost eighty acres.
Ashkelon stands between Gaza and Ashdod and is the only Philistine city which was located on the seacoast itself. It appears among the cities cursed by the Egyptians in the nineteenth century execration texts (ANET, 329) and was later the object of the wrath of Ramses II (1304–1234; ANET, 256) and of Merneptah about 1230 (ANET, 378a). A cult of the Egyptian god Ptah may have been established there (ANET, 263b). During the Amarna period, the king of Ashkelon claims total obedience to the pharaoh (ANET, 490), but the king of Jerusalem apparently charges the Ashkelon king with treason (ANET, 488a).
Gath remains a topic of debate for biblical geographers and archaeologists. G. E. Wright has repeatedly argued for the identification with Tell esh-Sheri>ah, fifteen kilometers south of Tell el-Hesi (―Fresh Evidence for the Philistine Story.‖ BA 29 [1966] 78-86; ―A Problem of Ancient Topography: Lachish and Eglon.‖ HTR 64 [1971] 446=BA 34 [1971] 84). Israeli archaeologists have contended that this is too far south and suggested identifying Gath with Tell es-Safi, half way between Gezer and Lachish (A. Rainey, ―Gath,‖ IDBSup
[1976] 353, with literature; E. Stem, &EAEHL; 4 [1978] 1024-27; N. Na‘aman, ―Sennacherib‘s ‗Letter to God‘ on his Campaign to Judah,‖ BASOR
214 [1974] 35; ―Sennacherib‘s Campaign to Judah and the Date of the lmlk Stamps‖ VT
29 [1979] 67; A. Negev [ed.], AEHL [1972] 121-22). Neither suggestion is entirely satisfactory (H. Weippert, Biblisches Reallexikon [2 ed.; 1977] 86).
Excavation reports from Tell esh-Sheri>ah show an important Canaanite settlement with strong Egyptian influence during the seventeenth to the thirteenth centuries, ending in a large destruction during the middle of the twelfth century, followed by Philistine occupation in the eleventh century. In the eighth-seventh century stratum, two Hebrew ostraca appeared. (Cf. E. D. Oren and E. Netzer, ―Tel Sera> (Tell esh-Shari>a)‖ IEJ
24 [1974] 264-66; E. D. Oren, EAEHL 4 [1978] 1059-68). The excavators identify it with Ziklag, against Wright.
Tell es-Safi was escavated in 1899 with results less than satisfying by today‘s standards. The city was apparently settled in the Early Bronze Age. Philistine pottery was found as were Hebrew stamps (cf. Stem). Thus both sites suggested for Gath seem to indicate periods of Philistine and of Israelite settlement. This would agree with the report in 2 Chr 11:8 that Rehoboam controlled Gath.
The Hebrew ark caused problems for Gath (1 Sam 5:8–9). According to 1 Sam 7:14, Samuel restored Gath and Ekron to Israel. Victory over Goliath of Gath allowed Israel to chase the Philistines back to their homes in Ekron and Gath (1 Sam 17, especially v 52). David lived with the king of Gath until he secured Ziklag as a present from the Philistines (1 Sam 27:1–7). David finally defeated Gath (2 Sam 21:20–22), but there remained a Philistine king in Gath under Solomon (1 Kgs 2:39).
identified it with Aqir (―Syria, The Philistines, and Phoenicia,‖ CAH
II, Ch. XXXIII, 26, n. 3; cf. H. J. Sroebe, Das Erste Buch Samuelis 141). Israeli archaeologists follow J. Naveh, (―Khirbat al-Muquanna>-Ekron: An Archaeological Survey,‖ IEJ
8 [1958] 166–70) in locating Ekron at Khirbet el-Muqanna> (Tel Miqne) (cf. A. Rainey, ―Ekron,‖ IDBSup [1976] 255; T. C. Mitchell, Archaeology and Old Testament Study, ed. D. W. Thomas [1967] 405–6). Judah received the city (15:45–46; cf. 11), but so did Dan (19:43). Judah captured it according to Judg 13: 1:18 MT, but LXX has the negative here. Her god later tempted Israel (1 Kgs 1:2–16).
Having listed the five Philistine cities, the text then adds ―and the Avvim.‖ This is related to Deut 2:23, where the Avvim are said to have been conquered by the Caphtorim, probably Sea Peoples related to the Philistines.
4
The structure and meaning of this verse are not clear (see Notes). Apparently the more confined meaning of Canaan is used here (cf. Comment to v 3), being defined as the northern coastal region of the Phoenicians reaching down to Aphek. This is distinguished from the land of the Amorites, who are elsewhere said to inhabit the hill country (Num 13:29; Josh 5:1). The site of Arah, or whatever the original name of the textually obscure Sidonian city may be, is obscure. The tribe of Asher was unable to conquer Sidon (Judg 1:31). Only 2 Sam 24:6–7 implies that David controlled Phoenicia. Otherwise Tyre and Sidon are free kingdoms allied with David and Solomon (2 Sam 5:11; 1 Kgs 5:15–24 [= Eng. 5:1–10]; 9:11–14).
The Bible knows several sites named Aphek:
1. A city given to Asher but not conquered (19:30; Judg 1:31), possibly near Acco. 2. A city east of the Jordan on the road to Damascus (1 Kgs 20:26–30; 2 Kgs
13:14–19, 25).
3. A site sometimes identified with the present text is the modern Afqa, fifteen miles east of ancient Byblos in Lebanon.
4. The most famous of the cities called Aphek is a city-state in the plain of Sharon located at modern Tel Rosh ha<Ayin close to the source of the Yarkon River, just east of modern Tel Aviv. The city appears in the nineteenth century execration texts from Egypt (ANET, 329). Settlement in the fourth millennium with a walled city in the early third millennium has been demonstrated by excavations (M. Kochavi, ―Tel