Introduction
God said to Moses, “I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites” (May & Metzger, 1977, pp. 69-70). God promised the Israelites a land of their own. How they got there was an ordeal in itself, how they get the land is another. “Real land, unlike theologically promised land, is always contested, disputed, and conflictual” (Birch, Brueggemann, Fretheim, & Petersen, 1999, p. 180). Was the land of milk and honey taken by conquest, infiltration, revolt, or a combination of the three?
The Conquest
Moses has died and it is now time for Joshua to take the Israelites into the Promised Land. The people that were occupying this land had no idea that the Israelites were about to cross the border and begin to take this land that God had promised to them. If a country is being invaded by foreigners they are, with some exceptions, going to resist. That resistance which ultimately leads to war makes the fact that “this model (conquest) takes the biblical texts at face value” (Grand Canyon University [GCU], 2007, p. 2) make sense. The hypothesis “that the “conquest” of the land of Canaan by Israel under Joshua was a wholesale military onslaught, whereby Israel invaded the land as an effective occupying force and seized much of the land for Israel” (Birch et al., 1999, p. 181) was dominant in the first part of the twentieth century. There have been archeological discoveries that support this hypothesis, including excavations by W. F. Albright. “Albright's own excavations in the 1920s and 1930s at Beitin and Tell Beit Mirsim (which he believed to be the sites of biblical Bethel and Debir respectively) unearthed destruction levels which he associated with the traditions of the conquest” (Bimson, 1989, p. 1). This method has come under historical scrutiny especially since Albright, who had initially held to the date of conquest around 1400 B.C., “faltered and finally moved to a later date for the conquest (c. 1250 B.C.)” (Brantley, 1994, pp. 1-2).
Infiltration
After the destruction of Jericho and Ai, the Gibeonites tricked the Israelites into making a treaty with them. When the Israelites realized what had happened they were upset with their leaders. “The leaders said to all the congregation, "We have sworn to them by the LORD, the God of Israel, and now we may not touch them. This we will do to them, and let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath which we swore to them" (May & Metzger, p. 274). The Gibeonites were spared and lived among the Israelites.
Joshua 13 alludes to the fact that not all of the land was conquered when the Israelites first crossed the Jordan. “Now Joshua was old and advanced in years; and the LORD said to him, "You are old and advanced in years, and there remains yet very much land to be possessed” (May & Metzger, p. 278). Verses 2 through 6 further define the land that they have yet to possess. In addition to this “there are records of areas of the hill country, such as the region around Shechem, which Israel is portrayed as occupying in the book of Joshua (8:30-35; 24:1, 32), but for which there is no account of conquest. This may attest to a peaceful settlement in such an area. Advocates of the peaceful infiltration hypothesis have recently emphasized the continuous presence of nomadic groups living in symbiotic relationship with the settled inhabitants throughout the Fertile Crescent. These groups could easily move into the hill country of Palestine and occupy it during the period in question” (Hess, 1993, p. 495). It would have been easy for the Israelites to meet up with these nomadic groups and come make covenants with one another including aiding one another in battle. The German scholars Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth “concluded that the Israelite settlement of Canaan was due to a gradual immigration into the land, not a military offensive. Alt and Noth further theorized that the Israelites must have been pastoral nomads who slowly filtered into the settled land from the desert, seeking pastures for their sheep” (Brantley, 1994, p. 2).
Revolt
One theory “suggests that there was no major invasion of Canaan from an outside force but simply the immigration of a small group of people who inspired a revolt of the Canaanite peasants” (Ellis, 1991, p. 2). Yet a look back at history shows many people who were oppressed by their rulers and they revolted against them in an effort to have a better life. This would support a theory that the Israelites were able to join together with those in that were on the fringe of society and easiest to befriend. The story in Joshua 2 “about a prostitute named Rahab who harbors Hebrew spies in her home in the city wall” is a good “example of how marginal, fragile people joined with the incoming Egyptian refugees to create a new society” (GCU, 2007, p. 2). This method “helps to understand why some cities fell to Israel without any reported military attack” (Catholic Internet Mission [CIM], n.d., p. 1). The trouble with this method is that there is little to be found in the scriptures to support it.
Challenges
The Israelites would face challenges once they had entered the Promised Land. Joshua had the task of dividing the land between the tribes that had crossed the Jordan. There were nine and one-half tribes to distribute land to. This is because “Moses had given an inheritance to the two and one-half tribes beyond the Jordan; but to the Levites he gave no inheritance among them” (May & Metzger, 1977, p. 280). Joshua and the leaders also had to help the people keep the covenant with God or risk losing what they had been given. “Obedience to Yahweh’s Torah makes land reception and maintenance possible” (Birch et al., 1999, p. 203).
Conclusion
Outside of the biblical texts it is difficult to pinpoint exactly how the Israelites came to possess the land of milk and honey. Just like the covenants that God made that promised this land to the descendents of Abraham it takes faith. We have to believe. “Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" (May & Metzger, p. 1317). The blessings that the Israelites received were given because they believed.
Was the land of milk and honey taken by conquest, infiltration, revolt, or a combination of the three? Scholars will continue to try and prove or disprove each of these methods on how the Israelites claimed the Promised Land. They will continue to make archeological discoveries that may prove or disprove a particular theory. It is important that we hold to the truths that God has given us and doing that requires us to hold to the biblical account how the Israelites came to claim the Promised Land. Yet, how the Israelites came to claim the land may not be as important as the fact that God kept his covenant with them.
Was the land of milk and honey taken by conquest, infiltration, revolt, or a combination of the three? Scholars will continue to try and prove or disprove each of these methods on how the Israelites claimed the Promised Land. They will continue to make archeological discoveries that may prove or disprove a particular theory. It is important that we hold to the truths that God has given us and doing that requires us to hold to the biblical account how the Israelites came to claim the Promised Land. Yet, how the Israelites came to claim the land may not be as important as the fact that God kept his covenant with them.
References
Bimson, J. J. (1989, October). The Origins of Israel in Canaan: An Examination of Recent Theories. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_canaan_bimson.html
Birch, B. C., Brueggemann, W., Fretheim, T. E., & Petersen, D. L. (1999). A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville, TN: Abington Press.
Brantley, G. K. (1994, October). The Conquest of Canaan: How and When?. Retrieved November 25,
2007, from http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/433
2007, from http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/433
Catholic Internet Mission (n.d.). "The Promised Land" - Three Theories of Israel's Conquest of Canaan. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.pcentral-online.net/scripture/canaan-conquest.html
Ellis, B. R. (1991). "Entry for 'CONQUEST OF CANAAN'". "Holman Bible Dictionary". Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T1386
Grand Canyon University (2007). BIB 113 Lecture Four, Covenant Life and Canaan.
Hess, R. S. (1993). Early Israel in Canaan, A Survey of Recent Evidence and Interpretations. Palestinian Exploration Quarterly, 125, 492-518. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/jesuit/richardhess.htm
May, H. G., & Metzger, B. M. (1977). The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha Expanded Edition and Revised Standard Version. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment